Chatham County Online BBS
August 01, 2014, 08:20:50 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: We've got local links galore! Check out the Chatham Links
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  





Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 13   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Can there be a middle ground?  (Read 9993 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 10:12:09 AM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Posts: 3337



« Reply #135 on: December 26, 2012, 04:02:54 PM »

Jeff, did you watch the video posted earlier in this thread? The evidence has been presented through multiple videos and news investigations. Did you go to YouTube and search for your own similar video evidence? The documented evidence in there, all over the place, even if some seek to distort or deny it exists. You can see from the video many of these folks do have a booth and often display 50+ weapons for sale with no background check, but they call themselves 'collectors' to avoid having to do any background checks. The one guy in the video claims to have sold over 300 AK-47s, with zero background checks. I have also stated very clearly from the very start that this is a small minority. If you look around various forums, etc, people say - oh, the 'gunshow loophole' is a myth, most dealers have a license. It is true that most of the dealers do in fact have a license, but that doesn't mean the gunshow loophole for private sellers does not exist.


If we're going to have a fact based discussion on this, then let's stick to the facts.  First, no one sells AK-47s like hotcakes at the gun show.  That designation is for fully automatic weapons.  All that man was able to sell was semi-automatic rifles that look like AK-47s.  It is possible to transfer an AK-47, but it is just about impossible unless you are a very special dealer.  And oh by the way the thing would probably cost at least $15,000.  And you will also need to get the tax stamp from the ATF, signoff from local law enforcement, etc. etc.  In other words, that just isn't happening.

If in fact we are talking about a small minority of gun sellers, and if in fact we are trying to figure out what this means with respect to firearms getting into the hands of those that shouldn't have them, we must look at some kind of numbers.  The numbers that concern me aren't the number of guns sold from person to person without a background check.  What I'd like to know is:

1. How many of them were used in crimes?
2. Are guns sold from individual to individual more likely to be used in crimes?
3. Is legislation really necessary?

The first step is figuring out how big the "problem" is.  If I asked you to guess at the percentage of guns used in crime that came from gun shows, what would you say?  Politicians quote all sorts of numbers, but I think we should try to find better sources.  How about the National Institute of Justice, which is the research arm of the DOJ?

http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/167263.htm

According to the study, just 2 percent of guns used in crime come from gun shows.  Now consider that many of those guns are bought with a background check.  How many do you think were bought without a background check?  Therein lies the problem.  We have a fundamental disconnect between perception and reality.  I don't see how closing the "gun show loophole" could amount to anything but symbolic legislation.

The claim that any law would 'outlaw all private sales' is not proven by your facts. It is an opinion on a policy that has not been implemented and could obviously have provisions for various options and rules. As I said above, one workaround would be to have local ATF officers or perhaps the promoter of the show provide a table where sellers could obtain a free background check and certificate to be presented to private sellers. This is not the only way it could be done, but if the will to follow the law and improve the current system was desired, it is one possible suggestion. I would not apply this law to all sales that take place outside of gun shows through face to face transactions, but I would require more documentation of such sales. I think there is a big difference between someone selling hundreds of guns a year at these shows and a legitimate private sale a few times a year or to a relative. Again, just looking at the issue and thinking of many possible ways this could be addressed.


That depends upon how you define a "private sale".  A private sale implies that which happens between individuals.  Not sure you could call something a "private sale" when bringing the government into play.  The way it works currently is that you are allowed to sell several guns a year without becoming a dealer.  Consider for a moment that there are people that have large collections, or perhaps inherit large collections, and need to liquidate those guns.  I know several people that don't play the stock market.  They play the gun market.  They might buy a gun and hold onto it for several years.  Once they are ready to turn their collection into cash, or they pass away, that investment is their version of a 401k.  The return on investment when it comes to firearms is actually pretty good.  I would just say that you need to consider this type of thing when you're calling for more gun control Mr. Yippie.

Granted, there are those individuals that buy guns and almost immediately resell them for profit.  When it comes to whether or not a person is a dealer based on the number of guns they sell, a lot of that rests on the discretion of the ATF.  But for the most part it is clearly defined:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
(11) The term “dealer” means
(A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail,
(B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or
(C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term “licensed dealer” means any dealer who is licensed under the provisions of this chapter.


