I think banning some rifles because of plastic parts and folding stocks is dumb, but we do need to have better gun control in general and we do need to look at why we have so much violent crime (gun and no gun)

1/5/2013 10:45:36 PM

^ what kind of "better gun control" do you support?

Personally, I'm a ccw permit holder and have no problem with that level of "control" for purchases. Yes, it does put some restraints on the 2nd but I don't see them as prohibitive other than perhaps cost for lower income owners. Beyond that, there are several things that I wouldn't mind seeing added (qualification for renewal for one, new background /mental health checks are already run at renewal). I'd also like to see a LOT more in the way of firearm education. There are a surprising number if "accidental" deaths each year that all boil down to negligence and ignorance. I'd really love to see more public schools with shooting teams as they provide a wealth of knowledge to a group that needs it badly in a controlled setting with proper supervision as well as maybe something in health class that demonstrates what to do when they find a firearm and take some of the wonder out of them.

What I am not in favor of (and vehemently oppose) is any kind of ban on "assault weapons" or restrictions on capacity or purchasing. There is no weapon, accessory, or magazine for sale today that is really any more dangerous than others. If someone is murdered today, the chances of more than 5-6 shots being fired is low. If someone is hell bent on mass murder, a restriction on mag capacity isn't going to make a difference (wasn't the VT shooter using 10-round mags?). PEOPLE and our society are the problem. That's where we need to focus efforts.

1/5/2013 11:09:46 PM

Quote :

"Well, you guys wanted to ban production of black rifles"

Hey look, you're putting words into my mouth.

[Edited on January 5, 2013 at 11:20 PM. Reason : being nice]

1/5/2013 11:15:04 PM

maybe not you specifically; you're right, I don't know your stance on that. Now I'm curious, though.


...but I think you'd be awfully hard pressed to argue that my comment addressed to "you guys" in the obviously collective sense isn't accurate.

1/5/2013 11:31:59 PM

Quote :

"but we do need to have better gun control in general "

I think the common ground was to be found in registration and permitting until those assholes in NY created an interactive map of all registered gun owners in the region.

1/5/2013 11:40:34 PM

^WRAL did it first back this summer with ccw permit holders. Even with a huge amount of backlash nationwide they never took it down (though they did edit some of the info).

1/5/2013 11:48:12 PM

http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry-correia-refutes-the-gun-controllers-once-and-for-all/

1/6/2013 7:54:57 AM

^Good post

1/6/2013 8:29:35 AM

^^^^ there has never been any common ground with registration. That's a supreme taboo. In fact, that's the only reason most people support the "gun show loophole" (actually has nothing to do with gun shows--it's just allowing private party sales without going through an FFL). The purpose of the gun show loophole is to prevent a de facto registry.

Now, closing the gun show loophole in the sense of requiring all sales to have a background check is probably common ground, if done in such a way as to alleviate privacy concerns.

Licensing might even be OK.


A registry, or even anything that smells like or could lead to a registry, will never fly. The backlash would be massive, and I think that many people would just refuse to register stuff that they already own.

[Edited on January 6, 2013 at 10:35 AM. Reason : ^^ I posted that and another couple of links a fee pages ago. Good article.]

1/6/2013 10:32:20 AM

We need registration, its the only way to track circulation

1/6/2013 12:37:00 PM

it's also the first step to confiscation

1/6/2013 12:38:42 PM

Yeah, registration is not gonna happen. I'm fairly confident that it won't pass, and almost 100% confident that it won't happen. People aren't going to submit to it, and how are you going to force them to?

1/6/2013 1:07:20 PM

over time the number of unregistered guns would fall, no one is saying it would be perfectly accurate from the start

right now we don't even have a good guess how many guns are out there, not even a reasonable +/- ballpark guess, we need to start tracking guns and you can only do that through registration

1/6/2013 1:44:42 PM

^ And so we come back to the same question that need to be asked of any gun control measure. What good will registration / tracking do? What problem does it solve?

1/6/2013 2:27:27 PM

lets have like apartheid. guns outside city limits like wild west and no guns inside new york style

1/6/2013 2:35:49 PM

the point of registering existing guns is more retarded then everything else.

Its just going to make a lot of people with guns criminals without doing anything wrong... it's not going to give the govt a registry of people who shoot people like morons seem to think it will.

