Guns in the USA, Take a Stand

[Coyote]

Yeah, I didn't know about the phone call system for NICS checks, either, sorry guys.

As for this:

This answer intrigues me... where do carbines and short-barrel rifles fit in, regardless of rate of fire, considering how ridiculously cut-down they can get, and by what criteria is that concealability determined?

Rifles can be as short as 16 inches of barrel length (not overall length-- it can be a super-short "bullpup" design, as long as the barrel is 16"). Anything shorter than that and you have to pay a special tax of about $200.00 or $300.00. Otherwise, you have an illegal weapon.

[Serafine666]

I'm willing to bet that the number of crimes committed with outweigh those prevented by a large margin.

It's a difficult thing to measure, partly because reporting that you brandished your (unregistered) handgun (that you lack a CCW for) to scare away an intruder is a good way to get yourself arrested. "Gun saved me" stories are also not as frequently reported for reasons I can only speculate wildly on. Even when John Lott did his long study (translated into a 309-page book), all he could rely on was a statistical connection between the enactment of concealed carry laws and subsequent drops in the rates of violent crimes to demonstrate that making gun ownership easier depressed crime rates. I tend to regard his work as highly plausible (partly because of confirmation bias, partly because of the exhaustive level of detail) but, as is generally the nature of social sciences like economics, it was impossible to wholly isolate crime rate reductions from economic improvements which are known to be another factor in the reduction in crime rates.

[Serafine666]

Technically, the Amendment in question says the right to keep and bear arms in general, and it is not stated that the arms referred to are firearms-- it is just that part of the right is interpreted as a right to self defense, and firearms are the most effective means to that.

As to whether all people have a right to self-defnse, I think that can be argued, but the means to that self-defense are going to be up to stricter interpretations based on national history and social mores, which will shift. I think just about any country on Earth will agree that a person has a right to fight for their life, but how far they can go to carry that out is open for interpretation.

The American Constitution works for Americans, and cannot be applied elsewhere any more than, say, the EU Constitution can be applied to us in the USA.

Indeed the American Constitution works for Americans because it was written to apply to them and has been repeatedly modified and interpreted by them. I don't say that the Constitution in its entirety can be applied elsewhere because nowhere else is exactly the same as America but some of the principles that it espouses (like prohibiting government interference in religion) aren't only for people who live in a single geographical boundary. Some of the same principles exist in both the American Bill of Rights and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example.

[Serafine666]

Who the fuck does need an automatic weapon?

I mean, i can understand that you would want some kind of weapon for defense, and sports and hunting are legit reasons to have a weapon, too.
But how does any of this justify having an automatic weapon?
You don't need it for self-defense - unless we are talking about taking on half a dozen guys at once
And it has no use in sports or hunting.

So, tell me, what good reason is there to have automatic weapons?

Well, let's examine a hypothetical scenario, Serafina. Say you're someone who loves to collect firearms that were used in the Second World War. Obviously, weapons such as the M1 Garand, Colt .45, K98 Mauser, Gweler 43, Mosin-Nagant 91/30, and other weapons are not automatic. But the Thompson sub-machinegun was. The Sten was. The MP40 StG44, and FG42 were. The Browning Automatic Rifle was. There were numerous models of Soviet automatic weaponry. Do you believe that a private collector of WW2 firearms has no right or legitimate reason to own certain historically-significant weapons just because they were automatic?

[Serafina]

Who the fuck does need an automatic weapon?

I mean, i can understand that you would want some kind of weapon for defense, and sports and hunting are legit reasons to have a weapon, too.
But how does any of this justify having an automatic weapon?
You don't need it for self-defense - unless we are talking about taking on half a dozen guys at once
And it has no use in sports or hunting.

So, tell me, what good reason is there to have automatic weapons?

Well, let's examine a hypothetical scenario, Serafina. Say you're someone who loves to collect firearms that were used in the Second World War. Obviously, weapons such as the M1 Garand, Colt .45, K98 Mauser, Gweler 43, Mosin-Nagant 91/30, and other weapons are not automatic. But the Thompson sub-machinegun was. The Sten was. The MP40 StG44, and FG42 were. The Browning Automatic Rifle was. There were numerous models of Soviet automatic weaponry. Do you believe that a private collector of WW2 firearms has no right or legitimate reason to own certain historically-significant weapons just because they were automatic?