I also mentioned above that since the majority of these private sales by 'collectors' have no paperwork, it is hard to say just exactly how big the problem is. Evidence has been presented here already that they do in fact take place and that 'collectors' are often willing to ignore the law for cold cash in hand. That's not an emotional analysis, that is simply the truth to anyone who cares to investigate it themselves. You know, maybe if we could just get Breitbart to post it, suddenly it could morph into hard evidence!  Roll Eyes


I'm afraid the truth is a bit more complicated. You really have to be careful with certain sources like the Brady Campaign.  They do provide a lot of biased literature, and they often play fast and loose with the facts.  Sometimes they present only a portion of the story to support their argument.  But there are more controls on firearms sales than one might think if they just listened to the mainstream media and the Brady Campaign.  I'm sorry Mr. Yippie, but they are quite biased and their reporting reflects it.  So let me specifically address one issue that the news reporters and anti-gun groups don't seem to grasp.

There is a designation for collectors that seems never to get mentioned.  It is most often referred to as "C&R", which stands for Curio and Relic.  The law actually refers to it, but it is often missed.  My hypothesis is that is because it isn't capitalized and therefore people just skip over it.  Here is what I'm talking about:

(13) The term “collector” means any person who acquires, holds, or disposes of firearms as curios or relics, as the Attorney General shall by regulation define, and the term “licensed collector” means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter.

Firearms that get the Curio and Relic have to meet certain criteria.  I have seen a couple televised "investigative reporting" specials about firearms and without fail, they always misrepresent C&R collectors.  Also, those firearms cannot be modified, and collectors must submit to periodic inspections just like a Title 1 dealer.  If a C&R collector is saying he is selling a bunch of AK-47s with no background check, he is breaking the following laws:

1. The National Firearms Act of 1934.
2. He is more than likely in violation of the Hughes amendment that was part of the FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act) of 1986.
3. He is in violation of the law with regard to his status as a C&R dealer and must be a Title 1 dealer to sell that kind of firearm.
4. He is in violation of the law because he is acting as a dealer and not a collector.

Once again, I think this comes down to a key concept in this debate.  If you have someone that is breaking multiple laws, what expectation should we have that more laws are going to stem this behavior?  I've got no problem with prosecuting people who are operating as dealers without going through the process of getting their FFL.  I also happen to think that person to person sales in this country will soon become a thing of the past.  In the future, we will probably have to work with an FFL to sell off a collection.

That is an inconvenience and of course the FFL is going to want a commission to sell the firearms.  Putting a gun on consignment usually means the FFL gets 10 percent of the proceeds.  That is the way it has worked for the guns I've sold through FFLs.  Maybe we could get a special type of FFL that just does transfers.  But I just can't shake the notion that the whole purpose of all these proposed regulations is to discourage gun ownership.  People have been calling for yearly taxes on gun ownership, taxes on ammo, training class requirements, registration, you name it.  At some point, it is either going to be cost prohibitive or simply not worth it to own a gun.


In fact, back in the 90s, NRA-sponsored amendments proposed something similar to this - a new class of Federal Firearm License (FFL) holder, who would be granted access to the NICS to facilitate non-dealer sales. For example, as far as the claim that any such legislation would 'ban all private sales,' a bill proposed in 2010 only included regulation related to events where 50 or more guns are offered or exhibited for sale, which would obviously exclude the vast majority of legitimate private and family sales and gifts.


The NRA has changed their mind on some things over time.  Studies like the one from the NIJ clearly show that a lot of proposed legislation is just symbolic.  If the NRA changed its mind based on that information, I can't say I blame them.  Again, I really think the burden of proof rests on those that want more laws.  I find myself fighting to preserve certain freedoms that are under attack just because people want to "do something".  That idea might sound like a good idea.  It might even seem logical.  But what it comes down to is whether or not it will have the result of reducing crime.  If the data doesn't support that, then there just isn't sufficient reason to put the law into place.

« Last Edit: December 26, 2012, 04:07:40 PM by Pi » Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:July 30, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 04:52:41 PM
Posts: 9570



« Reply #136 on: December 27, 2012, 02:58:43 PM »

My mistake, the guy in the earlier video I posted was talking about 300+ SKS's that he sold in a year.

In any case, here's a video of an Egyptian Maadi purchase with no background check - or even an id:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baPgr_tw79Q

Here you can see the 'private' dealer here with a table of 50+ different guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhgjLDeyNLQ

Buying an SKS with no background check or paperwork:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq2faC-u87g

Buying 10 guns in one hour with no background checks or id:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video?id=7312659

I don't really think I need a formal study to tell me this seems like foolish policy, at least on the surface. Also, as I mentioned above, since many of these sales are not documented, it is hard to say exactly where these guns wind up. So if you want to know how many of them were used in crimes, than does that mean you would require such information to be recorded somehow? Or more rules that make it easier to track guns sold from individual to individual to see if they were used in crimes? Or how exactly would anyone be able to find that out?

