Quote :

"i don't want the government to know what kind of gun i own, because if it becomes illegal i will refuse to turn it in and will own it illegally as a criminal. "

You're making a really faulty argument here. An action or behavior being illegal says nothing at all about the rightness or wrongness about that thing.

1/15/2014 4:24:33 PM

Quote :

"private sales don't require background checks, you are getting tripped up by a phrase. it doesn't matter where it happens. it does matter that its private party with no background checks. "

Speaking for NC and many other states... a PPP or CCH permit are required for any private handgun purchase. What do those permits entail? A background check.

1/15/2014 4:28:40 PM

yes, we already know that's true for some states for handguns. and since you are okay with it, lets go ahead and apply it to all gun purchases.

Quote :

"because as soon as some folks decide that any gun with a serial number ending in 5, or any other arbitrary cosmetic feature that my gun happens to exhibit, is too dangerous for me to own, it will be confiscated."

just making sure that you realized what your position is

however, i think that "i don't want this because it will make it more difficult for me to break a law if they ever passed a law i disagreed with," is a pretty poor argument against something.

but if it makes you happy, then we can take it of the form for private sales and ask people to keep records of their private sales

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 5:12 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2014 5:12:19 PM

Quote :

"ask people to keep records of their private sales"

nope

so, what do you really want? background checks or registration? what you want is what the anti-gun folks want, a registration through the backdoor of background checks.

real compromise would be exactly what i proposed: background checks without a serial number.

1/15/2014 5:18:11 PM

1/15/2014 5:23:13 PM

^^^and whenever the questions are asked or the debate started, it's always worded to sound like no gun show or private party sales require background checks. The reality is, is that many of these sales go through background checks.

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 5:24 PM. Reason : add another note]

1/15/2014 5:24:18 PM

every firearm i've purchased at a gun show went through NICS

1/15/2014 5:25:12 PM

here's a question for you

i've got an NC CHP. this means that when i buy a firearm from an FFL in NC, they are not required to call the sale in to NICS because i've already passed a very extensive background check. however, i'm still required to fill out the 4473.

so, if the 4473 isn't about registration, wtf is it?

1/15/2014 5:31:10 PM

WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT GUN SHOWS

Quote :

"nope so, what do you really want? background checks or registration? what you want is what the anti-gun folks want, a registration through the backdoor of background checks. real compromise would be exactly what i proposed: background checks without a serial number."

it's not registration, the government wouldn't see it unless as part of a criminal investigation. having the seller keep records holds sellers accountable. i really can't figure out why you have a problem with that.

Quote :

"so, if the 4473 isn't about registration, wtf is it?"

a record to hold the FFL accountable. its about keeping FFl's in line and following the laws, not you.

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 5:34 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2014 5:32:02 PM

how do you define registration? i guess it means something very different to me.

1/15/2014 5:37:05 PM

registration would be reporting that information to the government and them maintaining a database. currently they only maintain a database of illegal or suspected illegal guns. i'd be fine if you want additional requirements on when they can add something to it, and i already said that photocopying and scanning should count as seizure and not be allowed.

a private person keeping a record of who they sold their gun to is certainly, absolutely not a registration

1/15/2014 5:39:34 PM

Quote :

"http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png"

You realize though that over the past 10 years, you HAVE gotten your cake back. Gun laws over the past 10 years are generally far less restrictive than the previous 10 years.

And it's not a violation of gun rights to close reasonable loopholes in the existing laws. The background check loophole doesn't ban any guns or prevent a law abiding person from owning guns.

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 5:43 PM. Reason : ]

1/15/2014 5:42:44 PM

So where is the background check on sales bill? Cause we haven't even seen one.

^haha. part of that cake. part.

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 5:45 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2014 5:44:01 PM

^^^i think it is if they're required by law to maintain those records

to me, registration is anything that allows the govt to trace a firearm from manufacturer to its current owner. i do not want that under any circumstances. don't give me that "you don't have anything to worry about unless you break the law" bullshit.

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 5:44 PM. Reason : add another note]

1/15/2014 5:44:16 PM

^^^did you miss the part where the guy said that removing the 5 day waiting period and making it instant was a sacrifice for them? they re completely out of touch with reality.

