[QUOTE=Zyler;48571931]That's changing the argument you originally made where you said that gun dealers would be held accountable if someone used a firearm they sold to commit criminal violence. In this new scenario there's no incentive for gun dealers to do more extensive background checks because it doesn't make them any more money (and in fact probably costs them money). There's no free market because there's no market for privatized gun control, it doesn't make any money. The government actually has more of an incentive to crack down on extensive background checks because their constituents might get pissed if they don't.
So if there's risk of costs on arm dealers in one scenario and not in the other, how is this a good system? Obviously both governments and actual firearms businesses (in the form of the NRA) think there is no market for this, so what's the point in instigating it when it's more inconvenient than the alternative of having the federal government do it?
Exactly, they want to make money. They also think that privatizing gun control wouldn't be profitable, which they have no reason to lie about because their sole motivation is making money.
What you're suggesting would actually make the government BIGGER and the private sector SMALLER by potentially causing the private sector to lose dealers and business and giving the government another way to suck money out of people.[/QUOTE]
I never changed my argument? There is an incentive for them to do extensive background checks for two reasons. 1: manage potential costs through managing risk. 2: if every other gun dealer mitigates their risk through extensive background checks or whatever method they choose, and one dealer doesn't, all the people who want to buy a gun to commit crime will flock to that one dealer, and so that one dealer faces heavier risk. So you're incorrect - there is an incentive for them to mitigate their risk - that's the entire point.
And no this isn't about revenue raising, in an ideal world with this law, no one would be fined because dealers would be managing their risk effectively. I've even suggested that the federal government make arms and ammo sales exempt from tax as compensation for the cost on dealers to self-regulate.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48571954]Gun dealers aren't on the hook to do background checks. That's on the government to do.[/QUOTE]
That's what we're arguing about. Antdawg is suggesting a system wherein gun dealers do the background checks instead of the government.
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48571961]I never changed my argument? There is an incentive for them to do extensive background checks for two reasons. 1: manage potential costs through managing risk. 2: if every other gun dealer mitigates their risk through extensive background checks or whatever method they choose, and one dealer doesn't, all the people who want to buy a gun to commit crime will flock to that one dealer, and so that one dealer faces heavier risk. So you're incorrect - there is an incentive for them to mitigate their risk - that's the entire point.[/QUOTE]
What risks? You just said that if a person uses the gun to shoot somebody after something like 2 years, the gun dealer isn't held accountable. And why would somebody not buy a gun from somebody else just because that person sold a gun to yet another person and THAT person randomly used it to shoot somebody. The character of somebody's customers does not dictate the character of that person as a dealer.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48571966]That's what we're arguing about. Antdawg is suggesting a system wherein gun dealers do the background checks instead of the government.[/QUOTE]
I don't think ma and pa shops have the bandwidth to do that nor will they be able to enforce laws if they are privately doing background checks. Allow federal/state governments with access to classified systems to do the checks. Your idea won't work for dozens of reasons.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48571978]I don't think ma and pa shops have the bandwidth to do that.[/QUOTE]
He's suggested that it's done through gun clubs associated with each store and dealer, so you'd have to register to a club in order to sell firearms but it wouldn't be organized by the government.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48571983]He's suggested that it's done through gun clubs associated with each store and dealer, so you'd have to register to a club in order to sell firearms but it wouldn't be organized by the government.[/QUOTE]
Private people shouldn't be accessing FFL-type background checks. That belongs in the hands of the government.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48571966]That's what we're arguing about. Antdawg is suggesting a system wherein gun dealers do the background checks instead of the government.