However, the ATF study released in 2000 that I quoted earlier does address this question:

"Gun shows. Gun shows were a major trafficking channel, involving the second highest number of trafficked guns per investigation (more than 130), and associated with approximately 26,000 illegally diverted firearms. The investigations involved both licensed and unlicensed sellers at gun shows."

"A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/Following_the_Gun%202000.pdf

Also, one potential problem from the DOJ study is that it was 'survey-based' - meaning it was not based upon physical evidence or tracking of serial numbers, or the results of any formal investigation, but rather upon the memory & opinions of convicted criminals. It may or may not be valid information.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2012, 03:06:08 PM by NC YIPPIE » Logged
Muddylaces
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 10:56:14 AM
Date Registerd:December 26, 2007, 10:46:35 AM
Posts: 2927



« Reply #137 on: December 27, 2012, 03:50:09 PM »

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Note the founders used the words arms not muskets. 

I always hear from the left, “Then join a Militia if you want to own guns",   I believe what the 2nd Amendment is saying the People should be armed so they can form a militia if the government become tyrannical.  You may think this train of thought is outdated, which is cool.   The founders thought of this, don't like it?   Amend the Constitution. If you can't get it done in this climate you're just on the wrong side.   

I also think this part of the text in conveniently ignored by the left.
SHALL NOT BE
Infringed -Act so as to limit or undermine (something);

Shall- To have to; must
Logged

Axiomatic
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 06:59:00 PM
Date Registerd:August 04, 2010, 10:27:19 PM
Posts: 2950



« Reply #138 on: December 27, 2012, 08:06:52 PM »

Someone would have to be a complete friggin moron to trust anything the BATFE says these days...



...or the abc, or u-toob.
Logged

Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!
NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:July 30, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 04:52:41 PM
Posts: 9570



« Reply #139 on: December 27, 2012, 09:06:29 PM »

Yes, clearly such sources are only reliable when posting voter fraud videos.  Roll Eyes



Logged
DC
Chathameister
****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 10:59:21 PM
Date Registerd:November 03, 2010, 08:54:08 PM
Posts: 751


« Reply #140 on: December 28, 2012, 01:18:46 AM »

Yes, clearly such sources are only reliable when posting voter fraud videos.  Roll Eyes





Does the Obama admin and BATF have a history of lying about gun owners and a history of intentionally providing automatic weapons to drug cartels? Answer the question and then tell me how the BATF and any voter fraud videos are in any way comparable?
Logged
Muddylaces
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 10:56:14 AM
Date Registerd:December 26, 2007, 10:46:35 AM
Posts: 2927



« Reply #141 on: December 28, 2012, 09:51:26 AM »

Before you decide not to read my post all the way through because I am the one who posted it, please reconsider. I am looking for answers.

First off, let me make it clear that I, like most Americans, have no desire to see all guns restricted or banned in this country.

I have owned rifles in the past and greatly enjoyed ambling out to the old barn and shooting rats; I even often hit them.

And, although I have never owned a handgun, I have had some limited experience with shooting them. That, too, I enjoyed, although in hindsight I can see that the way my friends and I approached our target shooting was foolish and irresponsible (not that I am making any accusations about you grown-ups who post here). We were in our twenties, and I don’t even know where the guy who owned the guns got them – never even thought to ask and didn’t care. We just went out to an “isolated” place in the country and fired away. It is even possible that alcohol could have been in play on some occasions.

But part of my point is that we were irresponsible. And before you become self-righteous and take me to task, I would venture that, even if all of you have always been thoroughly responsible, lots of twenty-somethings are – by their nature – not terribly responsible or even very aware.

The guy who owned the guns was, we all recognized even then, tightly wound. And he had LOTS of guns. We all knew on some level that he was potentially a danger to someone, but we never actually thought he would go over the edge. In later years, he struggled with alcohol, and then one December day, he walked away from the home where he, his wife, and their five-year-old son lived, put a gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. No, he did not walk into a public place and open fire, but he might have. And his son, now a young adult, seems to have, either through inherited predisposition toward mental illness, or the burden of his father’s suicide, developed into a very troubled individual who is also clearly struggling with demons of some sort.