1/6/2013 3:19:45 PM

No it won't

Register gun = not a criminal

Durr

1/6/2013 7:22:10 PM

http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry-correia-refutes-the-gun-controllers-once-and-for-all/

1/6/2013 7:59:36 PM

hey guys have you seen this awesome blog post, i'm surprised it hasn't been posted yet

http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry-correia-refutes-the-gun-controllers-once-and-for-all/

1/6/2013 8:30:44 PM

Maybe you could start at the beginning and try to refute some of his points? It's always easier to focus on a singular target (the blogger) and maybe it can take this dull thread in a new direction.

You know, since every 5 pages we end up exactly where we were initially-

1/6/2013 8:41:35 PM

We've talked about all of those things, which point do you think we still need to cover?

1/6/2013 8:48:22 PM

Half gun owners won't register for the reason that it does violate the 2nd amendment and I don't know if you know this but gun owners have more in common with the patriots that founded this country then the pansies that run it now. And it will make sure all unregistered guns are in the hands of criminals congrats you've not stopped any crime, you've just tracked and invaded the privacy of honest people.

[Edited on January 6, 2013 at 8:56 PM. Reason : Stupid law.]

1/6/2013 8:55:47 PM

We've covered armed teachers in Utah?

We've covered the fantasy world these lunatics live in that other shooters do not?

We've covered teachers being speedbumps instead of special forces?

We've covered existing firearms regulations that the general public have no idea about?

We've covered the fact that most people don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic? And the fact the former is still used in crimes and the latter is the single most common type of gun in the world?

Okay. Now I'm 1/4 of the way down the page. You can occupy yourself with these or you can continue scanning (or you can stick to your cop-out that says there's nothing new here).

Or far more likely...

You don't agree with it so you aren't going to read it in its entirety. Too lazy to scan, too lazy to refute. Back to armchair politicking and Comedy Central!

1/6/2013 8:59:25 PM

Gun registration does not violate the 2nd amendment, what case law are you basing that on?


[Edited on January 6, 2013 at 9:02 PM. Reason : ^yep, literally all of those things]

1/6/2013 9:01:38 PM

^What current problem does registering solve though?

1/6/2013 9:16:18 PM

not having a list of doors to knock on

[Edited on January 6, 2013 at 9:18 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2013 9:18:15 PM

Provides a life history for a weapon, ensures that stolen guns are reported and no stolen guns are sold as legal guns. Adds personal responsibility, have to store securely and can't just loan or give away without a record. Helps minimize people being able to buy guns who aren't allowed.

Only way to know that people who shouldn't have guns aren't buying them since its now tracked on both sides

Only way to get data to track weapons, analyze patterns. Only way to get data to track effectiveness.

1/6/2013 9:30:06 PM

Quote :

"Provides a life history for a weapon,"

A life history to the last legal owner. Excellent, surely that law to register the gun will keep the criminal bent on murder from getting his hands on a gun now.

Quote :

" ensures that stolen guns are reported"

Presumes that legal gun owners don't have an interest in getting their stolen property back. Further, even if the theft is ported, how does that prevent any crimes?

Quote :

" and no stolen guns are sold as legal guns."

Other than for the person who's gun was stolen, how is this a problem? If the gun is being sold as legal, then presumably the person buying the gun is allowed to have a gun, so what crime are we stopping? And how is this more effective than simply requiring FFLs to check the serial number of guns they buy with the police (which pawn shops are already required to do?)

Quote :

" Adds personal responsibility, have to store securely and can't just loan or give away without a record. "

This could be accomplished just as easily with legislation to that effect, and without the privacy eroding registration database.

Quote :

"Helps minimize people being able to buy guns who aren't allowed."

How so? How many people who aren't allowed to buy guns are getting their guns through a legal transaction?

Quote :

" Only way to know that people who shouldn't have guns aren't buying them since its now tracked on both sides"

Or they could continue to get the guns illegally, as they are doing right now.

Quote :

" Only way to get data to track weapons, analyze patterns. Only way to get data to track effectiveness. "

Why do we want to track the legal owners of weapons?

1/6/2013 10:00:01 PM

Liberal power grab and political brownie points of course.

Wouldn't miss an opportunity to gloat on MSNBC or NPR!

We gotta stick it to dem dumb rednecks fran, etc.

