Poll Second Amendment. (Votes are anonymous) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

Sorry, I guess I jumped the gun thinking you were proposing for more gun control. The measures in place arent a problem. Everything in place now is working. as it should.

I don't know enough to agree, I think there are weaknesses - as much of it is left to state law. For example, some states have measures to restrict firearms for people with legitimate domestic violence histories, and others do not (when it can be demonstrated with data that there is a relationship between domestic abuse and subsequent gun violence). I'm not implying that there should be some expansive federal law, I'm only pointing out that there are gaps and weaknesses - even if you accept the idea that reasonable and appropriately tailored gun-harm mitigation measures are valuable. There are examples of where those measures should have applied to limit access in a specific situation but they failed to do so as a matter of flawed execution.

 

[Surviving Saint]

I don't know enough to agree, I think there are weaknesses - as much of it is left to state law. For example, some states have measures to restrict firearms for people with legitimate domestic violence histories, and others do not (when it can be demonstrated with data that there is a relationship between domestic abuse and subsequent gun violence). I'm not implying that there should be some expansive federal law, I'm only pointing out that there are gaps and weaknesses - even if you accept the idea that reasonable and appropriately tailored gun-harm mitigation measures are valuable. There are examples of where those measures should have applied to limit access in a specific situation but they failed to do so as a matter of flawed execution.

If anyone is convicted of domestic violence, they cant legally obtain a firearm. Thats a federal law. They could never pass the NICS to purchase one.

 

[Taurus]

Sorry, I guess I jumped the gun thinking you were proposing for more gun control. The measures in place arent a problem. Everything in place now is working. as it should.

No. It's not. It's way, way too easy to get around background checks because the system has been deliberately crippled. Can't buy a gun in State A, just go to State B. For background checks to do what we need them to do, they need to be universal. No matter where you go in America, no matter what (legal) venue you choose to try, you'd better pass that background check or you're not getting a firearm.

Is that such an unreasonable goal? Is that some kind of massive breach of your 2nd Amendment rights?

 

[superchuck500]

If anyone is convicted of domestic violence, they cant legally obtain a firearm. Thats a federal law. They could never pass the NICS to purchase one.

Yes, but some states have provisions that allow a judge to impose a restriction based on a totality of circumstances, not just a conviction. Domestic violence situations don't always result in convictions because prosecution relies upon the participation of the domestic partner - and that's very trick business.

We don't need to go down this rabbit hole, it's just an example.

 

[Surviving Saint]

No. It's not. It's way, way too easy to get around background checks because the system has been deliberately crippled. Can't buy a gun in State A, just go to State B. For background checks to do what we need them to do, they need to be universal. No matter where you go in America, no matter what (legal) venue you choose to try, you'd better pass that background check or you're not getting a firearm.

Is that such an unreasonable goal? Is that some kind of massive breach of your 2nd Amendment rights?

They are universal. Every FFL in the country has to call the FBI to perform the NICS. There is no getting around that. If you purchase a gun at a store, and you arent legally able to own a firearm, you arent leaving that store with the firearm. State law has nothing to do with that.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I dont want to hear fairy tale ideas like banning certain firearms, or stopping the production of firearms.

yes, i would also win many arguments if i did not let the other person use the obvious answers
treat guns like cancer/cigarettes
let the CDC study it -- put a multi-pronged, generational plan of reducing all & eliminating most guns into action

 

[Taurus]

They are universal. Every FFL in the country has to call the FBI to perform the NICS. There is no getting around that. If you purchase a gun at a store, and you arent legally able to own a firearm, you arent leaving that store with the firearm. State law has nothing to do with that.

Except that individual states vary widely in whether they supply good info to the NICS system.

NICS & Reporting Procedures | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Usually, they'll cite a lack of funding. I'm with you in that making new laws does no good if you don't also allocate enough money to enforce them.

 

[superchuck500]

Except that individual states vary widely in whether they supply good info to the NICS system.

NICS & Reporting Procedures | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Usually, they'll cite a lack of funding. I'm with you in that making new laws does no good if you don't also allocate enough money to enforce them.

And that’s where the NRA’s congressional lobby really makes hay.

 

[JimEverett]

If anyone is convicted of domestic violence, they cant legally obtain a firearm. Thats a federal law. They could never pass the NICS to purchase one.

Yes it is.

But it really doesn't end there. There are several problems with getting information in proper format and reported so that a background check will flag such abusers.

For example - many, if not most [maybe even all], people convicted of what amounts to domestic violence are not charged with "domestic violence" - and the language the federal statute uses might not even apply to some charges that might be called "domestic violence."
Rather there is a particular set of facts and jurisdictions vary in being on top of reporting those facts.

I have had clients who are found guilty of crimes that would qualify for the domestic violence criteria under federal law but the way the client was charged would preclude the federal officials from being able to flag the convicted.

 

[SystemShock]

.

You arent getting rid of them so what is your plan? They are here to stay. 400+ million firearms arent going anywhere and neither is the ammunition.

The "comment" really was about you replying to Guido that you think the main reason why the U.S. is so much more vulnerable to all gun crimes/violence because of the proliferation of guns. That's what he asked. It may be 400+ million firearms are not going away today, but they could be substantially reduced over time. First, of course, the culture has to change.

How many legal gun owners are committing violent crime? I can tell you its much less than 1%.

You can tell me? How about you show me? Any FBI or .gov link would do. I can tell you it's higher than that.

So with all these firearms in this country and all these legal gunowners you would think we should have 100k deaths a year by legal gun owners. But we already know thats not true.

