Some gun shows canceling after Conn. mass shooting

 @OrcasThunder  @Rick4001CS ""The group's study found that just 120 dealers in 22 states sold nearly 55,000 guns linked to crime in five years.""

These dealers are quite possibly committing crimes and should be prosecuted if they are. But also note that it is a small number of dealers involved. Focus on them and nail them hard, that could make a difference. Their place would be taken by law abiding dealers quickly so it wouldn't be a loss.

 @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS "Thats great for you but that makes you the minority in the anti-gunner crowd"

Again, who are these "anti-gunners"? I am not one of them, and I know only a few people who even come close. And to "assume" that the majority of people who want a better system of checking and of storage - with the intent of making the presence of guns in this country safer and more rational, and to prevent more guns from falling into the wrong hands - are "anti-gun" is a mistake. It's no more rational that "assuming" that the vast majority of gun owners are flaming rabid gun-nuts who have hidden arsenals in hidden bunkers just waiting for the call to man the barricades...Neither assumption is valid, or even rational.

And there are basically only 3 ways a gun is going to end up being used in a crime:

1: It was stolen.

2: It was purchased without a background check that would have blocked the sale.

3: The lawful owner commits a criminal act.

Another fact that plays in this, and needs to be part of the solution:

"The group's study found that just 120 dealers in 22 states sold nearly 55,000 guns linked to crime in five years."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129253&page=1#.UOp0CHcwBMg

Without controlling these problems in a rational manner, there will be no reduction of gun crime - and don't most gun owners want that? It is, after all, the prime reason that so many people want to have more control of gun ownership...if the crime was reduced more people would have no problem with guns in their area - and would also reduce the feeling of gun owners that they needed to have guns around them all the time.

Which sounds like something that all sides would want and support.

 @OrcasThunder  @Rick4001CS I haven't bothered to repost what I've written elsewhere on several occasions but basically I have noted that while the military would be absent from this scenario the NG and local police as well as any other government agency a tyrannical government would suck into it. But also note that these agencies would also have the same internal conflict as the standing armed forces would. 

 @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS But read your own source:

"The Bill/Act as modified in 1981 refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The U.S. Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, primarily because the Coast Guard has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission."

As this states, the NG & CG are not subject to the PC law.

Thus, NG & CG CAN be used within the US to deal with insurrection.

 

 @OrcasThunder  @Rick4001CS What you say is true but what I'm referring to is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

 

 @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS "The military cannot do anything domestically"

You know, some people in Southern States though the same back in the 50's...

They were quite wrong in that assumption.

You may be thinking of the restriction against working in the US that applies to the CIA. And even they have been rumored to violate that...

 

Read the oath a soldier swears to when they enlist - and note especially the part that goes "foreign and domestic"...

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/oathofenlist.htm

 @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS Again, who - exactly - is calling for that? I am not, and I see little on the web that is even close to that.

 @OrcasThunder  @Rick4001CS "..and you "really " think that the US Army, with it's tanks and rockets and bunker busters would have a problem with a disorganized mob of gunmen?"

The military cannot do anything domestically. Also the military would have a giant sized internal conflict as most would not attack Americans as they know that would be an illegal order.

 @OrcasThunder  @Rick4001CS "so...if I said that having to register the sale or purchase of a vehicle was the opening door to confiscation,"

The only problem here is people aren't calling for the confiscation of cars but they are calling for confiscation of firearms. The problem with this idea is the cure is worse than the disease.

 @Rick4001CS "many of us feel that requiring registration ultimately leads to confiscation."

OK, about that...do you REALLY think that any government in the US is really capable of doing that? If so, why haven't they? Oh, it's "because they are afraid of all the armed citizens in this country!"...and you "really " think that the US Army, with it's tanks and rockets and bunker busters would have a problem with a disorganized mob of gunmen?

What's to stop the government from doing it now? Laws? The fact that we elect them? Maybe they don't really WANT to do that?

And, IF you really think that, why are you sitting by, waiting for the hammer to drop? Are you just another wussy bystander hoping that someone else will take the risk - and you can join later when the outcome looks promising?

Isn't expecting the worse a sure way to get it? How do you propose to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, if not by controlling who has them?

 @Rick4001CS "It all comes down to being forced to register."

"many of us feel that requiring registration ultimately leads to confiscation."

so...if I said that having to register the sale or purchase of a vehicle was the opening door to confiscation, wouldn't you call THAT just a bit "phobic"?

If you don't register the sale, how do you assure that it was not made to someone who shouldn't have one? Just depend on the seller's "judgement"? What if the buyer offers twice what it is worth?

 

 @Rick4001CS  @OrcasThunder "No, I am not wrong.  I speak from direct experience here.  I know people personally who are afraid of the thought of being anywhere near a firearm.  "

I'll up you one there. I know someone who is so afraid of them that she becomes apoplectic at even the idea of a firearm near her. Another is so fearful I think she's going to lose her bowel control at any minute if the subject comes up. I wonder how many people out there are like this and don't realize that they visit friends with firearms, pass people on the streets probably every day that have them and yet no problem. These people are scary. If they are so unstable at even the thought of an inanimate object then I don't want to be anywhere near them since how can I trust how they are going to react to some other "scary" thing. 