^^are you implying that bills have never been drafted? because you would be wrong.

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 5:47 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2014 5:44:38 PM

Quote :

"The background check loophole doesn't ban any guns or prevent a law abiding person from owning guns."

which is why i support background checks as long as you remove the serial from the 4473

1/15/2014 5:45:57 PM

NICS was a compromise. Just sayin'

1/15/2014 5:46:35 PM

Quote :

"which is why i support background checks as long as you remove the serial from the 4473"

you need that information on the form to keep FFL's compliant

Quote :

"^^^i think it is if they're required by law to maintain those records"

okay, try this:

i just wrote the serial number to my gun on a piece of paper. tell me what the serial number of my gun is.

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 5:49 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2014 5:48:20 PM

another prime bargaining chip for the antis would be removing suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs from NFA. those restrictions make no sense.

don't tell me that i'm unwilling to compromise.

1/15/2014 5:49:19 PM

i'm fine with that, its arbitrary

so trade then, we let you shoot your guns without needing ear protection and we can get background checks for everyone?

1/15/2014 5:50:53 PM

Quote :

"tell me what the serial number of my gun is."

if i could threaten you with imprisonment, then i probably could.

Quote :

"so trade then, we let you shoot your guns without needing ear protection and we can get background checks for everyone?"

long as the serial is off the 4473. i'm not budging on it. it's registration and everyone knows it.

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 5:52 PM. Reason : avd]

1/15/2014 5:51:33 PM

why would you be able to threaten me with imprisonment? you would only ever be allowed to ask for it you had a warrant because the gun was used in a crime.

1/15/2014 5:52:18 PM

so what happens if you lost that record in a fire?

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 5:53 PM. Reason : hell, i lost all my guns in a tragic boating accident last week.]

1/15/2014 5:53:22 PM

the same thing that would happen if you lost any required record in a fire

1/15/2014 5:54:12 PM

which is?

1/15/2014 5:55:39 PM

Quote :

"long as the serial is off the 4473. i'm not budging on it. it's registration and everyone knows it. "

before you only said for private sales

you want it off for all sales? you have to require the FFL to keep records, otherwise there is no way to ensure they are making legal gun sales.


[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 5:57 PM. Reason : ^just google lost receipts/records IRS audit]

1/15/2014 5:55:50 PM

Quote :

"you want it off for all sales? you have to require the FFL to keep records, otherwise there is no way to ensure they are making legal gun sales"

yes, for all sales. i apologize if i wasn't clear about that from the start.

and i don't buy that we need a registration to keep FFLs from making sales without NICS. they can do it now if they really want. i'm sure ATF would love to perform stings the way ALE does for underage alcohol sales.

1/15/2014 6:02:28 PM

of course they can, because the NRA has already made sure that the ATF can't really audit FFLs worth a shit.

but regardless, none of these things are about catching every single case of illegal sales/purchases, they are only about reducing numbers. Requiring background checks for every purchase will reduce the number of illegal sales/purchases, requiring the seller to keep a record of that sale will reduce the number of straw sales/purchases. this trend will reduce the number of illegal guns in circulation.

and, and maybe most importantly, this is not a controversial idea. 85% of Americans want background checks for all sales.

(if i ever sell a gun to NeuseRvrRat I'm mailing a copy of the purchase agreement to the ATF)

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 6:06 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2014 6:05:29 PM

i do not purchase from individuals who write down my information. i will show them my license to prove age and residency and CHP for handguns. if they have some super memory and remember it, fine, but i'm not filling out a bill of sale.

1/15/2014 6:09:25 PM

Because you contact them secretly without ever giving them your name? They probably wrote down your name. I even have copies of drivers licenses for each person I've sold a handgun to along with a signed statement that they are legally allowed to purchase and own a handgun. I keep my bases covered, its a good loss-prevention practice.