1/6/2013 10:28:35 PM

As time goes on, the number of unregistered guns will fall. It will be mor difficult to get an unregistered gun. Under this its harder for the criminal to get a gun because now both parties are accountable. It's not as much that stolen guns are unreported, although it still happens, it's when guns are "stolen". People who aren't allowed to have guns can still get them through private sales, but by having them all registered now there is a record of who bought the gun. When this is updated in the database it is double checked. There will always be illegal guns, this just reduces them and makes it harder for criminals. The owners are not the people who need to be tracked, the guns are.

[Edited on January 6, 2013 at 10:30 PM. Reason : It's not my fault if you are dumb, yowillyyo]

1/6/2013 10:30:06 PM

yor mor dum

1/6/2013 10:35:32 PM

Quote :

"As time goes on, the number of unregistered guns will fall."

To what end? A registered gun is a gun owned by someone legally allowed to own a gun. If I'm not allowed to own a gun, I'm not registering it either.

Quote :

" It will be mor difficult to get an unregistered gun. Under this its harder for the criminal to get a gun because now both parties are accountable."

How so? Remember that both parties are accountable now. It is illegal to transfer a gun, privately or otherwise to anyone not allowed to purchase a gun. Furthermore, it is illegal to transfer a gun across state lines without first going through an FFL. If someone is already willing to violate these laws when they transfer a gun, what makes you think registration is going to stop them?

Quote :

" It's not as much that stolen guns are unreported, although it still happens, it's when guns are "stolen". "

And how will guns being registered stop them from being "stolen"? Are you going to prosecute everyone who's gun is used in a crime, regardless of whether or not they committed the crime?

Quote :

" People who aren't allowed to have guns can still get them through private sales, but by having them all registered now there is a record of who bought the gun. "

No there isn't, because if they're not allowed to have the gun, they aren't going to register the gun in the first place, and selling it to them was already illegal.

Quote :

" When this is updated in the database it is double checked. There will always be illegal guns, this just reduces them and makes it harder for criminals. "

So who updates the database? The buyer? Again, if they aren't allowed to have a gun, why are they going to register it? The seller? If they're an FFL, why didn't the NICS check stop the sale. If its a private party, what good does it do you? The gun is already sold, unless you're going to require private parties to register before the sale, in which case why not just require them to run a NICS check in the first place.

Quote :

" The owners are not the people who need to be tracked, the guns are."

But the end result will be that the legal owners are the ones that are traced, because there are only two types on gun transfers. Legal, in which case by your own admission, you don't care, and illegal, which as the name implies a already illegal, and registration ion requirements won't slow it down.

1/6/2013 11:29:40 PM

Please respond in paragraph form, don't aaronburro this thread full of quote bombing. It gets annoying.

1/6/2013 11:33:00 PM

Quote :

"People who aren't allowed to have guns can still get them through private sales"

As mentioned, it's already illegal to sell (privately or otherwise) so anyone you believe is ineligible to buy a gun. Almost every gun that I've bought/sold privately has been to/from someone I knew well. You can't buy/sell on eBay (company policy and FFL requirement for xfer across state lines), or craigslist (site policy). Sites such as Gunbroker or GunsAmerica pretty much always require FFL shipment (state lines, as well as personal policy of every seller that I've ever seen). There is some miniscule fraction of private transactions sourced on local internet forums, or with ads pinned up at gun ranges, but these things are almost exclusively the realm of gun nut hobbyists, not criminals.

Now, supposedly 40% of transactions are private and undocumented, so that's a shitload and a legitimate concern, but the overwhelming majority is harmless. We're not talking about Nicholas Cage in Lord Of War, here.

Now, all of that said:

Quote :

"in which case why not just require them to run a NICS check in the first place."

Would be a good start. In the age of the internet, I don't see why the NICS database couldn't be made available for private sellers to check before a transaction.

To go one step further, the common beef with requiring FFL involvement for private sales isn't the $15-40 (typically $25-30) fee involved, or the minor hassle...it's that having a paper trail for every transaction would amount to de facto registration, and the gun-owners in America absolutely will not stand for that.

If we did it in such a way as to guarantee privacy, either by having shall-issue purchase licenses, or issuing something on the order of NC's pistol permit system (which doesn't record any information about any specific gun; the dots can never be connected), then maybe there could be some room for negotiation there. I'd still be uneasy about the potential slippery slope that it could open the door to, but with very firm safeguards in place, this could be a workable solution (it's a very good solution, in and of itself...gun owners just understandably don't trust the left not to try to take a mile if we give an inch).