 @Rick4001CS "These people are phobic."

The same can be said of many who see any move to control who gets access to a gun as "Government confiscation"...

You speak of the "media" controlling our thoughts, did you need a permit to post on this forum?

 @DontTreadonMe  @Rick4001CS "See now that makes a lot of sense and should be done."

So what would you want in an effective sensible system?

 @OrcasThunder  @DontTreadonMe  @Rick4001CS Finestinks "assault weapons ban" would be a starting place. Its almost all gun grab and no effort to stop criminals from having firearms, unless you consider taking away everything as being legit.

 @DontTreadonMe  @Rick4001CS "However, everything I have read in both main stream and independent news shows that the legislation the government is currently working on is quite different."

Can you point to some examples?

 @SeattleJoe  @aintno1special  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "The point is overall there is a small % of FFLs selling while knowingly selling to whom they can reasonably suspect should not be allowed to buy."

Fine - and what IS that percentage?

And do you expect the percentage to be the same in PRIVATE sales?

@OrcasThunder@SeattleJoe@aintno1special@Rick4001CS@snoopy84 "

According to the ATF, in June of 2012 there were 65,636 FFLs in the US...see

http://www.atf.gov/about/foia/ffl-list.html for more.

I'd call that a significant number."

Frankly I don't care if there is 6 million. What I care about, and posted about was the number of FFLs engaged in the activity of knowingly selling firearms to criminals. I also said that it is illegal and they should be prosecuted. The point is overall there is a small % of FFLs selling while knowingly selling to whom they can reasonably suspect should not be allowed to buy. 

So again, I discussed one very specific point, that is all.

 @aintno1special  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "however there are those, again case and point the FFLs (and straw purchasers) you have used over and over in your posts that will do whatever to make a quick buck. I believe there is not a private side to the government background check for this very reason."

OK, so are you saying that the private side of sellers don't sell to the wrong people in the same percent range as the FFL dealers? Would the percentage be higher, or lower?

================

"Without a background on who is submitting the paperwork can you trust what is being submitted?"

And you don't see that as a reason to be more cautious about allowing sales of guns by individuals? If you leave a hole in the law, with a big sign saying "No controls here! All we can trust to is hope that you won't sell to someone who you don't know is safe..." - doesn't that just attract bad people?

Isn't that simply avoiding the answer because it's too difficult? Would you apply the same reasoning to credit card fraud because it is hard to catch all of the bad guys who are doing it?

 @aintno1special  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 So you don't think having the private seller do the check would be too much work for them?

Good.

 @OrcasThunder  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 Well from what I see your comment regarding "too much work" was intertwined with in the post to SeattleJoe, not me.

 @OrcasThunder  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 I am rapidly discovering that you are a master at manipulating what is said to assist your point. Yes my words...but no not my context.

 

The guys that are already obeying the laws will do so ethically, however there are those, again case and point the FFLs (and straw purchasers) you have used over and over in your posts that will do whatever to make a quick buck. I believe there is not a private side to the government background check for this very reason. Without a background on who is submitting the paperwork can you trust what is being submitted? Furthermore adding several million requests will overwhelm the current system requiring a hefty increase in hiring and training qualified personnel.(the increased cost) I own several business and have been blessed with success...it is why I think a little differently than most...as our government currently sits financially it would be unable to absorb the increased costs...and I can't even imagine the probable corruption that may occur if these background checks were to go to a private vendor.

 @aintno1special  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "when I have done either a face to face sale or purchase we have shown ID and a CPL."

Great, at least you go that far. But how do you know that they have been recently been added to the list - say due to a court order to stay away from the spouse during a divorce, or even just recently was convicted of a crime? The paper ID/CPL don't show that. And do you say you would never sell to someone who had no CPL - because they don't need one? They are simply a collector, never carry on their person?

And are ALL the private sellers as ethical as you are? Don't the non-ethical ones shine a bad light on you?

========================

"Currently there is no "private" government background check available, and to create such a thing would be very costly"

Why? All you need to do is have access to the same agency the dealer/gun show uses. All that takes is for the agency to set up the website or fax line to make the application. Gun shows do this, right? If they can do it, how much harder would it be to extend the access to everyone?

As to how ethical the seller submitting the form is, haven't you said that the vast majority of gun owners/sellers are honest ethical people? If they aren't, all the more reason to conduct checks - maybe even on the seller.

You can't have "the vast majority of gun owners a good honest people", and then say "Well, there are a lot of people who wouldn't follow the law because it's too much work"...either they follow the law, or they are criminals who don't. And don't you want to keep criminals from owning guns?

 

 @OrcasThunder  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 I do not judge a book by it's cover...if you have read my previous posts, you would have seen that when I have done either a face to face sale or purchase we have shown ID and a CPL...a sign that at least at some point in the last few years we have had a background check. Currently there is no "private" government background check available, and to create such a thing would be very costly (not saying not worth the expense...just expensive) and who's to say the person submitting the background check is ethical....or the person providing the information is in fact who they claim to be.