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
What risks? You just said that if a person uses the gun to shoot somebody after something like 2 years, the gun dealer isn't held accountable. And why would somebody not buy a gun from somebody else just because that person sold a gun to somebody else that THAT person randomly used to shoot somebody. The character of somebody's customers does not dictate the character of that person as a dealer.[/QUOTE]
Except in cases like what happened in Virginia, the gun was acquired shortly before the crime for the intent of that crime. As it happens in many cases.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48571993]Except in cases like what happened in Virginia, the gun was acquired shortly before the crime for the intent of that crime. As it happens in many cases.[/QUOTE]
Two months isn't "shortly ahead of time." 7 day waiting period prevents crimes of passion, generally. Clearly this guy was insane and planned it months ahead of time, which proves he would have done it with a gun, knife, ice pick, car, sword, etc. I mean Jesus Christ he lived ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE STATION (from what I read). Gun laws would not have prevented him from what he did, at all. If anything it would have slowed him down, causing them to suffer more.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48571983]He's suggested that it's done through gun clubs associated with each store and dealer, so you'd have to register to a club in order to sell firearms but it wouldn't be organized by the government.[/QUOTE]
It was an option for the dealers to pursue, not a requirement. And agentfaze the government could assist dealers by providing the means of performing thr background check, just that it wouldn't be the government requiring dealers to do it. Just an option, letting the dealer choose the option they want.
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48571997]Two months isn't "shortly ahead of time." 7 day waiting period prevents crimes of passion, generally. Clearly this guy was insane and planned it months ahead of time, which proves he would have done it with a gun, knife, ice pick, car, sword, etc. I mean Jesus Christ he lived ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE STATION (from what I read). Gun laws would not have prevented him from what he did, at all. If anything it would have slowed him down, causing them to suffer more.[/QUOTE]
Government-mandated waiting periods are unpopular and iirc Wisconsin or some other state only recently removed their waiting period provision. It would be an option for dealers to pursue if they self-regulated, but not their only option.
I think we could agree that guns are one of the easiest ways someone can kill themselves or someone else, and I did mention earlier in the thread that if it were a knife attack it may have still ended up with at least one of the journalists dying but the chance of both of them dying would be much less.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48571993]Except in cases like what happened in Virginia, the gun was acquired shortly before the crime for the intent of that crime. As it happens in many cases.[/QUOTE]
In which case, again the gun dealer is held responsible for something they couldn't have possibly known was going to happen if the individual in question had no prior history of mental illness or looked in any way strange or twitchy (which, I might add, is very subjective and difficult to prove).
Does it feel like we're going in circles here? In any case, there's two situations with the potential implementation of your scheme, either:
1) The gun dealer is held accountable for the actions of the customer for a set period of, well, let's say 2 years or so and they are left off the hook if they perform the bare minimum of background checks. In this situation, a customer with no history of mental illness and no shady character when purchasing the firearm could go on a killing spree out of the blue and the gun dealer will be held accountable for something they couldn't prevent or predict, totally arbitrarily for something that happened totally at random. People aren't going to stop going to a dealer based on something one of their customers did and after the 2 year period is up, the dealer has no incentive to make sure the guy they sold their weapons to doesn't shoot somebody or someplace up. If the gun dealer does the bare minimum of background checks then they are not liable for anything the customer does and have no incentive to perform more extensive background checks.
2) The gun dealer is held accountable for the actions of the customer for an indefinite period. In which case a customer with no history of mental illness or penchant for acting strange and/or suspicious purchases a weapon. At any time in the future the customer could shoot someone and the gun dealer would be hit with a fine based on something they could not possibly predict, totally at random.
Nowhere here is an incentive for gun dealers to self-regulate beyond the most basic of background checks that would cover their asses, something they would have to do under a government regulated system in the first place. It also could potentially cost these businesses money and make it more difficult for their employees by increasing the risk involved in making a sale unnecessarily. People might even lose their jobs. Now, I don't particularly like the NRA, but I see no reason in causing the people who work for them to lose their jobs based on something they couldn't possibly predict or do anything about, not when there are other solutions that are a lot better and don't negatively affect people's lives.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;48572006]
Government-mandated waiting periods are unpopular and iirc Wisconsin or some other state only recently removed their waiting period provision. It would be an option for dealers to pursue if they self-regulated, but not their only option.[/QUOTE]
I'm fine with removing waiting periods. I already hate waiting for stuff to be shipped. lol. Less time I have to wait for a new purchase.