1/7/2013 12:21:14 AM

Quote :

"I don't see why the NICS database couldn't be made available for private sellers to check before a transaction."

really? you don't see the massive privacy issues with that?

[Edited on January 7, 2013 at 12:28 AM. Reason : i mean, i guess a simple go or no-go wouldn't be a huge deal. that's all the FFLs get.]

1/7/2013 12:24:35 AM

yeah, of course, just go/no-go. maybe also require something like last 4 input from the buyer, and have the website use a virtual keyboard to prevent keylogging my unscrupulous sellers.

[Edited on January 7, 2013 at 12:39 AM. Reason : not sure what federal law is on SSN usage, even if it's just last 4. DoD has gone away from it.]

1/7/2013 12:38:23 AM

Just wondering, why would anyone register a gun they planned to illegally sell? Even if you were approached by someone who couldn't legally buy a gun, why sell them one you had already registered? Doesn't make sense. So how would registration help stop illegal sales?

Also, guns have serial numbers. Couldn't this be considered a form of registration? You should be able to trace at least the original sale in most cases I would think? I buy all my guns at gun shows, cash and carry, so I'm not familiar with buying from a licensed dealer, but they almost all had to go through one at some point. I'm no cop but if I were investigating a crime I'd be more concerned with who the shooter was than the owner.

Aside from that, I don't see how registration would prevent any crimes. I could see it possibly being useful in an investigation but that's after the fact. By then it's too late. And preventing crime is the only credible justification for registering guns...in my humble opinion that is.

1/7/2013 3:03:26 AM

The serial number would be used for registration, but no, it is not a form of registration at all.

The reason it makes it harder is because over time the number of unregistered guns will drop. Instead of being able to buy any legal weapon like now, they would only be able to buy an illegal unregistered weapon. Over time this would become more and more difficult. Also, most guns are legal until the moment they are used in a crime. By having data from registration, the information and trends can be analyzed to find predictive trends. This will allow the problem to be treated proactively as a social health issue, and not only retroactively.

1/7/2013 6:39:12 AM

Quote :

"Also, guns have serial numbers. Couldn't this be considered a form of registration? You should be able to trace at least the original sale in most cases I would think?"

That's correct, and that's the purpose of the " gun show loophole", which again, has nothing specifically to do with gun shows. It keeps the FFL process from amounting to registration.

Quote :

"The serial number would be used for registration, but no, it is not a form of registration at all. "

Uhhhhhmmm...

What?

[Edited on January 7, 2013 at 7:59 AM. Reason : ]

1/7/2013 7:52:19 AM

the problem is:

I already own this gun... i purchased it based off the laws at the time, had i have known i was going to be forced to register it, i may not have purchased it.

"grandfathering" stuff in is a bull shit term for "we're not going to change the terms of your original sale"

I'm sorry but I own X Y AND Z @ these terms... you shouldn't be able to go back and fuck that up.

1/7/2013 8:18:24 AM

You guys still taking about guns?

1/7/2013 8:30:18 AM

Let's all be very clear about a point:
If you don't like registration because you think it is a list for what doors to knock down to confiscate your guns, what you are saying is that without registration, should your gun become illegal, you would keep it illegally. That is what you are saying, that this would make it harder for you to be a criminal. If we are in a situation where guns are made illegal, law abiding citizens should want it to be as effective as possible.

It also doesn't follow that you criticize registration for being ineffective, then criticize it for being so effective they are going to knock down doors and take all of your guns.

Criticism also ignores that District of Columbia v. Heller upheld that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and found against blanket gun bans

Quote :

"Uhhhhhmmm... What?"

I don't understand why that's confusing. The serial number would be how the gun would be tracked in a database, it is not a database. I have an ID number at work, it doesn't mean anything without the database that its entered into.

Quote :

"How so? Remember that both parties are accountable now. "

They are not, and that is the problem. When you buy a gun, even a hand gun that requires a purchase permit, you just hand over your copy of the purchase permit (and for long guns you are not even handing over a purchase permit). That transaction is not entered or reviewed anywhere and is not linked to a specific gun(s), there is no accountability. If the gun is used in a crime, there is no way to find out where it came from if it has been sold privately, there is no history or record.

