Guns

[Rallywagon]

? I dont get it.

He asked you what YOU would do about it, and you answer "well what is america doing?" How do you not get it?

 

[PocketZeven]

He asked you what YOU would do about it, and you answer "well what is america doing?" How do you not get it?

See above. I dont know what the exact question is anymore. Northstar changed the questioning.

edit: first we were talking about guns coming back from mexico. Suddenly he shifted to another question which isnt specific enough for me to answer my opinion.

how you think we should address all the guns that are already out there?

what guns? the one you referred to from mexico?

 

[Rallywagon]

See above. I dont know what the exact question is anymore. Northstar changed the questioning.

So how do you propose we remove all the illegal guns from the streets?

But again, that doesn't really do much when it comes to the guns already out there that the government doesn't even know about. How are they supposed to go about taking those off the streets

What I want to know and you keep avoiding, is how you think we should address all the guns that are already out there?

I mean, has it really changed that much?

 

[PocketZeven]

I mean, has it really changed that much?

The quote came before the question about guns from mexico and I already answered that question.

"Making it illegal and punishable to sell or change ownership of guns without proper background checks and registration of sale federally is a start"

And I also answered by referring to the way law enforcement takes on illegal drugs and should take on illegals firearms the same way.

 

[Famine]

Northstar specifically adressed guns that come back over the border

Keyword: "back".

For guns to come back from Mexico, they must have left the USA for Mexico in the first place. That means US-made guns, so any increases border enforcement would keep them in the USA. Even if the export/import of these firearms is a completely lossless process, that would mean at least the same number of guns in the USA...

 

[PocketZeven]

Keyword: "back".

For guns to come back from Mexico, they must have left the USA for Mexico in the first place. That means US-made guns, so any increases border enforcement would keep them in the USA. Even if the export/import of these firearms is a completely lossless process, that would mean at least the same number of guns in the USA...

So should the border treat (edit) domestic guns differently then other illegal contraband?

 

[Rallywagon]

The quote came before the question about guns from mexico and I already answered that question.

"Making it illegal and punishable to sell or change ownership of guns without proper background checks and registration of sale federally is a start"

That deals with sales, and is already law in many states with many more on the way. That doesnt answer the question about what you would do with the illegal guns already here.

And I also answered by referring to the way law enforcement takes on illegal drugs and should take on illegals firearms the same way.

Yeeaahhh, see the problem here is that drugs aren't really an equitable comparison, as has already been pointed out by a couple of members. First is that drug use is a mostly victimless crime. Drugs are already illegal to manufacture and sell in the US (this is all excluding pot btw) and drug laws are handled far differently than weapons laws. Apples and oranges. Even you have admitted that guns in america is a unique and complicated issue, why try and use any sort of comparison, much less one so easily seen as flawed.

 

[Danoff]

So should the border treat (edit) domestic guns differently then other illegal contraband?

You mean illegal domestic guns?

 

[Famine]

So should the border treat (edit) domestic guns differently then other illegal contraband?

Oh my, that's a mess of concepts nailed together into a leading question - and another fallacy.

 

[PocketZeven]

That deals with sales, and is already law in many states with many more on the way. That doesnt answer the question about what you would do with the illegal guns already here.


Yeeaahhh, see the problem here is that drugs aren't really an equitable comparison, as has already been pointed out by a couple of members. First is that drug use is a mostly victimless crime. Drugs are already illegal to manufacture and sell in the US (this is all excluding pot btw) and drug laws are handled far differently than weapons laws. Apples and oranges. Even you have admitted that guns in america is a unique and complicated issue, why try and use any sort of comparison, much less one so easily seen as flawed.

Nothing would change, because illegal gunownership is already illegal. I would treat illegal guns, like every other illegal contraband.

Unregistered guns would be illegal. Ownership will result in punishment. Treat illegal contraband like illegal contraband. I dont understand what is difficult to understand? Like drugs, the law should focus on illegal distributors and less on the owners in active enforcement.

You mean illegal domestic guns?

Yes

edit:

Oh my, that's a mess of concepts nailed together into a leading question - and another fallacy.

What do you mean by fallacy?

 

[Famine]

What do you mean by fallacy?

A fallacy is generally something that is false, but here it's specifically faulty reasoning used to construct an argument or question. You've got a straw man, an association fallacy and a presupposition fallacy all in one line.


I pointed out to you that strengthening border checks to prevent guns coming back into the USA will also prevent them leaving, and since the guns coming back into the USA started in the USA (or they couldn't come back), that will not generate a situation where the number of guns in the USA is lower. At best it will be unchanged. If the goal is reducing "the number of guns already out there", this solution will not reach it.

Have another crack at responding to that, but instead don't assume I've said things I haven't, don't word your question as if I have ("So ... [you mean this thing]?"), and don't act like legal things and illegal things, or tools and narcotics, are the same thing.