Honestly if medical records were disclosed when asked for, I think that would stop a lot of this.
Aside from that, you can't really stop people from doing what's in their mind that they never vocalized or written down. You can put in all the "gun control" you want, but it won't help that. The VA shooter, I mean it should have been obvious and he should have been arrested dozens of times before. Throwing cat shit at neighbors...that's a borderline felony. Road rage and aggressive driving at over 100mph, another felony (especially in Virginia, dear God they take road laws seriously there). Had he been actually arrested for fucking up over and over, we wouldn't be here.
Unless, oh wait. He stalks them (like he did since he knew where they were filming) and either stabs them to death, which would be more disgusting to see on camera, or hits them with his car. I mean that's an obvious possibility that happens dozens of times a day around the world.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48572030]I'm fine with removing waiting periods. I already hate waiting for stuff to be shipped. lol. Less time I have to wait for a new purchase.
Honestly if medical records were disclosed when asked for, I think that would stop a lot of this.
Aside from that, you can't really stop people from doing what's in their mind that they never vocalized or written down. You can put in all the "gun control" you want, but it won't help that. The VA shooter, I mean it should have been obvious and he should have been arrested dozens of times before. Throwing cat shit at neighbors...that's a borderline felony. Road rage and aggressive driving at over 100mph, another felony (especially in Virginia, dear God they take road laws seriously there). Had he been actually arrested for fucking up over and over, we wouldn't be here.
Unless, oh wait. He stalks them (like he did since he knew where they were filming) and either stabs them to death, which would be more disgusting to see on camera, or hits them with his car. I mean that's an obvious possibility that happens dozens of times a day around the world.[/QUOTE]
Please explain why shootings are so rare in Canada since the United states and Canada are very similar? Except Canada has better gun control and mental health services it's also almost impossible to get a gun except a hunting rifle or a pistol. It was also known that the shooter had many run ins with his fellow employs he worked with and was fired from multiple jobs and then he would move on to another job. He was also caught uttering threats at each news station he worked for and name calling. When someone can't get along with other employees at a bunch of different establishments then something is badly wrong,he should have been made to see a psychologist. The second amendment is also woefully antiquated and has no bearing on the modern weaponry of the 21st century. Back when it was signed into law people had muskets, pistols and shotguns that weren't completely accurate and were much harder to use then modern weaponry. and had no one had any conceivable idea of what weapons in the future would be like. I'm saying the second amendment shouldn't be abolished I'm just saying it should be modified to fit a modern setting. With sensible gun control laws. And of course the media and the NRA try to blame violent video games and movies instead of the real culprit guns and mental health. Canada has the same amount of violence in video games and movies yet we don't have people running around doing shootings on a regular basis like the states. In recent memory I only know of 10 major shootings in the past twenty years.
[editline]29th August 2015[/editline]
I agree with the disclosure of medcial records though. They should also increase the waiting time as well.
Guys. No gun control law even proposed would've stopped this, so shutup.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48573143]Guys. No gun control law even proposed would've stopped this, so shutup.[/QUOTE]
I, too, enjoy using presumptuous statements to shut down a debate I do not wish to participate in.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;48573051]Please explain why shootings are so rare in Canada since the United states and Canada are very similar? Except Canada has better gun control and mental health services it's also almost impossible to get a gun except a hunting rifle or a pistol. It was also known that the shooter had many run ins with his fellow employs he worked with and was fired from multiple jobs and then he would move on to another job. He was also caught uttering threats at each news station he worked for and name calling. When someone can't get along with other employees at a bunch of different establishments then something is badly wrong,he should have been made to see a psychologist. The second amendment is also woefully antiquated and has no bearing on the modern weaponry of the 21st century. Back when it was signed into law people had muskets, pistols and shotguns that weren't completely accurate and were much harder to use then modern weaponry. and had no one had any conceivable idea of what weapons in the future would be like. I'm saying the second amendment shouldn't be abolished I'm just saying it should be modified to fit a modern setting. With sensible gun control laws. And of course the media and the NRA try to blame violent video games and movies instead of the real culprit guns and mental health. Canada has the same amount of violence in video games and movies yet we don't have people running around doing shootings on a regular basis like the states. In recent memory I only know of 10 major shootings in the past twenty years.