 

Again my point being a large majority of us private sellers/buyers are doing what is now available to prevent an illegal transaction...adding a requirement to this will not by any means reduce the incidence rate by the 27.7% you note in your previous posts simply because most of these guns were transferred illegally for a higher profit...I have a FFL and have sold maybe 10 guns since I was issued it and all to people I know personally. I originally applied for my FFL to purchase at a discounted rate and to get some guns I could not otherwise obtain without the credentials. I have several guns (investments) that I have never shot nor do I ever plan on shooting that without the paperwork and permits I never could own. I know several guys that have done the same...the FFL in question are simply the minority and IMO would have sold the weapons illegally regardless.

 

...and finally no I would never dream of denying anyone a Constitutional right, it would be purely a voluntary release by those wishing to move...if we already have "gun free" zones, why not states...and really see what happens.

 @SeattleJoe  @aintno1special  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "I was talking about the number of FFL dealers engaged in the activity."

And how many are there in the US? What number would be a "significant" number of them?

According to the ATF, in June of 2012 there were 65,636 FFLs in the US...see

http://www.atf.gov/about/foia/ffl-list.html for more.

I'd call that a significant number.

If you take 27% of the 120K gun crimes you have over 32,000 of the committed with guns from the FFL's.

I'd call that a significant number.

And you can either say that only half of the FFL's sold one gun illegally, or that only a few conducted large numbers of illegal sales...it doesn't matter. The fact is, 32 thousand crimes took place using guns from licensed dealers.

I'd call that a significant number.

And let's look at it from the other direction - if FFL's account for only 27% of the crimes, where are the other 73% of the guns coming from?

Logic says: either from private sales or theft. Theft can be reduced by proper storage of the gun in a locked safe, preferably secured like you should with a cash safe so that it can't be easily lifted by thief.'Which leaves private sales - without the checks to keep the 73% of guns from falling into the wrong hands.

I'd call that a significant number.

 

"I have not addressed the issue of how many gun crimes whatsoever."

But isn't the number of gun crimes at the heart of the issue? If not, why do you and other gun proponents stress the need for citizens to arm themselves "to stop the bad guys with guns"? If there are no large numbers of crimes involving guns, why is it so urgent to arm all the people?

================

"As for the too much work stuff, I think you are mixing my posts with aintno1special's posts."

Actually, it is you who is "mixing" the response...I wasn't even responding to you. That comment was directed at aintno1special', in a post that was responding to HIS comments apparently defending your comments.

 @OrcasThunder  @aintno1special  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "And now I sit back waiting for the backwalking denials of what you just posted..."

My posts are above for everyone to see. No denials needed. I even reposted what I posted before for everyone to see again. I fully acknowledge everything I said and deny all your twisted words you tried to put in my mouth. 

 @OrcasThunder  @aintno1special  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "Let me get this straight...you actually consider 120 THOUSAND gun crimes a "SMALL NUMBER"?"

Since you seem to have a significant reading comprehension problem let me again spell it out. I was talking about the number of FFL dealers engaged in the activity. Again you are trying to put words in my mouth. I have not addressed the issue of how many gun crimes whatsoever. You can keep trying to say I said this or that but everything I wrote is up above for everyone to see.

As for the too much work stuff, I think you are mixing my posts with aintno1special's posts. 

Then you wing off into who knows where. I think you need some sleep. Your posts are quickly losing coherency.

 @SeattleJoe  @aintno1special  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 And now I sit back waiting for the backwalking denials of what you just posted...

 @SeattleJoe  @aintno1special  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "This is true but the key to remember is that it was a small number that were doing this."

Let me get this straight...you actually consider 120 THOUSAND gun crimes a "SMALL NUMBER"?

If that's the case, why are you people making record purchases of guns?

 

And now you say the "real" reason you don't want the checks is because it is "too much work"?

 

So...it really has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment at all, does it? You simply don't want to bother with filling out a form...

 

Finally some honesty. Rare, but refreshing.

 @aintno1special  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "but no one is trying to take our Precious?"

Yes, you joke about it. But you also show the sometimes irrational tendency of some gun owners to anthropomorphize their firearms.

 @aintno1special  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "create 25 gun free states"

You would actually deny the people in half of the nation their 2nd amendment rights?

 @OrcasThunder  @aintno1special  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 Orcas, you say I mislead or minimized things. OK, lets review what I said by posting it again:

"Orcas said: "According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. T"

I said:   This is true but the key to remember is that it was a small number that were doing this. The ATF is extremely picky about the paperwork etc. Its become very hard to do that now. Back in 1994 it was a lot easier. Today its not impossible for sure but its a lot easier to get caught. My conversation with ATF agents showed them to be ready to nail you for the slightest infraction and my friend who worked in a gun store confirmed it. They have really tightened the screws on the dealers (with the exception of F&F type things of course). "

 

So, if you read it again, what I addressed was not what you said but instead the number of FFL dealers who are doing this and what has happened as a result. I made no attempt to minimize anything I simply pointed out what was happening with FFL dealers. So you did put words in my mouth because I didn't do anything close to what you claim.