1/7/2013 9:09:17 AM

Quote :

"Instead of being able to buy any legal weapon like now, they would only be able to buy an illegal unregistered weapon. Over time this would become more and more difficult. "

Again, it's already illegal for both the seller and the buyer under current law. There are no people who are not allowed to own a gun, who are legally purchasing firearms (excepting I suppose the small handful that the NICS system for some reason doesn't catch, a la the VT shooter, and in that case, the registration system won't catch it either).

Quote :

"Also, most guns are legal until the moment they are used in a crime. By having data from registration, the information and trends can be analyzed to find predictive trends. This will allow the problem to be treated proactively as a social health issue, and not only retroactively."

Yes, all guns are legal until they're involved in a crime, usually the theft or illegal transfer of the gun, that tends to be the definition of a legal gun. And does this mean you do want to track the legal owners?

Quote :

"If the gun is used in a crime, there is no way to find out where it came from if it has been sold privately, there is no history or record."

If it's already been used in a crime, what good does it do you to know where the gun came from who the last legal owner of the gun was? You already have the gun, and either the owner committed the crime, or the gun was illegally transferred in which case you don't know who had it, and you're right back to where you are now.

[Edited on January 7, 2013 at 9:20 AM. Reason : sdfg]

1/7/2013 9:15:49 AM

Quote :

"There are no people who are not allowed to own a gun, who are legally purchasing firearms"

That's only true if you trust every private seller.

Walk me through how the private process for buying a long gun (or hell, even a hand gun) makes this true. A long gun, if they even do this, would be just checking age and residence. A private hand gun sale does require a purchase permit at least (well, in most states anyways), but since the gun is not tracked you have no way of knowing what the legal buyer does with it. Buy having it tracked, there is now accountability that the legal owner doesn't sell it illegally.

[Edited on January 7, 2013 at 9:21 AM. Reason : sell=sale before coffee]

1/7/2013 9:20:24 AM

^ No, it's true every single time. It is illegal under federal law to transfer or sell any gun, whether privately or otherwise to a person prohibited from owning a gun. By definition, if you are prohibited from owning a gun and you buy a gun from somewhere, you have engaged in an illegal transaction. And if the seller is going to sell the gun illegally, then they're not likely to be stopped by registration either. They'll just say the gun was "stolen" just like they do now.

[Edited on January 7, 2013 at 9:26 AM. Reason : asdf]

1/7/2013 9:24:01 AM

So you are against gun control because its ineffective, and your defense against control to add accountability and make it effective is the very same ineffective gun control? Doesn't make sense.

There is nothing to stop someone from illegally selling a legally purchased hand gun. There is also no way to stop someone from selling a long gun to someone who is not allowed to buy it, because as there isn't even a purchase permit requirement the seller has no way of even knowing if its a legal transaction. Registration helps you track this more effectively and adds accountability to the seller.

Quote :

"They'll just say the gun was "stolen" just like they do now."

And now with a registration database, we can track trends and will know when the gun was purchased by the seller and can better prosecute them. We will also be able to better predict these things and look for trends. Should that seller be arrested for another gun crime, because of the database the court could ask him to produce his registered guns and would at that point know they had been sold illegally.

[Edited on January 7, 2013 at 9:41 AM. Reason : .]

1/7/2013 9:39:23 AM

Yes, vastly incomplete data will give you terrific trends to analyze.

It seems you understand current laws, they appear to be enough, however they aren't enforced and that makes you angry.

Therefore your solution is far more stringent laws. What are you going to do when they aren't enforced either?

You should start stealing peoples' guns and destroying them yourself, or elect your own Hitler.

1/7/2013 10:33:01 AM

nope, you have not understood my point

[Edited on January 7, 2013 at 11:54 AM. Reason : let's see if you can figure out which part of your characterization is wrong]

1/7/2013 11:53:26 AM

While you're busy being obtuse I want to know if anyone has read what medications Adam Lanza was on?

So far I've only seen speculation, but I want to know specifically what drugs were in his system.

Seems this particular point is being a bit under-reported...

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/

Looks to me like pills show up at mass-shootings just as often as guns do.

1/7/2013 12:27:01 PM

So we need to include family members and household members in pre-purchase psychological screenings

[Edited on January 7, 2013 at 12:30 PM. Reason : nope, guess you can't figure it out]

1/7/2013 12:29:23 PM