Yes, i DO believe that the reason is not legitimate enough to allow ownership of automatic weapons to private persons.
If he really wants them, he can have them rendered unfunctional.
Or what if he wanted to include tanks and nuclear weapons, too? Those would be really precious collector objects, after all...

[Alyeska]

Yes, i DO believe that the reason is not legitimate enough to allow ownership of automatic weapons to private persons.
If he really wants them, he can have them rendered unfunctional.
Or what if he wanted to include tanks and nuclear weapons, too? Those would be really precious collector objects, after all...

You can own a fast car, we are just going to remove the engine for you.

Your pulling out the no limits fallacy and assuming unlimited ownership of anything and everything. That has not been advocated by anyone in this thread. Mike himself already pointed out that the existing system allows fully automatic weapons to be owned in a way that heavily dissuades their use in crime. Even Nukey Nukey Shep himself has advocated restrictions on fully automatic weapons. He believes the current system should be loosened somewhat, but he still agrees that restrictions are necessary. So don't even think for a second any of us are advocating unrestricted access.

You are attempting to solve a problem that does not exist. Legal fully automatic weapons are not used in crime by any statistical margin. The vast majority of crimes are committed with handguns. Last time I checked I think that long guns represented something like only 5% of the crimes committed with guns. Of those long guns used in crime, not a single legal fully automatic weapon has been used in a crime in the last 10 years. Legal or legal and stolen from a private citizen. The only crimes committed with fully automatic weapons in the last 10 years have been by black market imported weapons from other countries or weapons stolen from the US government.

In the last thirty years there have been less then 10 examples of legally owned fully automatics used in crimes, and one was by a cop. Statistically, that is just as good as Zero itself.

So, there is no problem with fully automatic weapons. And you want to ban them outright based on what exactly?

[Darth Wong]

Banning them and replacing them with gun exchanges, which would be fixed locations that can conduct background checks and check other documentation for a sale between private persons for a small fee. Unfortunately I don't see another alternative there.

I’m surprised you of all people fall for the gun show loophole bullshit. Gunshows are every bit as capable of doing background checks as any fixed store… because the entire system works through freaking phone calls! All you need is a damn phone and you can do a background check from anywhere on earth.

If the authorities do not enforce those laws at gun shows, then the laws might as well not exist. How many sellers get prosecuted for breaking those laws? Does it ever happen unless the customer actually goes and uses that gun in a crime?

[loomer]

The only form of automatic firearm used in a major capacity in crime is the machine pistol, to boot - and those can be made with a few alterations to semi-automatic pistols as well. Remember the TEC-9, how they removed the Auto capacity...

And criminals could still convert it in about two hours? Well, that's essentially it.

[Alyeska]

Banning them and replacing them with gun exchanges, which would be fixed locations that can conduct background checks and check other documentation for a sale between private persons for a small fee. Unfortunately I don't see another alternative there.

I’m surprised you of all people fall for the gun show loophole bullshit. Gunshows are every bit as capable of doing background checks as any fixed store… because the entire system works through freaking phone calls! All you need is a damn phone and you can do a background check from anywhere on earth.

If the authorities do not enforce those laws at gun shows, then the laws might as well not exist. How many sellers get prosecuted for breaking those laws? Does it ever happen unless the customer actually goes and uses that gun in a crime?

The ATF is zealous about enforcing all the rules on security checks and paper work. If they find anything remotely wrong they can and will come down on a shop owner like a ton of bricks. So any registered dealer making a sales at a gun show has to have proper records for any gun they sell, period. Most dealers at gun shows are actually gunshop owners who travel the show circuits periodically to increase sales.

Where things get interesting is the private transactions. Private transactions are governed by the state. I can sell one of my handguns to my neighbor for cash and no paperwork. Its a private transaction between two individuals who are not dealers. Gunshows were partially designed as a means of getting private transactions organized into a single large venue so that there was selection. If the state has no requirement on private transactions, the entire thing goes without any record keeping at all.

An individual might be barred from owning a gun, but at a gunshow in certain states a simple private transaction can be made. The person selling has no requirement to background check the individual.

This is the "loophole" that people want to close. Its not a loophole so much as a gathering of private sales that can take place outside of the show with incredible ease. Some states have addressed the issue by having checks run on any gun purchase and that is handled by event staff. Some states put restrictions on private sales regardless of venue. The ATF has no say in private transactions except in the case of Class III weapons and accessories.