Furthermore, I “get” that it is “people who kill people,” and I agree that in an ideal world, we could somehow identify those individuals who are predisposed to commit heinous acts like the attack in Connecticut, but that appears to be impossible. Even the mental health “experts” are at a loss when it comes to predicting who is likely to do such a thing, although there are some “signs” that people could look out for. But, in truth, many who exhibit those “signs” would never act out these particular tendencies. And the more important truth is that, even if we were to attempt to ferret out and identify those potentially dangerous people, both the right and the left would call foul – the right because such government intrusion into people’s right to privacy would smack of totalitarianism, and the left for – wait, the same reason.

I can't imagine anyone (other than PETA nuts) wanting to do anything to curtail the sport of hunting, a sport whose responsible practitioners deserve respect, and I think most Americans, including those on the left, agree.  But the fact is that something should be done.

So, what would constitute a reasonable middle ground? What can we as a country do to try to prevent more of these mass killings? Can we consider raising the age of gun ownership, since the vast majority of those particular types of shooters appear to be men in their twenties? Can we put in place similar restrictions to those in Israel? Can we mandate gun safety classes and perhaps mandatory military service, in which such training would obviously be included? Can we more strictly regulate assault weapons or restrict the number of rounds in individual clips?

What, in the opinions of the mostly rightish posters here, would be a reasonable approach to stopping these horrific acts?








I’ve decided to answer TiredoftheBS original question.   “Can there be a middle ground?” Answer:Yes.   But that is not the real issue.  The real issue in how we get to the middle ground.  The second amendment is pretty clear.   And if we want to change it there is a process to amend the constitution.   Gun owner’s rights granted by the second amendment are already being infringed upon, which is explicitly prohibited by the second amendment.  
I love the argument that the founders only had muskets and couldn’t envision a world with semi-automatic weapons.  The musket was the AR-15 230 years ago.   The founders knew the history of weapon advancement, from rock, to spear, to bow, to crossbow…etc.   If TiredoftheBS and I sat down right now to write a new second amendment, do you not think that we could envision laser handguns or some other advancement in use 230 years from now?   So why couldn’t the founders of the whole country who are way uber smarter than me envision that the musket would not be the end of modern weaponry?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2012, 09:53:26 AM by Muddylaces » Logged

1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 05:56:57 PM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 05:24:28 PM
Posts: 7679


"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #142 on: December 28, 2012, 12:01:07 PM »

Quote
Gun owner’s rights granted by the second amendment are already being infringed upon ...

Yes, they are, but they are not "granted" by any amendment, Muddy; they are rights endowed by our Creator -- or inherent by dint of being a sovereign human being, if you will -- and are acknowledged and guaranteed by our Constitution.
Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
Muddylaces
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 10:56:14 AM
Date Registerd:December 26, 2007, 10:46:35 AM
Posts: 2927



« Reply #143 on: December 28, 2012, 12:13:57 PM »

Quote
Gun owner’s rights granted by the second amendment are already being infringed upon ...

Yes, they are, but they are not "granted" by any amendment, Muddy; they are rights endowed by our Creator -- or inherent by dint of being a sovereign human being, if you will -- and are acknowledged and guaranteed by our Constitution.
Yeah poor choice of words.
Logged

chrstnhsbndfthr
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 11:43:59 AM
Date Registerd:February 21, 2006, 12:25:33 AM
Posts: 9732



« Reply #144 on: December 28, 2012, 12:18:33 PM »

Well said, 1911A, and besides, there are other inherent rights that are violated by the unreasonable gun laws we already have, which have proven to cause deaths.

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

One of the oldest rights is of self defense and it was so basic and so accepted it was not even thought necessary to enumerate it. And it has now been demonstrated very clearly that denying the right to basic self-defense and the means with which to defend ones self and others has cost many lives.  We know these criminally insane people are seeking out places where a large number of unarmed people are expected to be and when they finally face armed resistance they usually shoot themselves. Those who have not shot themselves surrender almost immediately upon facing resistance. We should be looking for how to remove these hunting grounds and how to make sure they face immediate armed resistance, not looking for ways to build more hunting grounds for them to kill us in.
Logged

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest <> of freedom, go <>in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. <>may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.-- Samuel Adams 1776
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 10:12:09 AM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Posts: 3337



« Reply #145 on: December 28, 2012, 01:04:09 PM »

My mistake, the guy in the earlier video I posted was talking about 300+ SKS's that he sold in a year.