 @aintno1special  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "There are no hard fast numbers, but I would say the majority of the reasonable and rational (and I must add ethical) gun owners do their best to assure that when the sell a gun that they are not selling it to a criminal. By adding the government background check will not change it, no more than making breaking the law illegal."

I would agree with the first part of that statement - about the ethical gun owners doing their best. But how do you as a gun seller determine if the stranger standing in front of you is also ethical, not a criminal, not mentally competent to own a weapon? By looking at him/her? What does a criminal look like? Is there a specific style of clothing they wear? Is there some kind of mark burned onto their forehead when they are convicted of a crime? Are you a trained LEO or mental health professional?

I've known people who were personable, easy to like, normal looking dudes who turned out to be con-men willing to steal your granny's casket if there was money in it...I've also known guys who wear hoodies, are hard-bitten and very gruff in manner, and I would trust my life, my children, my dog in their care. 

Someone who is a criminal trying to buy something the law says they can't are not going to dress and act like they are shiftless criminal crazy terrorists...they are going to dress like you do, they will look you in the eye and talk about their charity work at church.

You - as a normal individual - simply cannot fairly judge the person you are talking to - and why should you have to? The checks give YOU assurance that they are probably what they say the are, and they also give you the tool to refuse to the guy who ain't what he seems to be.

And if the gun owner does disregard the check and sells the gun anyway, do you really WANT them to be allowed to own a gun? Not only are they criminals for breaking the law, they also cast a bad reflection on you, as a gun owner. For that reason alone you should welcome the check. If the check goes through and they pass, that releases you of any taint from any crime they might commit using the gun.

 @aintno1special  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "you point fingers at people saying they are using "creative editing" yet on 2 of your last post you have put words into the mouths of the people you were posting to."

 

In my earlier post to SeattleJoe I included this quote:

"According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity.""

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

This clearly states that 27.7% of the guns used in over 120 thousand crimes came from sources that do not run background checks.

 

In his response, SeattleJoe clipped that quote to: "According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. T", and then proceeded to minimize the meaning of the word "significant" to assert that the FFL sales were not that many and did not matter.

I find that to be AT LEAST creative editing, and closer to outright misreading and distorting what the report said.

The facts are that checks on the 50% or more legal gun sales DO keep the wrong people from buying guns. And there is no rational way to assume that extending them to the other 50% or so of sales - mostly private and internet - would not have a similar result. Actually, the only wildcard in that is if you assume that a significant number of private sellers would simply ignore the law and not run the checks - but then THEY would be committing a crime, and would be criminals themselves, so they could not legally own guns anyway...right?

Do you really want to assert that a substantial number of currently law abiding gun owners would willingly become criminals, just to make a sale?

I have far more faith in the character of the average gun owner than that.

 @OrcasThunder  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "So enjoy your guns while you have them..."...but no one is trying to take our Precious?!?

 @OrcasThunder  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 If I thought your post were being intentionally irrational I would find it humorous. But sadly you point fingers at people saying they are using "creative editing" yet on 2 of your last post you have put words into the mouths of the people you were posting to. I did not saying that adding background checks to private sales would do nothing. I said that in the examples that you gave the adding of background checks would not have done anything. Case 1: Straw purchase, already illegal...and do you honestly think that because now the law says that the straw buyer MUST require a background check before "selling" the guns to the real buyer that this "sale" will not take place? If so then why the straw purchase to begin with? Case 2: crooked FFLs, do I need to retype that?..what were you saying about circular logic?

 

There are no hard fast numbers, but I would say the majority of the reasonable and rational (and I must add ethical) gun owners do their best to assure that when the sell a gun that they are not selling it to a criminal. By adding the government background check will not change it, no more than making breaking the law illegal.

 

My new plan (as I read these threads and see how far apart the sides are)..we create 25 gun free states and those that wish to live there can without fear of guns, crime, lawlessness, murders...etc...and 25 states that maintain our right to bear arms and live in the crazy felonious wild west atmosphere that will surely ensue! Mind you the 25 states that have guns will have to be on the coasts and borders as a means of protection.

 @OrcasThunder  @aintno1special  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "Some creative editing on your part - you quote the first part, that uses the word "significant" to describe the number of illegal guns sold by FFL's, and yet claim that means it is an insignificant number.."

I don't know if you are aiming that at me but I didn't say any of that...

 @OrcasThunder  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 You said where are the people who are wanting to ban guns so I looked and found so many calls for it from newspapers, politicians etc that it was clear it wasn't just that google will have thousands of hits for anything it was instead clear that there are plenty of people calling for bans. You asked, and while I didn't feel like posting links if you seriously look at the google results you will see that there are plenty of people looking to ban guns. Its not something made up it is real.

"Your own circular logic negates your point." Um no. This erroneously assumes that the people buying privately are all criminals.

 

 

 @SeattleJoe  @aintno1special  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 Some creative editing on your part - you quote the first part, that uses the word "significant" to describe the number of illegal guns sold by FFL's, and yet claim that means it is an insignificant number...and THEN you leave out that portion of the quote that states ""of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale."