[editline]29th August 2015[/editline]
I agree with the disclosure of medcial records though. They should also increase the waiting time as well.[/QUOTE]
Increasing the waiting period won't do shit.
Canada is [B]very[/B] different from the US. So if you guys not having guns works out so well, tell me why in areas/states in the US where guns are the least restricted, crime is significantly lower?
australians on fp brain storming cute gun control laws for the united states
lol.
just listen to this black man
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9es3KDg8OAg[/media]
[QUOTE=W0w00t;48575685]australians on fp brain storming cute gun control laws for the united states
lol.[/QUOTE]
I don't have to live in your house to be able to tell you that it has a leak in the roof.
and i don't have to be australian to see that your citizens are defenseless and your government has you by the balls even more so than the united states
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
so what if theres a leak in our roof, atleast americans haven't laid down on command because johnny mcdickfuck shot up a school house and killed 33 children and the government is going to ban everything except bolt action rifles with 3 round magazines because the children
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
gun control is irrelevant
more government and less freedom isn't a solution, its a step back
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=coldroll5;48573051]Please explain why shootings are so rare in Canada since the United states and Canada are very similar? Except Canada has better gun control and mental health services it's also almost impossible to get a gun except a hunting rifle or a pistol. It was also known that the shooter had many run ins with his fellow employs he worked with and was fired from multiple jobs and then he would move on to another job. He was also caught uttering threats at each news station he worked for and name calling. When someone can't get along with other employees at a bunch of different establishments then something is badly wrong,he should have been made to see a psychologist.[B] The second amendment is also woefully antiquated and has no bearing on the modern weaponry of the 21st century. Back when it was signed into law people had muskets, pistols and shotguns that weren't completely accurate and were much harder to use then modern weaponry. and had no one had any conceivable idea of what weapons in the future would be like. I'm saying the second amendment shouldn't be abolished I'm just saying it should be modified to fit a modern setting.[/B] With sensible gun control laws. And of course the media and the NRA try to blame violent video games and movies instead of the real culprit guns and mental health. Canada has the same amount of violence in video games and movies yet we don't have people running around doing shootings on a regular basis like the states. In recent memory I only know of 10 major shootings in the past twenty years.
[editline]29th August 2015[/editline]
I agree with the disclosure of medcial records though. They should also increase the waiting time as well.[/QUOTE]
you do realize the 2nd amendment provides for the possession of "arms"
not "muskets", not "shotguns", not "pistols", not "cannons" specifically, but "arms"
all inclusive.
the 2nd amendment was for citizens to have the full she-bang. there wasn't supposed to be a 2 million man standing military. the citizens were intended to have all the arms and capabilities a military would have had.
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
and i guarantee you the people who wrote that provision knew exactly what would happen in the future to weapons - thats why they wrote arms and not 18th century black powder muskets and cannons
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
im just here to remind you all of the facts, not this irrational, illogical, and emotional (which is funny to me because none of us have any stake at all in what happened nor knew the people that died) bullshit thats going on here
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
go run for office with your beautiful ideas for laws
The point of the 2nd amendment was always that the citizens would be able to match the military in armament. If the military advanced beyond muskets, so did the people. [I]That[/I] has been out the window since 1934.