In any case, here's a video of an Egyptian Maadi purchase with no background check - or even an id:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baPgr_tw79Q

Here you can see the 'private' dealer here with a table of 50+ different guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhgjLDeyNLQ

Buying an SKS with no background check or paperwork:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq2faC-u87g

Buying 10 guns in one hour with no background checks or id:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video?id=7312659

I don't really think I need a formal study to tell me this seems like foolish policy, at least on the surface. Also, as I mentioned above, since many of these sales are not documented, it is hard to say exactly where these guns wind up. So if you want to know how many of them were used in crimes, than does that mean you would require such information to be recorded somehow? Or more rules that make it easier to track guns sold from individual to individual to see if they were used in crimes? Or how exactly would anyone be able to find that out?

However, the ATF study released in 2000 that I quoted earlier does address this question:

"Gun shows. Gun shows were a major trafficking channel, involving the second highest number of trafficked guns per investigation (more than 130), and associated with approximately 26,000 illegally diverted firearms. The investigations involved both licensed and unlicensed sellers at gun shows."

"A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/Following_the_Gun%202000.pdf

Also, one potential problem from the DOJ study is that it was 'survey-based' - meaning it was not based upon physical evidence or tracking of serial numbers, or the results of any formal investigation, but rather upon the memory & opinions of convicted criminals. It may or may not be valid information.




Here is the thing Mr. Yippie: if you are going to call for more regulation, thus reducing the right of the people to engage in certain activities, then we need ironclad evidence to make the case. It just seems to me that you did not really respond to my points.

I understand that you think this might reduce crime, but keep in mind that many (probably the vast majority of these private sales) are law abiding individuals that do not commit crimes. I can show you lots of errors in data put out by mayors against guns. I do not consider them or the Brady Campaign reliable sources of information.

It is therefore difficult to assume that you are not inclined to support moree gun laws because it seems that the sources you cite absolutely do. 

Once again, the burden of proof for infringing upon someone's rights must be put upon those that want the laws, not those who dont. It is patently unfair that I, a law abiding citizen that has committed ZERO crimes has to fight to keep my rights 

The founders understood this. The Bill of Rights isnt there just to protect us from the government. It is there to protect us from ourselves. You want to chip away at those rights?  Ok. But you better have some hard data that makes your case irrefutable. Because the ne t time around, it might be a right that you really care about. Like same sex marriage. The marriage amendment fails the evidence test, wouldnt you agree?

Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:July 30, 2014, 05:02:44 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 04:52:41 PM
Posts: 9570



« Reply #146 on: December 28, 2012, 02:00:46 PM »

I honestly thought I had acknowledged your main points, apologies for those I missed. However, previously when I called something a conservative poll due to the source and funding, you said that I needed to show the bias in the specific poll to consider it such. So in this case, you should probably point out the specific factual bias or problems with a claim instead of simply saying you don't trust the source. Not the exact same, but similar.

Also, your analysis does not seem to have responded to my point about not requiring any documentation yet wanting documentation about such sales to prove more oversight may be needed. The evidence of several different people, on various videos, walking into a gun show and buying weapons with no id or background check seems pretty clear that it does happen. From the start I have acknowledged it is a small minority.

As far as sources - you cite a DOJ survey of criminals and then seem to dismiss a study that actually documents the origin of firearms using formal investigations, sales information where possible and serial numbers. It would seem that the ATF evidence is much more reliable than any survey where responses and possible facts are given voluntarily. As your post goes on, this voluntary 'survey' of criminals while in jail morphs into what you describe as 'reality' while ATF information using actual numbers and facts needs to be 'ironclad.'

I responded to your point about AKs, admitted my earlier error, and responded directly to your request for some facts with the ATF info, as well as your point about getting numbers on them. As to your point about 'dealers' versus 'private' sellers, I have already agreed that there would need to be some provisions to address these legitimate private sales. However, I think you have seen some of the evidence in the multiple videos, of people with huge collections of firearms who are clearly functioning as dealers but using the legal loophole of 'collectors' or 'private sales.' I'm not interested in banning private sales. However, looking at the rules related to these sales seems like a legitimate field of inquiry, to me anyway. I don't think I was aware of the C&R designation, but I was aware that collectors were only allowed to sell guns from before a specific date.