I don't see how you can call 120 THOUSAND crimes committed using guns sold by these FFL's "insignificant"! Not only that, but these FFL's are stated as being the source of over one quarter of the guns used in these crimes. To ignore that fact borders on the blindly opposed to ANY change, and an inability to even look rationally at the facts and see a fully demonstrated effect from increasing the ability to prevent guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people. You are simply arguing to argue - and figure that when I stop you will be the "winner".

Well fine, you "win"...but when the crimes increase because there are no reasonable measures to control who gets the guns, it will be on your head when the people who want to simply remove all guns start being listened to...

Don't blame me, I have tried to use reason and rational thought to reach a consensus, but your inability to think outside the small barrel makes that a waste of time. So enjoy your guns while you have them - but don't expect me to cry when the hammer comes down hard on your petty little world.

 @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 

You are actually using Google itself to show "proof"? Sure, you can find any limited range of hits that show whatever bias you ask for - I could ask for the "gun owners who are rabid survivalists" (About 299,000 results), but that wouldn't represent that vast majority of gun owners...would it? Stop looking for the extreme and look at the middle - checks DO stop bad people. Not all, but most. They force them to either forget about getting one, or commit a crime that can put them in jail to get one.

=======================

"but criminals operate in a market that you can't realistically change the access etc."

Criminals also steal cars - would you favor removing all ignition locks to make it easier?

Your argument makes no sense - sure, some people will still get guns...but many won't because they won't want to violate the law, under the current system they aren't because they are not failing the check. Add the check and a lot will not want to risk the crime.

=======================

"Since its basically a given that the criminals aren't going to go where there are background checks this has no affect"

Your own circular logic negates your point. You say that those people who now buy privately because there are no checks won't go where they might be checked, and if private sales are included, those people won't go to private sales...which is the desired effect.

 @OrcasThunder  @aintno1special  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. T"

This is true but the key to remember is that it was a small number that were doing this. The ATF is extremely picky about the paperwork etc. Its become very hard to do that now. Back in 1994 it was a lot easier. Today its not impossible for sure but its a lot easier to get caught. My conversation with ATF agents showed them to be ready to nail you for the slightest infraction and my friend who worked in a gun store confirmed it. They have really tightened the screws on the dealers (with the exception of F&F type things of course). 

@OrcasThunder@Rick4001CS@snoopy84

 

"but I know of no one personally, or anyone in the news, who starts with confiscation as their major talking point."

Well I don't doubt this to be your experience but its not mine and many others. I was going to post some links but realized it was just too much to do. Google on "All guns should be banned" and you'll get the idea. The ban all guns idea is everywhere. Even the president, through the backdoor arms treaty is effectively working that direction if not more.  

 

"It is also a fact that the vast majority of crimes that involve guns are committed by criminals who use guns they should not have - and got them either through theft or from someone who is selling stolen guns. There are very few other ways to obtain a gun that is stolen."

If this is the case then why bother with background checks for private sales. Certainly if this is true then checks on private sales would mean nothing since the type of transactions you mention would be done by people that certainly would not perform the check.

 

"if you remove the ability to get a stolen gun, or at least make it harder to get one, there would be fewer crimes involving stolen guns."

I'm all for keeping guns from being stolen etc but I just don't see a practical means to do this.  You mention "Fairly simple, you remove the easy access, and you add legal steps to selling one to make it harder for the wrong people to buy them. " but criminals operate in a market that you can't realistically change the access etc. 

 

"Secure storage when the gun is not with the owner would help in the first case,"  

How would this work? Would the police go through peoples homes regularly to ensure they are storing their firearms "securely"? 

 

"a reliable background check of EVERY purchaser would reduce the number of sales to individuals who should not have them."

Since its basically a given that the criminals aren't going to go where there are background checks this has no affect. Thats the problem when you have an underground market, you can't enact or enforce anything of this nature. Sure you will stop a few people but very few.

 

"Would it eliminate ALL such happenings? No, it would not. But there is no valid argument that it would not reduce them substantially if properly applied."

I wish it would, I really do but I don't see that happening. Thats why I'm against this type of action and want solid realistic solutions and frankly while we can identify what really doesn't work but so far I don't see many/any options that will (from either side of the isle).

 

 @aintno1special  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "So I am being obtuse because I am pointing out the "flaws" in your logic?"

No. You are being obtuse because you can't admit to the flaws in your "logic".

You stated that adding background checks to private sales would "do nothing"...and yet the existing system DOES do something - keep known criminals from "legally" buying guns through a dealer - so why shouldn't it have the same effect if applied to private and internet sales? If you have a law that prevents bartenders from giving a drink to an obviously drunk who is planning to drive home, and that keeps drunks from getting more drinks from the bar, why wouldn't it be logical to apply the same restrictions - AND legal liabilities - in the case of a homeowner serving drinks at a private party, with the same effect - keeping drunks from getting another drink? There IS such a law in WA, and it is proven to work to reduce the number of dangerously drunken drivers on the roads. The law works, fewer people are being served when obviously drunk, and that saves lives and property - and people who violate this law stand to pay a penalty for doing so.

Is it perfect? No. But it still has a measurable impact on the number of DUI cases.