Either way, its entirely besides the point. Licensed sellers are held to the same strict ATF (and often added state laws) rules and regs no matter where they sell their weapons.

[Darth Wong]

Why are private sales allowed at all? This is a fucking firearm, not a child's toy. If the seller is incapable of performing the necessary checks, then why is he allowed to sell it?

[Serafine666]

Yes, i DO believe that the reason is not legitimate enough to allow ownership of automatic weapons to private persons.
If he really wants them, he can have them rendered unfunctional.
Or what if he wanted to include tanks and nuclear weapons, too? Those would be really precious collector objects, after all...

The tanks that are displayed at various military museums were undoubtedly purchased by someone, Serafina, and they are probably no longer functional. Ditto with the models of M2 Brownings and Flak-88 gun positions that are also owned by a collector (albeit one that displays the collection for public viewing). As for me, I believe that it is entirely legitimate for a collector to own a fully functional historically-significant automatic weapon. If he's clever enough, he may also come into possession of a significant quantity of ammunition for it as well although the typical person will never be able to use their brand new (old) machinegun.

[Alyeska]

Why are private sales allowed at all? This is a fucking firearm, not a child's toy. If the seller is incapable of performing the necessary checks, then why is he allowed to sell it?

Undo burden on the seller or some variation on the argument seems the likely answer. Some states recognize the issue and address it anyway. As to the checks themselves, until very recently the seller had no way to run a background check short of hiring a private detective. And that would be a rather large burden to undertake. Even the current system doesn't readily allow individuals to contact the government. Only dealers are allowed to make the call and they have to register their identification when making every call. Right now you still have to go through a licensed dealer just for them to run the check for your private sales.

To put it simply, there is no system in place for private transactions to be integrated into a government monitoring system. And with zero registration and paperwork requirements of any sort, tracking is impossible. Only a handful of states mandate it and they get swamped.

[Darth Wong]

Why are private sales allowed at all? This is a fucking firearm, not a child's toy. If the seller is incapable of performing the necessary checks, then why is he allowed to sell it?

Undo burden on the seller or some variation on the argument seems the likely answer.

Too fucking bad for them.

Some states recognize the issue and address it anyway. As to the checks themselves, until very recently the seller had no way to run a background check short of hiring a private detective. And that would be a rather large burden to undertake. Even the current system doesn't readily allow individuals to contact the government. Only dealers are allowed to make the call and they have to register their identification when making every call. Right now you still have to go through a licensed dealer just for them to run the check for your private sales.

To put it simply, there is no system in place for private transactions to be integrated into a government monitoring system. And with zero registration and paperwork requirements of any sort, tracking is impossible. Only a handful of states mandate it and they get swamped.

Then outlaw private sales. Since when is it written in stone that private individuals should be able to do unlicensed arms trading?

[Alyeska]

Just to add, I don't disagree with your assessments. The system certainly could use some work, and it wouldn't take much. One good thing is that private sales take time and effort and most people just sell straight to the licensed dealers to be done with it. And those who don't sell to the dealers sell on consignment (dealer takes a percentage of the sale and gives you the rest) and still runs the background check. So the majority of weapons do still go through the system.

But just to point out another concern. Gifting. Many years ago we bought my dad a shotgun and simply gave it to him for Christmas. Nothing was required. Mom got the background check and it was just given to dad, so no paperwork on his end. When dad died I inherited all of his rifles and pistols. Thats all I needed. I don't have to fill out any paperwork or do anything. That isn't necessarily the same in every state, but thats how it is in Montana.

[Serafine666]

Why are private sales allowed at all? This is a fucking firearm, not a child's toy. If the seller is incapable of performing the necessary checks, then why is he allowed to sell it?

It is his legal property. As you yourself noted on your "Economics of Star Trek" page, an inherent characteristic of property is that it may be sold. If a person is forbidden to sell his legal property is it, in fact, his property at all or is the law treating it as a possession which, while someone may have control over it like the captain of an oil tanker, they lack the right to sell it? Yes, a gun is a tool which even when used properly functions by applying damaging physical force to something... but a knife is exactly the same way and (at least in the United States), if the knife is legal to own and carry, it is legitimately legal to sell.

[Ryan Thunder]

You can own a fast car, we are just going to remove the engine for you.