Maybe you are right though, and we just need to prosecute "people who are operating as dealers without going through the process of getting their FFL." That would be a good start, but also require more ATF resources and most likely more funding, or cutting in another area. Likewise, perhaps there is some common ground with the idea that "we could get a special type of FFL that just does transfers" or something along those lines.

« Last Edit: December 28, 2012, 02:06:21 PM by NC YIPPIE » Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 10:12:09 AM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 11:12:40 AM
Posts: 3337



« Reply #147 on: December 28, 2012, 03:50:09 PM »

I honestly thought I had acknowledged your main points, apologies for those I missed. However, previously when I called something a conservative poll due to the source and funding, you said that I needed to show the bias in the specific poll to consider it such. So in this case, you should probably point out the specific factual bias or problems with a claim instead of simply saying you don't trust the source. Not the exact same, but similar.


1. The main point you are missing is that you are not proving that guns gotten from private sales are any more likely to be used in a crime than guns obtained by other means.  That is the most important piece of supporting evidence.  This should not be impossible to find because those guns will have serial numbers and the manufacturer can determine exactly where those guns were initially shipped.  From there, it is simply a matter of following the trail to see who sold the gun to whom.  Again, that burden of proof is not on me or any of the other law abiding gun owners out there.  In order to take a right away, you need to be able to prove that point.  There must be some data that shows how many guns used in crimes were untraceable or for which the origin could not be determined.  Again, I believe you need to be able to prove that this is where guns used in crimes come from.  If those guns are not overrepresented in crime statistics, then there's no logical basis for subjecting the practice to more regulation.

2. You need chapter and verse from me on the deceptions of the Brady Campaign?  Ok then.  Here are some specific examples of mischaracterizations:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1088
"The Bush Administration's parting gift for the gun lobby to allow hidden weapons in our parks threatens the safety of these national treasures and those who visit them," said Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke. "We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry firearms in our parks. We urge the proper authorities to use common sense, and stop this senseless rule."

Dangerous people?  Helmke should know full well that what this bill refers to are those that already have a concealed carry permit.  In NC specifically, that means a mental health background check, criminal background check, training class, and fingerprinting.  How is it that he can call those law abiding people, who have been checked out thoroughly, "dangerous people"?  Does that sound honest or unbiased to you?

Helmke has a history of saying one thing one day, and something else the other.  

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/rMNMihiUW3w&amp;rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/rMNMihiUW3w&amp;rel=0</a>
!
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/uhIeHVm66Yk&amp;rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/uhIeHVm66Yk&amp;rel=0</a>


How about their statistics on "children" killed with firearms:
http://debunkthebradycampaign.blogspot.com/
In its fact sheet on children and guns, the Brady Campaign reports that one "young person" is killed with a gun every three hours; this is based on 2,893 deaths in 2002. [FN1]. Even though these statistics are in a "fact sheet" purporting to address children, 66% of these deaths were 17, 18, and 19 year olds. [FN2]. The Brady Campaign inflates their numbers by including these incidents, many of which are related to gang violence, and also include police intervention and self-defense shootings.

In 2002, 419 children under 14 were killed with guns; thats 1.1 per day. Only 60 were accidents; thats about 1 every 6 days. For comparison 113 died from falls, 156 were poisoned, 583 burned to death, 1,214 suffocated, and 2,352 were killed in car accidents. [FN3].


You will find that now the fact sheet has been removed from their site, but even their current fact sheet considers people of 19 years of age to be "children".  
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/factsyouth

3. Now let's look at Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Bloomberg, who is the point person for that organization, made the claim that "The United States has a murder rate on a scale that you simply cannot compare with other nations."  That is absolutely untrue as there are many other nations that have higher murder rates.  Also, it is important to point out that some areas that have the highest gun crime, such as Chicago, have the strictest gun laws.  Chicago has had 500+ homicides this year.

But the most damning thing about MAIG is the fact that they seek further gun control via avenues other than Congress.  They have said that they want to reduce the number of guns, not just increase regulation.  Do you agree with their view?

http://www.humanevents.com/2011/09/13/bloomberg-presses-blueprint-for-ending-gun-rights/


Also, your analysis does not seem to have responded to my point about not requiring any documentation yet wanting documentation about such sales to prove more oversight may be needed. The evidence of several different people, on various videos, walking into a gun show and buying weapons with no id or background check seems pretty clear that it does happen. From the start I have acknowledged it is a small minority.