The same principle works with the law requiring background checks for dealer sales - people who are not allowed to have guns don't get to buy from responsible dealers. Yes, the can then go to a private sale and there is no check...that is the flaw in the system because it has a hole big enough to fly a 747 through it. All we want is to close that hole and stop these people from buying from a responsible private individual who at this time HAS no current way to know if the dapper looking person wanting his gun is not the next mall shooter - all he has to go on is his "intuition"...and any of us could be fooled by some bad person pretending to be a saint. Do you ask if the person has a record? And if he lies and says "No, of course not!"...how can you tell?

Keep in mind that no one of us responsible people WANT to find out they sold a gun to the next loony who walks into the church and kills 12 people...wouldn't it be a NICE thing to be able to check the person out, see that they are on the list, and refuse to sell the gun to them...and be able to show them why? Isn't that peace of mind worth a fast check on the web, that the buyer pays for? The good person gets the gun, the bad guy doesn't, and you can sleep easier knowing you may have saved some lives.

I would really think that a reasonable and rational gun owner would WANT this kind of system in place, to avoid the risk of selling the gun to a crazy criminal. I would HOPE that owner would feel much better about keeping a gun out of the hands of a bad person. After all, when bad people do bad things with guns, it is the good gun owner who takes the heat for a system that has so many loopholes..

 @OrcasThunder  @aintno1special  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 So I am being obtuse because I am pointing out the "flaws" in your logic?...you say that adding background checks is a change, but the examples you give are where background checks are in fact given, yet circumvented.

 

I fail to follow your logic in your posts...I have asked where is the proof that legal private sales have resulted in illegal activity...you have shown me purposeful "legal" purchases for illegal intent (which this law would have little effect on, like the previous "assault weapon" ban did...but you have done little else.

 @aintno1special  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "My point is the "changes" some are promoting are not really changes"

Do you understand that adding the background check to private sales is actually A REAL CHANGE? A CHANGE that WILL actually DO what the current checks on dealer do now?

How is that so hard for you to understand?

 

Or are you simply being intentionally obtuse, just because you can?

 

 

 

 @OrcasThunder  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 So by making something that is already illegal (straw purchases)more illegal it is going to do what? You are making my point for me without realizing it. My point is the "changes" some are promoting are not really changes...By making it more expensive and more difficult for a law abiding citizen to purchase a gun does little to remove them from a criminals hands.

 

I wonder if the ATF report included the "fast and furious" guns?

 @aintno1special  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "any evidence that the procurement of a weapon from a legal private sale results in criminal activities"

Really?

And, since the sales are not recorded, how can you say that some don't result in crimes?

I can give you one such occurrence right off the recent news - the guy who set his house on fire and then shot 4 firefighters...he got his guns from a woman who purchased them for him - it's called a straw purchase, and it is illegal regardless of the kind of sale, dealer or private.

Here is more information of the sales to people who should not have them:

"

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

 

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.

 

According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity.""

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

 

Logic demands that there will be illegal sales in a system that makes no effort to control who gets to buy a gun.

Such sales, or theft, would seem to be the only way for a known criminal to get a gun.

Can you describe any other way they can get a gun without violating the law? That would be interesting to see, if only for the hearty chuckle...

 @OrcasThunder  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 I am in denial of nothing..not sure who "you guys" are..but as for me nope I am not.

 

I have never read, or seen any evidence that the procurement of a weapon from a legal private sale results in criminal activities, yet somehow you have extrapolated that two go hand in hand. Or are you convinced that now since it is illegal to make a private sale the illegal sale of guns will no longer take place?

 @aintno1special  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "but who would this actually deter and prevent from obtaining the weapons?"

You guys are really in denial, aren't you?

Would it be perfect system? No, it would not be. But it WOULD make it harder for those people to get them, and make it a crime for anyone to sell them the weapon - in the first instance by letting the honest seller know they should not sell them the gun, and have a valid reason to deny them. In the second case it would let the questionable seller know that if they do sell the gun they are committing a crime and risk punishment for that.

Will this stop some people, no. But it will stop those who are on the borderline - those who don't want to sell to someone they shouldn't, but might close their eyes for the money, as long as it isn't a crime. Make it a crime and those sellers will usually choose not to sell the gun.

Why do you expect a "perfect" system before you will take ANY measure of effort to close an obvious flaw in the system? That's like not wanting DUI enforcement "because some drunks will still get through undetected"...that makes no sense what so ever.

And if you don't think the current system is effective, feel free to design one that is better - including full screening of every buyer.

 @OrcasThunder  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 ...but who would this actually deter and prevent from obtaining the weapons? Certainly not the criminals...and no just because the feds issued a denial does not equate to the person being a criminal nor does it mean that they should not legally own a gun. There are  many reasons to be wrongfully denied  on a background check that require further paperwork and clarification.

 

I am not saying that nothing needs to be done, I am just questioning the efficacy of the current plans.

 @aintno1special  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "Making more laws will do very little to prevent a real criminal from obtaining what they want."

While it is true that criminals will find a way if they want, cutting the ability to get them from private sellers who actually CARE who they are selling the guns to would reduce the number of access points to guns. And having the checks provides another way to crack down on those sellers who do sell to those people who should not have guns.