1/15/2014 7:16:11 PM

i do what i am legally required to do when selling a firearm

1/15/2014 7:28:12 PM

that's understandable, if i was building my militia and planning an armed revolution to stop them from coming for my guns i wouldn't want anyone to have a record of me either

1/15/2014 7:37:56 PM

1/15/2014 7:42:13 PM

Quote :

"WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT GUN SHOWS "

What are we talking about because I asked what problem we're trying to solve and didn't get an answer.

Quote :

"it's not registration, the government wouldn't see it unless as part of a criminal investigation. having the seller keep records holds sellers accountable. i really can't figure out why you have a problem with that. "

It's fairly simple. The state decides that possession of firearms with more than 5 rounds capacity is a crime. Instant criminal investigation requiring the turn over of all records. Or alternatively, the government decides to legitimately investigate an FFL they suspect of engaging in illegal transactions and decide as long as they're there, they'll just take all the records and keep them. If you don't think that's a possibility, you have far more faith in your government than you should. Fast and Furious, the NSA revelations and many other events should demonstrate that a pesky thing like "the law" won't stop our government.

Quote :

"And it's not a violation of gun rights to close reasonable loopholes in the existing laws."

You do realize that those "loopholes" were the original compromise the gun rights folks fought for in the first place right? I mean if we're talking compromises here, we already did, that's why private party intra state sales are exempt from NICS checks. And that's why the gun rights folks are always fighting so hard to avoid giving any ground, because every time we've given ground, that patch of our rights we staked out and held onto become the next target.

Quote :

"The background check loophole doesn't ban any guns or prevent a law abiding person from owning guns."

And requiring photo id doesn't ban voting or prevent a law abiding person from voting either, but it's still a shitty law, a shitty idea and being fought as a violation of civil rights.

Quote :

"85% of Americans want background checks for all sales. "

Again, completely irrelevant to the discussion. What the majority wants is not always right or legal.

1/15/2014 9:16:48 PM

un-aaronburro your post please

1/15/2014 9:31:44 PM

They're individual points, spread across multiple posts being addressed individually. The format is the most effective way for conveying context to each point.

1/15/2014 9:37:09 PM

Quote :

"Again, completely irrelevant to the discussion. What the majority wants is not always right or legal."

what people want is usually a catalyst for change and new laws, and in this case the majority is growing and they are right. no one is saying that we should have background checks because people want them, people are saying that because we want background checks we should figure out comrpomises to make that happen and pass new laws requiring them. no one engaged your point before because it was it wasn't on the level of this conversation.

your other idea fragments can be combined into a single cohesive point since they are dealing with the same thing.

1/15/2014 10:03:01 PM

Why are the majority right? What problem is being solved by preventing private intra-state face to face transfers in states that don't require background checks? How many crimes are linked to these sales each year? If you ask the government (http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf) it might be as high as 9% if you generously assume that every sale listed under "other" was from a stranger who wasn't required to and didn't run a background check, and assumed the same for all the flea market and gun show sales. That by the way would be the same number for direct retail purchase for repeat offenders, you know the sort of purchases that are already required by law to go through a background check. Also of interest is the likelihood of an offender having a gun is not significantly different (according to that same study) whether they're a first time offender or a repeat offender. That seems to indicate that, as has been repeated before, criminals don't obey laws, and that includes "submitting for a background check before you buy your murder weapon"

The fact is, there is nothing to suggest that the tiny minority of face to face, intra-state sales are a problem, and certainly none of the recent headline shootings would have been prevented by such a thing. So again, what problem are we solving by requiring background checks?

1/15/2014 10:33:34 PM

Arm the homeless.

1/15/2014 10:52:54 PM

the majority are right because we have a major gun violence problem, and background checks are an easy non-controversial way to reduce the number of illegal guns be reducing illegal purchases and sales records to reduce straw purchases.

You are majorly misrepresenting that study. 9% is the number acquired through theft. Straw sales and illegal markets account for 28%* 40%(actually more than 40% if you realize that some of the friend/family category are straw purchases) in the very study that you are citing. So... thanks for helping to make my point?

since you are now a proponent of government reports i guess that you accept that straw purchases account for half (46%) of all trafficking investigations (http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps4006/020400report.pdf ).