So let me get this straight: the data doesn't exist to make your case, and so we need to pass more restrictions to see if even more oversight is needed?  If in fact this is a small minority, and the effect on crime is also small, then why pass more regulations?  It just seems like your reasoning is that we need more laws to see if we need more laws.  It seems you want oversight and further regulation whether or not it is actually a major contributor to crime.  Please correct me if I've somehow misunderstood, but if I've got it right, I'm sorry, but I just don't think that is fair.

As far as sources - you cite a DOJ survey of criminals and then seem to dismiss a study that actually documents the origin of firearms using formal investigations, sales information where possible and serial numbers. It would seem that the ATF evidence is much more reliable than any survey where responses and possible facts are given voluntarily. As your post goes on, this voluntary 'survey' of criminals while in jail morphs into what you describe as 'reality' while ATF information using actual numbers and facts needs to be 'ironclad.'


No, I made no reference to a survey of criminals.  Stop putting words in my mouth please.  I acknowledge the ATF information on the number of firearms bought and sold, though you and I both know that is an estimate.  But that still doesn't address my main point, which is what percentage of those guns are used in crime and are they overrepresented when it comes to being used in crime.  Please understand that I'm not trying to deny that it happens.  I'm just asking that a solid case be made for further legislation.

And please do not start down the road of taking what other people are saying in other posts and applying it to me.  I really don't appreciate that as I'm sure you wouldn't either.  So please don't go there.  We're having a civil conversation here and I would like for us to keep it that way.  Keep in mind that what you are asking for amounts to infringement of my constitutionally guaranteed rights.  I'm doing my best to remain clam and polite, despite your insistence on further regulation.  Try to keep that in mind also as we continue our discussion.


I responded to your point about AKs, admitted my earlier error, and responded directly to your request for some facts with the ATF info, as well as your point about getting numbers on them. As to your point about 'dealers' versus 'private' sellers, I have already agreed that there would need to be some provisions to address these legitimate private sales. However, I think you have seen some of the evidence in the multiple videos, of people with huge collections of firearms who are clearly functioning as dealers but using the legal loophole of 'collectors' or 'private sales.' I'm not interested in banning private sales. However, looking at the rules related to these sales seems like a legitimate field of inquiry, to me anyway. I don't think I was aware of the C&R designation, but I was aware that collectors were only allowed to sell guns from before a specific date.


No, I think you missed my point there.  What I described, chapter and verse, was how those "collectors" were already violating existing law.  They are not using a "loophole".  They are breaking the law, period.  And they should be prosecuted for it.  Again, please reread that section of my response because you seem to have misunderstood what I was saying.


Maybe you are right though, and we just need to prosecute "people who are operating as dealers without going through the process of getting their FFL."


And now it looks like you did read that part, but that doesn't jive with what you wrote above.  I'm scratching me head here as I don't quite understand where the disconnect is.


That would be a good start, but also require more ATF resources and most likely more funding, or cutting in another area.


Better enforcement is the answer.  If only you would agree with us on that point instead of calling for more laws.  =(


Likewise, perhaps there is some common ground with the idea that "we could get a special type of FFL that just does transfers" or something along those lines.


Maybe, but again, you're going to have to make your case.  Sadly, there's no requirement to make one's case when it comes to legislation.  We're probably going to get another assault weapon's ban that is just like the last one, despite the fact that the evidence doesn't support the contention that the ban worked.  All we need is enough people to believe something, rightly or wrongly, and we will see more chipping away at the constitution.

But Mr. Yippie, the legislation that is coming is going to be about magazine sizes and all sorts of other things.  Certain types of firearms could be banned from further production, or "grandfathered" so long as you pay an onerous tax on each one.  I'm sorry Mr. Yippie, but none of those things seemed to be aimed at reducing crime.  Those things would not have prevented what happened in Newtown.  

It would have been nice if we could have found some common ground here, but the fact is that all we really have is differing opinions on the left when it comes to how the second amendment can be chipped away at.  Some don't want any guns, some want more regulation on private sales, some want all semi-autos to go away, some want them to be taxed, some want magazines to go away and still others want different combinations of those things.

I can ask you for supporting information, but the thing is, you don't really have to provide it.  All you need do is have an opinion, and that's enough for policy to get made.  Still, I wonder if you are in favor of another ban like we had in 1994.  I wonder if that is what you had in mind when you voted for Obama both times.  Are you getting your vote's worth when it comes to this issue?

I hope so, because that's what you're getting. And maybe some of you on the left don't give a damn about gun rights, but someday your children might.  But they might not get to make that choice because you already made it for them.