And it's really irrelevant if the individual denied has a criminal record or is simply not qualified for other valid reasons, the fact is they should not have guns, and having them makes them in violation of the law - in other words makes them criminals.

The point of all of this is that if we are going to have a system to verify if someone should have a weapon, why only do this for a segment of the ways an individual can obtain a gun - and leave wide holes in the fence that people can drive a truck through? Would you accept such a system to provide security of your home? Would you lock the front door, while leaving the back door open, with a sign that puts "Easy Access Opening!" announcements on Craig's List?

 @OrcasThunder  @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 While this is a significant subject of guns passing without "background" checks, IMO it is less significant than it appears. I have purchased roughly half of my guns through private sales and have sold about as many. Every single time I have done so either the seller or myself have required an "look-see" at the ID and CPL.(at least you know at some point the person has had a background check) I have nothing to hide, but when you buy privately you have an opportunity to get the product you really want and/or save a lot of $$. (think of it as buying a used car..do you always go to the dealership or have you ever purchase a private vehicle.)

 

"...I would counter with a minimum of 3.5 Million guns kept out of the hands of a criminal is hardly insignificant."  Yes it would be significant, however I do not see that these people were denied due to being criminals.(incomplete paperwork..under age...many other reasons to be denied) Criminals are that because they do not or will not abide by the laws. Making more laws will do very little to prevent a real criminal from obtaining what they want.

 @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "Its not the pro-gun people causing the problem, its the anti-gun people"

And who are these "anti-gun" people you speak of?

Favoring more background checks is not an "anti-gun" position. It is simply wanting to have the same checks that work with dealer sales applied to private sales. Wanting to promote more gun safety and storage is not "anti-gun", it is simply asking for a greater responsibility from those people who do own guns.

How are these "anti-gun"? How can a responsible gun owner feel threatened by these efforts? Frankly, I expect that the vast majority of responsible gun owners already DO lock their guns away, and have no problem with the background check. In fact, I could suggest that the majority of those who oppose these efforts really should NOT own guns - either because they are not qualified under existing laws (due to records that would not pass the test), or are somewhat fearful of their own government - which often involves a touch of paranoia, a form of mental illness which SHOULD disqualify them from owning a gun.

 @SeattleJoe  @snoopy84  @Rick4001CS "where this year guns are restricted a little, next year a little more"

I don't see that as much more than an irrational fear based on assumptions fueled by those who would benefit from the sale of guns. it's irrational because there is no way it is going to happen in a nation where we elect a new government every 2 and 4 years, and the power of the gun lobby is not going away. It's just paranoid hysteria that makes far too many normally rational people run for the bunker.

It simply is not going to happen!

 @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "The problem here is this won't do much."

Why not? If properly designed and administered, there is no reason it would not be of substantial benefit. And even a poor system like we have DOES work to keep many guns out of the hands of those who should not have them.

For example, for the 1984 to 2009 time span, there were some 107 Million applications, with a denial rate of 1.8% - almost 2 million people denied the ability to legally purchase a gun.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/bcft/2009/tables/bcft09st01.pdf

That's not an insignificant number of potentially bad people having a gun - and that's just the sales that required the background check.

As to private sales - with no check or even a paper trail - that is estimated to be about 40% of all gun transactions in the US...http://www.nyc.gov/html/cjc/downloads/pdf/nyc_pointclickfire.pdf - applying the same percentages of sales and denials to that gives us around 71 Million sales and perhaps 1.5 Millions that would be denied...which makes 178+ Million potential sales with 3.5 Millions that should not have been sold. And in actual fact, the number of denials for private sales would be much higher if the checks were done on those. And the internet makes it even easier to sell "privately" & avoid the checks. I just found 17 pages full of local (WA State) listed ads for "private" sales...and a scan of several showed nothing about any check of any kind - for cash you don't even need ID.

So...to say extending the checks to ALL sales would do little, I would counter with a minimum of 3.5 Million guns kept out of the hands of a criminal is hardly insignificant.

Remember, the people who buy and have a check are those who are willing to be checked, and have nothing to hide. The others go to the unchecked private sales...and what are THEY hiding?

 @SeattleJoe  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 

"if it is influenced too far one way or the other then it could be bad."

Absolutely a concern. And I agree that there are many people with mental health problems that are fully capable of responsibly owning a gun - just as there are a number of people I've know who are gun owners that perhaps should not possess a weapon - of any kind.

All of this can be discussed in a rational manner, fair and reasonable conclusions can be reached, but that takes an open mind of all sides of the issue. And very few people - on either side - seem to be able to do that in this country.

But the ones who are gun owners seem to start with "You can't take my guns away!" as their primary focus - but I know of no one personally, or anyone in the news, who starts with confiscation as their major talking point. MOST are of the middle ground in BOTH camps, and simply want to apply some rational controls of who can own a gun, and how do we keep them out of the hands of the wrong people.

The fact is, there is no possibility of removing all the firearms from private owners in this country.

It is also a fact that the vast majority of crimes that involve guns are committed by criminals who use guns they should not have - and got them either through theft or from someone who is selling stolen guns. There are very few other ways to obtain a gun that is stolen.