Exactly.

So, there is no problem with fully automatic weapons. And you want to ban them outright based on what exactly?

Potential.

We all know that it's there; the ability to kill or severely injure a few dozen people in the space of a minute or two. You want to trust the morons who call pregnancy a "pre-existing condition" with that sort of power? Hell, you can do that with a semi...

Why are private sales allowed at all? This is a fucking firearm, not a child's toy. If the seller is incapable of performing the necessary checks, then why is he allowed to sell it?

It is his legal property. As you yourself noted on your "Economics of Star Trek" page, an inherent characteristic of property is that it may be sold. If a person is forbidden to sell his legal property is it, in fact, his property at all or is the law treating as a possession which, while someone may have control over it like the captain of an oil tanker, they lack the right to sell it? Yes, a gun is a tool which even when used properly functions by applying damaging physical force to something... but a knife is exactly the same way and (at least in the United States), if the knife is legal to own and carry, it is legitimately legal to sell.

Don't be obtuse. If it needs to be treated like an oil tanker, then we treat it like a fucking oil tanker. That is the end of it.

[Darth Wong]

Why are private sales allowed at all? This is a fucking firearm, not a child's toy. If the seller is incapable of performing the necessary checks, then why is he allowed to sell it?

It is his legal property. As you yourself noted on your "Economics of Star Trek" page, an inherent characteristic of property is that it may be sold.

Not necessarily without regulations. The idea that "property" = "no regulation" is anarchist bullshit.

If a person is forbidden to sell his legal property is it, in fact, his property at all or is the law treating it as a possession which, while someone may have control over it like the captain of an oil tanker, they lack the right to sell it? Yes, a gun is a tool which even when used properly functions by applying damaging physical force to something... but a knife is exactly the same way and (at least in the United States), if the knife is legal to own and carry, it is legitimately legal to sell.

They can sell it through proper channels. If they don't like that, too bad.

[Darth Wong]

Just to add, I don't disagree with your assessments. The system certainly could use some work, and it wouldn't take much. One good thing is that private sales take time and effort and most people just sell straight to the licensed dealers to be done with it. And those who don't sell to the dealers sell on consignment (dealer takes a percentage of the sale and gives you the rest) and still runs the background check. So the majority of weapons do still go through the system.

But just to point out another concern. Gifting. Many years ago we bought my dad a shotgun and simply gave it to him for Christmas. Nothing was required. Mom got the background check and it was just given to dad, so no paperwork on his end. When dad died I inherited all of his rifles and pistols. Thats all I needed. I don't have to fill out any paperwork or do anything. That isn't necessarily the same in every state, but thats how it is in Montana.

Why should unregulated gifting of firearms be allowed?

[Alyeska]

We all know that it's there; the ability to kill or severely injure a few dozen people in the space of a minute or two. You want to trust the morons who call pregnancy a "pre-existing condition" with that sort of power? Hell, you can do that with a semi...

You want to punish people now for the potential crimes in the future. Something that is demonstratively so safe that it is statistically equivalent to zero. Human life is so important you want to save 5 people in the future at some unknowable time by denying people today. That argument could be used to ban anything. Baseball bats. Knives. Cars. Alcohol. Downhill skiing. Someone might die, so we have to ban something in totality for all time.

I don't know where to begin with the abject stupidity of that argument. People are going to die and even the safest things out there, people will die. When we are talking about something so lacking in danger that less than 10 people in the last 30 years have been killed by fully automatic weapons, there is no problem. There being no problem, there is no need for a solution.

You have a solution that is in search of a problem that does not exist. You are biased against gun ownership. And you are letting that bias cloud your judgment. Any life that might be lost means something should be banned and all law abiding citizens punished. Except that logic has to be applied everywhere, which you are unwilling to do.

[Alyeska]

Just to add, I don't disagree with your assessments. The system certainly could use some work, and it wouldn't take much. One good thing is that private sales take time and effort and most people just sell straight to the licensed dealers to be done with it. And those who don't sell to the dealers sell on consignment (dealer takes a percentage of the sale and gives you the rest) and still runs the background check. So the majority of weapons do still go through the system.

But just to point out another concern. Gifting. Many years ago we bought my dad a shotgun and simply gave it to him for Christmas. Nothing was required. Mom got the background check and it was just given to dad, so no paperwork on his end. When dad died I inherited all of his rifles and pistols. Thats all I needed. I don't have to fill out any paperwork or do anything. That isn't necessarily the same in every state, but thats how it is in Montana.