That's an old straw man, completely devoid of any other consideration, nuance, or factor beyond the number of legally licensed guns at the time they were purchased. And it's not only about deaths.

We have 120000+ legal automatic firearms in the hands of civilians and yet only 3 crimes where they were used. So please tell me why are they banned?

Could it be because if they didn't make people jump through hoops and pay up to get them, there would be 100x more of them, and more crimes would be committed with them?

 

[Surviving Saint]

treat guns like cancer/cigarettes
let the CDC study it -- put a multi-pronged, generational plan of reducing all & eliminating most guns into action

Wait what? Cigarettes are legal and easily obtained by anyone. Philip Morris did not reduce or eliminate the production of cigarettes. Are you suggesting that if cigarettes were banned tomorrow that smokers would all just quit?

.
The "comment" really was about you replying to Guido that you think the main reason why the U.S. is so much more vulnerable to all gun crimes/violence because of the proliferation of guns. That's what he asked. It may be 400+ million firearms are not going away today, but they could be substantially reduced over time. First, of course, the culture has to change.


You can tell me? How about you show me? Any FBI or .gov link would do. I can tell you it's higher than that.





Could it be because if they didn't make people jump through hoops and pay up to get them, there would be 100x more of them, and more crimes would be committed with them?

Why does the culture need to change? Most law abiding gun owners don't commit crimes and some are suggesting we do away with firearms due to the few.

Legal gun owners aren't committing numerous gun crimes. The few websites I looked at said the stats aren't accurate so I guess neither of us is correct. But I guess the stats on guns saving lives don't matter either.

So you think because automatic firearms were banned is the reason there is only 3 known crimes in history. And none of those 120k were ever used in a crime. But you just said law abiding gun owners are responsible for more than 1% of the gun violence so why aren't those guns being used? If all 120k + of them are in the hands of law abiding citizens and no crimes are being committed with them, why are people advocating for removing non automatic firearms from us?

 

[SystemShock]

Why does the culture need to change?

You just used cigarettes as an analogy to gun ownership, and you are asking me why?

Legal gun owners aren't committing numerous gun crimes. The few websites I looked at said the stats aren't accurate so I guess neither of us is correct. But I guess the stats on guns saving lives don't matter either.

No, you are incorrect. You said you could tell me the percentage is less than 1%. You went to your websites, and since you found out the percentage is significantly higher than 1%, now you want to say "we are not incorrect". Obviously, such statistics are 100% accurate, but definitely your less than 1% is wrong.

So you think because automatic firearms were banned is the reason there is only 3 known crimes in history. And none of those 120k were ever used in a crime. But you just said law abiding gun owners are responsible for more than 1% of the gun violence so why aren't those guns being used? If all 120k + of them are in the hands of law abiding citizens and no crimes are being committed with them, why are people advocating for removing non automatic firearms from us?

So you are rambling now.

The first thing we need to do, is substitute "law abiding gun owners" to "guns obtained legally". That you bought a gun legally doesn't necessarily make it that you are "law abiding" beyond the purchase requirements.

As for your 3 known crimes in history, am I to assume you mean 3 crimes after the NFA of 1934? Just Miami during the 1980's cartel wars beg to differ. Of course, in those days, no one reported whether the guns were obtained legally or illegally when the cartels were killing each other.

I'd say, yes, all the hoops that you have to go to get an automatic weapon these days, have contributed to the low rate of crime with automatic weapons as compared to other firearms.

 

[Surviving Saint]

You just used cigarettes as an analogy to gun ownership, and you are asking me why?

I was replying to someone else that used it.

No, you are incorrect. You said you could tell me the percentage is less than 1%. You went to your websites, and since you found out the percentage is significantly higher than 1%, now you want to say "we are not incorrect". Obviously, such statistics are 100% accurate, but definitely your less than 1% is wrong.

Its less than 1% used in mass shootings, and less than 20% which could be 1%. Nobody knows. The stats arent accurate because there arent solid numbers but yea Ok so its higher than 1%.

The first thing we need to do, is substitute "law abiding gun owners" to "guns obtained legally". That you bought a gun legally doesn't necessarily make it that you are "law abiding" beyond the purchase requirements.

No, but its not the wild west either.

As for your 3 known crimes in history, am I to assume you mean 3 crimes after the NFA of 1934? Just Miami during the 1980's cartel wars beg to differ. Of course, in those days, no one reported whether the guns were obtained legally or illegally when the cartels were killing each other.

I'd say, yes, all the hoops that you have to go to get an automatic weapon these days, have contributed to the low rate of crime with automatic weapons as compared to other firearms.

So we are including the cartel now too?

That wasnt what I was talking about. We haven't had one person in the last 30 years use an automatic firearm in a crime. With as many of them out there, what does the hoops have to do with anything? Only the sane own them? If you want to include the cartel, they have automatics and yet very few crimes are committed with them. It would be nothing for them to transport them here and sell them cheap to anyone if thy wanted.

 

[SystemShock]

I was replying to someone else that used it.

Ok. I'd suggest when you see a bad analogy, don't follow it.

Its less than 1% used in mass shootings, and less than 20% which could be 1%. Nobody knows. The stats arent accurate because there arent solid numbers but yea Ok so its higher than 1%.

Ok.

No, but its not the wild west either.

So we are including the cartel now too?

Why not?

That wasnt what I was talking about. We haven't had one person in the last 30 years use an automatic firearm in a crime.

Incorrect.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Ok. I'd suggest when you see a bad analogy, don't follow it.
.

TBC i was not drawing a guns = smoking analogy
he asked what i would want and i replied for the CDC to treat guns as a public health issue like they do cigarettes