 

[Rallywagon]

A fallacy is generally something that is false, but here it's specifically faulty reasoning used to construct an argument or question. You've got a straw man, an association fallacy and a presupposition fallacy all in one line.


I pointed out to you that strengthening border checks to prevent guns coming back into the USA will also prevent them leaving, and since the guns coming back into the USA started in the USA (or they couldn't come back), that will not generate a situation where the number of guns in the USA is lower. At best it will be unchanged.

Have another crack at responding to that, but instead don't assume I've said things I haven't, don't word your question as if I have ("So ... [you mean this thing]?"), and don't act like legal things and illegal things, or tools and narcotics, are the same thing.

Honestly, I have a feeling that guns would be harder to get back into the US than out. Anecdotal, but we took my niece and nephew to Niagra falls last year. Getting into Canadia was easy. Getting back into America, we were grilled like they suspected we were trafficking them. I imagine that even with more money thrown at border control, it would still be easier to get guns out of the US than it would be to smuggle them back in. I can say with confidence that regardless of tact,.there will be a net loss of guns that jumped the border.

 

[PocketZeven]

A fallacy is generally something that is false, but here it's specifically faulty reasoning used to construct an argument or question. You've got a straw man, an association fallacy and a presupposition fallacy all in one line.


I pointed out to you that strengthening border checks to prevent guns coming back into the USA will also prevent them leaving, and since the guns coming back into the USA started in the USA (or they couldn't come back), that will not generate a situation where the number of guns in the USA is lower. At best it will be unchanged.

Have another crack at responding to that, but instead don't assume I've said things I haven't, don't word your question as if I have ("So ... [you mean this thing]?"), and don't act like legal things and illegal things, or tools and narcotics, are the same thing.

I am genuinely confused. Wouldnt illegal guns be lower? Whith less guns going out and less guns coming back? Isnt that a good thing?

Illegal tools and illegal narcotics (of the highest category) should be treated the same by law enforcement. I understand they require somewhat specific strategies. The intention of licensing and registration is not to reduce guns in general, but prevent misuse. Illegal guns would admittedly not be influenced much by this, but legal guns will. My propostition was not a solution to all gun problems, but to reduce incidents with legal guns.


edit: admittedly there is a risk of formerly legal guns, becoming illegal, because some refuse to register their guns.
But I think it should be enforced anyway for all future guns that change ownership. A paper trail helps law enforcement immensely.

 

[Rallywagon]

I am genuinely confused. Wouldnt illegal guns be lower? Whith less guns going out and less guns coming back? Isnt that a good thing?

Illegal tools and illegal narcotics (of the highest category) should be treated the same by law enforcement. I understand they require somewhat specific strategies. The intention of licensing and registration is not to reduce guns in general, but prevent misuse. Illegal guns would admittedly not be influenced much by this, but legal guns will. My propostition was not a solution to all gun problems, but to reduce incidents with legal guns.

Is there a lot of legal gun incidents? Why are we wanting to infringe on legal gun owners?

 

[PocketZeven]

Is there a lot of legal gun incidents? Why are we wanting to infringe on legal gun owners?

I fomulated that incorrectly. The goal is to reduce misuse of guns in general.

The nr.1 reason that the US has much more guncrime then or misuse is easy acces. Making people more responsible with ownership will reduce misuse.

If guns are registered and the owner licensed his rights would not be infringed.

edit: corrected statement

 

[Swagger897]

If guns are registered and the owner licensed his rights would not be infringed.

I own many guns myself. I, one day in the future, could possibly come into a situation where I want easy money in exchange for things I own.

I take my guns to a place where there are people who are in need of such, and willing to exchange for money at a price that I am in need of such.
I give gun.
He gives money.
I go away.

Ask me how you prevent that without having an officer stand over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

 

[Danoff]

I own many guns myself. I, one day in the future, could possibly come into a situation where I want easy money in exchange for things I own.

I take my guns to a place where there are people who are in need of such, and willing to exchange for money at a price that I am in need of such.
I give gun.
He gives money.
I go away.

Ask me how you prevent that without having an officer stand over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

Wait what? The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to sell a gun to whomever you choose.

 

[ryzno]

Wait what? The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to sell a gun to whomever you choose.

Technically you can sell anything to anyone but...

 

[Swagger897]

Wait what? The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to sell a gun to whomever you choose.

Technically you can sell anything to anyone but...

This is the point ^

Having a registration database of all guns isn't going to stop a criminal from doing criminal activities. That was the premise of the post. I'm not going to go into what the 2nd Amendment does and does not permit citizens to do, as that's already a deep topic that goes off point. But, a database of guns isn't going to stop a crime. It's only going to show where the gun was when it was found in who's hands. It's essentially a title system, and car titles don't stop vehicular manslaughter.

 

[Danoff]

This is the point ^

Having a registration database of all guns isn't going to stop a criminal from doing criminal activities. That was the premise of the post. I'm not going to go into what the 2nd Amendment does and does not permit citizens to do, as that's already a deep topic that goes off point. But, a database of guns isn't going to stop a crime. It's only going to show where the gun was when it was found in who's hands. It's essentially a title system, and car titles don't stop vehicular manslaughter.