We can also accept that about 1% of dealers accounts for about 57% of illegal guns (which is good, because it would take the ATF over 22 years to inspect every dealer). The scary "registration" form is how the ATF audits dealers and makes sure they don't have guns walking away.

Straw sales and illegal sales aren't the only source of illegal guns, and its certainly not the only source of gun crimes, but it is the least controversial item that everyone can agree about. In fact, there is almost nothing else that Americans have agreed about so strongly.

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 10:56 PM. Reason : It was 28% in the '91 study, 40% in your newer study]

1/15/2014 10:54:22 PM

My computer is broken so I'm on my phone for a few days , but did you ever respond to my assertion to that only being 85% favorable due to most people not understanding the privacy implications? If you explain that to them, I'm almost certain the % would not be 85%.

1/15/2014 11:15:24 PM

The NSA knew you all had guns like years ago

1/15/2014 11:18:01 PM

yes, the 85% represent a mandate to compromise and find a way to do it not necessarily a mandate to just do it in a vacuum independent of anything else. the 85% is evidence that obviously most people want background checks, so we should figure out how to make that happen.

then afterwards a few suggestions were offered as compromise, now that your phone is working i'll let you read the last page on your own

1/15/2014 11:19:14 PM

Quote :

"if not, then at what point are you okay with background checks for every purchase?"

At the point that you are OK with requiring a background check to visit a website, purchase a book, or make a phone call.

Quote :

"the majority are right because we have a major gun violence problem, and background checks are an easy non-controversial way to reduce the number of illegal guns be reducing illegal purchases and sales records to reduce straw purchases."

So, even though it won't actually address ANY of the major shootings recently, we should do it, because... yeah. You have this insane notion that less guns means less violence. Study after study has shown this not to be true. But, hey, lets blame an inanimate object for violence, because that makes a ton of sense.


So, if 85% of Americans wanted blacks to be second-class citizens, you'd say we should "compromise", right?

1/15/2014 11:19:59 PM

that its a majority is not why they are right, they are right on their merits, the fact that its an overwhelming majority just means that we should find a way to make it happen

this was already explained too

1/15/2014 11:25:02 PM

go somewhere without guns

1/15/2014 11:27:39 PM

do they have guns in Rock Hill, maybe I could visit you?

1/15/2014 11:30:13 PM

Quote :

"You are majorly misrepresenting that study. 9% is the number acquired through theft. Straw sales and illegal markets account for 28%* 40%(actually more than 40% if you realize that some of the friend/family category are straw purchases) in the very study that you are citing. So... thanks for helping to make my point?"

No I'm not. I explicitly ignored illegal sales because they are by definition illegal. Are you seriously suggesting that if we made it mandatory for people engaging in illegal sales to do background checks hat they would comply? Straw purchases are illegal. Family and friends know you've been convicted of a crime and therefore know you're not allowed to own guns. They sell the guns anyway despite knowing the sale is illegal. Adding another felony to that crime isn't going to stop the sale.

Quote :

"We can also accept that about 1% of dealers accounts for about 57% of illegal guns (which is good, because it would take the ATF over 22 years to inspect every dealer). The scary "registration" form is how the ATF audits dealers and makes sure they don't have guns walking away. "

I'll tell you what, here's your compromise. When the ATF and the government becomes so effective at shutting down illegal gun sales that they already require background checks for, such that the 1% of dealers account for less than 10% of illegal guns, then we can revisit the idea of background checks for intra state face to face gun sales without background checks. Until then, I suggest we're better off spending our time and money on the source of over half the illegal guns. A good place to start might be with investigating the ATF. They seem to do a lot of illegal sales and then they also seem to lose track of those guns.

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 11:41 PM. Reason : Compromise]

1/15/2014 11:34:09 PM

^^^^ Oh, so it's not the 85%, then, so you can stop pointing that out. I'm glad that you admit that it has no bearing on the conversation


^ What we really need to do, and this will make dtownral really happy, is to pass a law that makes it illegal to break the law. That will surely fix everything!

1/15/2014 11:34:30 PM

he needs to speak on the subject in front of the city council and/or commissioners

he loves that shit

1/15/2014 11:38:57 PM