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”
-Adolph Hitler

Wonder what John Brown would have said about that comment?  Wonder what he would have said about the Jim Crow laws that kept blacks from owning guns for so many years?

« Last Edit: December 28, 2012, 04:18:12 PM by Pi » Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Today at 05:56:57 PM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 05:24:28 PM
Posts: 7679


"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #148 on: December 28, 2012, 04:18:29 PM »

Where's your "middle ground" for this guy?

"'The lawmaker told CNSNews.com that he not only supports prohibiting the future sale of 10-round gun magazines, but he would like to confiscate high-capacity clips already legally possessed by American citizens.

... “One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence.  And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.”"


Oh?  That's "one of the definitions of a nation state"?  The ability to define "legitimate violence" and inflict it on its own people?!

Nadler goes on:

"“We have a lobby, the leadership of the NRA, who function as enablers of mass murder,” Nadler told CNN Host Piers Morgan.  “And that's what they are. They're enablers of mass murder because they terrify the class of political people."


I see.  The "class of political people" is rightfully terrified by armed citizens -- and they OUGHT to be considering what they've been inflicting on us -- and this somehow translates into the NRA as enablers of mass murder.  But never mind the NRA, Nadler admits the issue isn't how to ensure "our" safety and security, it's control, because he's worried about his, despite his having armed security.

"“They lie. They say they will take your guns away,” he said.  “And they stop any kind of legislation to prevent that.”"


No, Nadler lies, not the NRA; no citizen with guns is the end-game.

 
Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
Jeff G
Guest
« Reply #149 on: December 28, 2012, 08:27:37 PM »

It is very clear that the vast majority pushing for more gun regulations/bans are doing so based upon emotional aspects, not logic. The simple fact is not a single individual, on either side of the argument, wants the violent incidents we see year after year to continue along. We all agree there must be something done to effect some semblance of a remedy; the question is when arriving at a solution, or legislation, are we doing so via emotions, or logic? Lets look at the data and use common sense; however, as sad as it is, this doesn't seem to apply nowadays. Emotion rules the day simply because most people have no idea how to think critically.

As far as I'm concerned, why not implement federal laws revolving around what Pi mentioned that NC does concerning CCW holders? Which makes it more difficult to obtain weapons due to the criminal and mental background checks, fingerprinting, etc, but once these legitimate law-abiding citizens have been identified, they should be given more access to purchase weapons of their choice.  Anyway, that might (with emphasis on the word - MIGHT) be part of a "middle ground" worth considering. But the "real" focus shouldn't be on guns; it should be on the criminal, i.e., longer and stiffer sentences/punishment for crimes committed, among several other things, with by far the most important focus should be on how to get this nation back to one of sound morals.

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that our entire culture is in trouble. Simply a cursory look should provide some insight when our society has replaced heroes with celebrities, the quest for a well-informed character with the search for a flat stomach, substance and depth with image and personality and the successful person is now viewed as one who accumulates the most consumer goods and money (not on character, substance, and depth). In the political process, the makeup man is more important that the speech writer, and we approach the voting booth, not on the basis of a well-developed philosophy of what the state should be, but with a heart full of images, emotions, and slogans all packed into 30 second sound bites. The mind-numbing, irrational tripe that fills TV talk shows is digested by millions of bored, lonely Americans hungry for that sort of stuff. What is going on here? What has happened to us?

There are no simple answers to these questions, and I don't pretend to offer a full analysis as a solution to this quandary. But I do think the place to start looking for an answer is to remind ourselves of what Jesus Christ said long ago. In His inaugural address, Jesus was concerned to spell out how HIs community of followers were to understand themselves. With character insight, He asserted that, "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?" (Matt. 5:13)

One job of the church is to be salty to the world in which it finds itself, so if that world grows salt-less, we should look first to the church herself to glean what we can about her contribution to the situation. Without getting into too much detail, the major cause of our current cultural crisis consists of a worldview shift from a Judeo-Christian understanding of reality to a post-Christian one. Moreover, this shift itself expresses a growing anti-intellectualism in the church resulting in the marginalization of Christianity in society (its lack of saltiness if you will) and the emergence of the most secular culture the world has ever seen. That secular culture is now simply playing out the implications of ideas that have come to be widely accepted in a social context in which the church is no longer a major participant in the war of ideas.  
« Last Edit: December 28, 2012, 09:35:43 PM by Jeff G » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 13   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!