It will stop law abiding citizens from selling to people who we know should not receive guns. It might not stop crime, but it would very much make it harder for them to obtain guns.

 

[ryzno]

It will stop law abiding citizens from selling to people who we know should not receive guns. It might not stop crime, but it would very much make it harder for them to obtain guns.

I disagree with that, a car after a sale doesn't have to actually be registered.
We just bought a car that had touched 1 person(OG owner) and 2 "dealers" hands with the ORIGINAL title.(who knows what it went through for 3 years) It sucked when we had to pay for the tag(tax wise) but it was easy to see it had been flipped.(if you know what I mean)
Same can and is done with guns.

 

[Danoff]

I disagree with that, a car after a sale doesn't have to actually be registered.
We just bought a car that had touched 1 person and 2 dealers hands with the ORIGINAL title. It sucked when we had to pay for the tag(tax wise) but it was easy to see it had been flipped.(if you know what I mean)
Same can and is done with guns.

Why does gun registration have to work exactly the same way car registration works? The point about the 2nd amendment is that there is nothing that prevents placing requirements on who can sell guns and under what circumstances. The only time the 2nd amendment would come into play is if we tried to bar the sale of guns to all people. But restricting the requirements for being a gun dealer are not protected under the 2nd amendment.

And law abiding citizens will follow those rules. If the law says that you cannot sell a gun to someone that does not have a valid registration, then law abiding citizens will not do that because they are law abiding citizens. This makes it harder for criminals to obtain guns.

 

[ryzno]

Why does gun registration have to work exactly the same way car registration works? The point about the 2nd amendment is that there is nothing that prevents placing requirements on who can sell guns and under what circumstances. The only time the 2nd amendment would come into play is if we tried to bar the sale of guns to all people. But restricting the requirements for being a gun dealer are not protected under the 2nd amendment.

And law abiding citizens will follow those rules. If the law says that you cannot sell a gun to someone that does not have a valid registration, then law abiding citizens will not do that because they are law abiding citizens. This makes it harder for criminals to obtain guns.

Again, you can sell a car without a title(registration) in your actul name or hell with a title period). Anywho I sold our Explorer(in my girls name when the engine said no mas)

I'm sure the 2 dealers are "law abiding" but there are loopholes.

 

[Danoff]

Again, you can sell a car without a title(registration) in your actul name. I sold our Explorer(in my girls name when the engine said no mas)I'm sure the 2 dealers are "law abiding" but there are loopholes.

Again, guns don't have to work that way. It can be a crime to sell a gun to someone without a valid current registration (including background check). Done.

 

[ryzno]

Again, guns don't have to work that way. It can be a crime to sell a gun to someone without a valid current registration (including background check). Done.

It is already illegal for a dealer to do that.
I'm talking on a personal sales level.

 

[Danoff]

It is already illegal for a dealer to do that.
I'm talking on a personal sales level.

Me too. "It can be a crime" meaning it is legal (with the constitution) to make it a crime.

 

[PocketZeven]

I own many guns myself. I, one day in the future, could possibly come into a situation where I want easy money in exchange for things I own.

I take my guns to a place where there are people who are in need of such, and willing to exchange for money at a price that I am in need of such.
I give gun.
He gives money.
I go away.

Ask me how you prevent that without having an officer stand over my shoulder for the rest of my life.

Isnt it already required to do a background check for private sales? That guns are only sold to people that are law abiding citizens. The only difference is that your weapons would be federally registered to your name and that you would be reuired to obtain a license for your weapons.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Isnt it already required to do a background check for private sales?

Depends on the state.

 

[Swagger897]

Isnt it already required to do a background check for private sales? That guns are only sold to people that are law abiding citizens. The only difference is that your weapons would be federally registered to your name and that you would be reuired to obtain a license for your weapons.

Depends on the state.

^

In my state, I only have to assume that the individual is a good citizen with no felonies. A bill of sale isn't even required. Other states as BE mentioned are different, and those states sometimes make things to be damn near impossible to transfer it legally back to the state you originate from if you cross state lines (Maryland is an excellent example of my own experience).

Private sale paperwork is honestly a pointless endeavor to go down. You're not going to be limiting crime at all because those who commit the crimes will still have their ways of getting to guns. You're not going to be able to stop a legal purchase of a firearm to be used with illegal intent, even when asking for the intent of purchase.

It will stop law abiding citizens from selling to people who we know should not receive guns. It might not stop crime, but it would very much make it harder for them to obtain guns.

See above. The person selling in my state only has to assume they are a good citizen with no felonies. A background check is not required.

 

[stonesfan129]

Don't you think it's kind of common sense to have a background check done for a private sale? You can assume all you want, but if that person you sold to then uses it in a crime, wouldn't that make you legally liable?