Why should unregulated gifting of firearms be allowed?

Again, I was merely stating the way things were. I am somewhat neutral on the subject, but I fully understand and accept the concerns you have. It can certainly lead to problems. Though when dealing with gifting, we enter another area all together. Its incredibly easy to do regardless of the law. And with no registration requirement, very difficult to stop. Even if you stopped it, people could loan, borrow, or rent.

The private aspect of firearms brings a gray and often unenforceable area. The director of the Brady Campaign was even caught making a straw purchase for her own child, and she actively campaigned against straw purchasing of firearms.

[Darth Wong]

Just to add, I don't disagree with your assessments. The system certainly could use some work, and it wouldn't take much. One good thing is that private sales take time and effort and most people just sell straight to the licensed dealers to be done with it. And those who don't sell to the dealers sell on consignment (dealer takes a percentage of the sale and gives you the rest) and still runs the background check. So the majority of weapons do still go through the system.

But just to point out another concern. Gifting. Many years ago we bought my dad a shotgun and simply gave it to him for Christmas. Nothing was required. Mom got the background check and it was just given to dad, so no paperwork on his end. When dad died I inherited all of his rifles and pistols. Thats all I needed. I don't have to fill out any paperwork or do anything. That isn't necessarily the same in every state, but thats how it is in Montana.

Why should unregulated gifting of firearms be allowed?

Again, I was merely stating the way things were. I am somewhat neutral on the subject, but I fully understand and accept the concerns you have. It can certainly lead to problems. Though when dealing with gifting, we enter another area all together. Its incredibly easy to do regardless of the law. And with no registration requirement, very difficult to stop. Even if you stopped it, people could loan, borrow, or rent.

The private aspect of firearms brings a gray and often unenforceable area. The director of the Brady Campaign was even caught making a straw purchase for her own child, and she actively campaigned against straw purchasing of firearms.

If there were serious criminal punishment for unlicensed firearms transfers and people could be prosecuted for this crime alone, instead of having to wait until someone gets killed, I imagine people would think twice about casually giving guns away as gifts.

[Alyeska]

If there were serious criminal punishment for unlicensed firearms transfers and people could be prosecuted for this crime alone, instead of having to wait until someone gets killed, I imagine people would think twice about casually giving guns away as gifts.

Something like what Virginia did with Project Exile where they targeted the problem directly and hit them with prosecutions and mandatory minimums. Yes, I could see that working. It would also help to have a system in place to facilitate private transactions. Different weapons would have varying requirements. Likely rifles and shotguns would be fairly loose because of their rarity in crime use while pistols had the largest attention. Registration and tracking would almost certainly help, but it would be extremely difficult to get. There is a fear of registration in this country. And its not entirely unfounded. Many gun owners fear registration would create a list of weapons to be confiscated if bans were put into effect. And some gun control advocacy programs have registration as a means of eventually creating lists for confiscation as part of their plans. So that one is a double edged sword that would be most difficult to get public support on. Would be interesting to watch politicians hash out the details if they tried.

[AdmiralKanos]

I hate that "slippery slope" bullshit. It's not as if voters couldn't vigorously oppose gun confiscation if it came to that. But nooo, they pretend that they're opposing gun confiscation by opposing gun registration, based on that "slippery slope" non-logic.

[Alyeska]

I hate that "slippery slope" bullshit. It's not as if voters couldn't vigorously oppose gun confiscation if it came to that. But nooo, they pretend that they're opposing gun confiscation by opposing gun registration, based on that "slippery slope" non-logic.

Yeah, your right. I have to admit sitting on that slope a little myself, but I have to agree with you here. Its an issue of trust. And I laugh at the people who don't trust the government but support a strong military. Alright, you certainly have me convinced on this one for sure.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It would be absurdly easy to regulate private sales, anyway. You could, like I noted, just mandate the formation of "Gun Exchange" shops, which could be a function that basically any hardware/spoting goods store on the planet does just like making duplicate keys and so on. You go to the Gun Exchange with the person who wants to buy your gun, the guy behind the counter takes his information, charges you ten bucks, runs a background check, and if it comes up good then you hand the gun to him and he hands you the cash.