So...it would seem to be the logical conclusion that if you remove the ability to get a stolen gun, or at least make it harder to get one, there would be fewer crimes involving stolen guns. Add in a stiffer penalty for using one and that should drop the numbers even more.

And how do you prevent people from stealing guns? Fairly simple, you remove the easy access, and you add legal steps to selling one to make it harder for the wrong people to buy them. Secure storage when the gun is not with the owner would help in the first case, and a reliable background check of EVERY purchaser would reduce the number of sales to individuals who should not have them.

Would it eliminate ALL such happenings? No, it would not. But there is no valid argument that it would not reduce them substantially if properly applied.

It SHOULD be a no brainer. Make it harder fir the bad guys to get guns, fewer bad guys would have guns.

 @snoopy84  @Rick4001CS "You and others claim the government will take away the 2nd amendment."

I don't think what people are concerned with is an outright "take away" of the second amendment. I think what people are concerned with is a slippery slope encroachment of the 2nd amendment where this year guns are restricted a little, next year a little more and before you know it the only way you can posses a firearm is if you are a bodyguard for a politician or movie star. The 2nd amendment is still completely in place but no one can own a gun. That is the key problem. 

 @OrcasThunder  @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 

1. help keep the guns out of the hands of people that you don't think have the right to own them?  

If you can absolutely guarantee that those laws aren't used to keep good people from having them I"m all for it. The problem comes with "that you don't think have the right to own them". Who defines this? The brady bunch or the NRA? If it can be reasonably defined then no problem. But, if it is influenced too far one way or the other then it could be bad. Also, if the law is defined as for instance "anyone who is declared mentally ill" cannot own a firearm. Ok, now some anti-gun politician pushes through a low that anyone who, whatever, listens to Glenn Beck, is considered mentally ill. Now millions of people are unable to own a firearm for no reason. If whatever laws that are in place are not done right then they can be abused. Since they have not been able to find a good way to prevent this they have instead had limited or no laws.

 

How about requiring a background check for EVERY purchase of a gun?

The problem here is this won't do much. It can prevent a few criminals from owning a firearm but realistically very few. So its not fixing a problem its just a feel good idea that wont help. I for one am looking for answers not feel good laws.

 

How about supporting rational laws that work to insure that the legal guns are secured and safe from the hands of those who you agree should not have them?

The word you are looking for is ensure. I'm all for laws for "secure and safe". To go even further, I'll even allow for a government handout plan. How about everyone with firearms can receive a rebate on safes etc to encourage people to buy gun safes, locks, whatever.  If this is as big a problem as people think why not call on the government to pay people to buy a safe? Monetarily it would save money in reduced crimes, fewer investigations, etc. Its a win win. But no, you see the anti-gunners would never allow something logical like this. These same people have no problems with a gun buy back where people are paid money to bring in junk that doesn't even work but hey, help them store them safely, nope can't have that.

 

Its not the pro-gun people causing the problem, its the anti-gun people. We could have done something about this a long time ago but the pro-gun people have learned that for every inch they give the anti-gun people try to take a mile. Now the pro-gun people won't give that inch for any reason because the anti-gun people are complete slimeballs. If you really want legislation you call equally on the anti-gun people to be reasonable.

 

 

 @snoopy84  @Rick4001CS A government in this country may not have made people turn guns in but they have came and taken firearms, illegally, and without justification from people. Doesn't that pretty much come to the same thing, or worse?

@Rick4001CS @snoopy84 "You want  proof of tyranny of government?  Attempting to disarm the people  through legislative action, there is your proof of tyranny.  I will not  be disarmed, not willingly, not voluntarily."

 

This is simply not happening and will never happen! Ban on assualt weapons and oversize clips may happen. Yet all the people that went out and the weapon in question will not have to turn them in if and a big IF a ban is put in place. Never has this government made someone turn in a weapon.

This where you and I really part company on guns. You and others claim the government will take away the 2nd amendment. Think about it, do you really think if that would happen, the people will just turn in thier guns, yea RIGHT!

 

Do you have any idea how many democrats are gun owners and actually carry an NRA card? You will never at any time have a congress willing to discuss over turning the 2nd.

 

So, I just wish you folks would put that to rest in your arguements.

 

 @Rick4001CS  @snoopy84 "there are no answers."

A touch of the defeatist in that statement. How about supporting rational laws that help keep the guns out of the hands of people that you don't think have the right to own them? How about requiring a background check for EVERY purchase of a gun? How about supporting rational laws that work to insure that the legal guns are secured and safe from the hands of those who you agree should not have them?

You talk of your "right", what of your responsibility when exercising that right? Should legal owners be able to just leave them laying on a table or stuffed in a drawer that any kid or casual browser can find? Should a lethal weapon be available without checking the background of the buyer, even in a private sale?

If you can't see any answers, you really aren't looking. If a child falls through the ice and you don't see a coil of rope handy, do you just give up and say "Sorry, kid, I just don't see an answer to your problem"? No - you look for a branch or piece of timber you can use, or even that flat board you can use to support yourself on the ice. Maybe you even call 911.

There are always answers. The risk of not finding them may result in others doing it for you, and you may not like the answers they come up with.