[QUOTE=W0w00t;48575740]and i don't have to be australian to see that your citizens are defenseless and your government has you by the balls even more so than the United States
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
so what if theres a leak in our roof, atleast americans haven't laid down on command because johnny mcdickfuck shot up a school house and killed 33 children and the government is going to ban everything except bolt action rifles with 3 round magazines because the children[/quote]
He's from NZ not Australia
Anyways here in Australia we simply just don't have a gun culture and believe there are very few legit reasons to own a gun (main reason is to defend property from certain wildlife). Yet society continues to move on. And no we're not defenceless simply because we don't have guns - we're not defenceless because we're protected by laws and a constitution. We actually trust our governments to do the right thing, which they do 99% of the time. It's not 'us versus them', it's people working with each other.
We see what happens in the U.S. and we're glad we have laws that mostly prevent those things from happening here.
documents and government will not protect you
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
trusting government is foolish
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
guns are fun
[QUOTE=W0w00t;48577903]documents and government will not protect you
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
trusting government is foolish
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
guns are fun[/QUOTE]
Your unsubstantiated opinion has been noted. Perhaps if could try understanding different cultures from your own you'd actually have an argument. Aussie culture is different from American culture, we don't need guns to solve most of our problems. If somebody needs guns then they have them, but we don't use them for fun, they're tools not toys. If you like playing around with your big gun, pretending to be a big man, then go for it, but don't criticize other cultures for not enjoying the same things you do.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48578005]Your unsubstantiated opinion has been noted. Perhaps if could try understanding different cultures from your own you'd actually have an argument. Aussie culture is different from American culture, we don't need guns to solve most of our problems. If somebody needs guns then they have them, but we don't use them for fun, they're tools not toys. If you like playing around with your big gun, pretending to be a big man, then go for it, but don't criticize other cultures for not enjoying the same things you do.[/QUOTE]I swear I've heard a distinctly similar argument somewhere before...
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;48578037]I swear I've heard a distinctly similar argument somewhere before...[/QUOTE]
You probably have, but in this case I'm talking about culture, not race or sexuality or skin color (if you're implying what I think you're implying). Culture is the very definition of 'if you don't understand it and you don't get it and you're not a part of it, then you don't know what you're talking about'. America has very specific historical reasons for why it is the way it is and so does Australia. You can't take American solutions to American problems and apply them in Australia or vice versa. Keep in mind, we were discussing the situation in America before this and never sought to bring Australian gun control laws into America (because it wouldn't work). Suddenly W0w00t comes in here and tries to tell us what's what and makes blanket statements about Australians, like hell yea I'm gonna call that shit out.
i knew a struck a sweet spot lmfao
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Trolling, blew his chance." - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=W0w00t;48578100]i knew a struck a sweet spot lmfao[/QUOTE]
Alright then. I feel as though you might be sensing some kind of intent in my writing that isn't there, I'm laughing as I write this, but whatever Pyrrhic victory you feel you have is up to you.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48578005]Your unsubstantiated opinion has been noted. Perhaps if could try understanding different cultures from your own you'd actually have an argument. Aussie culture is different from American culture, we don't need guns to solve most of our problems. If somebody needs guns then they have them, but we don't use them for fun, they're tools not toys. If you like playing around with your big gun, pretending to be a big man, then go for it, but don't criticize other cultures for not enjoying the same things you do.[/QUOTE]
I always love non-Americans defensively throwing up the culture card when they're happy to tell us what to do with our guns, you can actually watch the high horse get a little shorter
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48578118]I always love non-Americans defensively throwing up the culture card when they're happy to tell us what to do with our guns, you can actually watch the high horse get a little shorter[/QUOTE]
Not really, we were just discussing an idea Antdawg had about gun regulation, should we not be allowed to do that? I'd see your point if we were arguing that America should take on the same gun regulation as Australia because 'it works here, it should work in America', but we weren't doing that. Your allowed to say and do whatever you like, but it's fundamentally flawed to suggest forcing changes upon a country's laws just because it works in another country, as that W00t guy did, when different countries have entirely different cultures from one another. If someone had done the same thing in reverse, as in said 'America should have the same gun control laws as Australia' instead of 'Australia should have the same gun control laws as America' I would complain just as much. Perhaps you're making assumptions about me and the other people in this thread based on some kind of prior experience as opposed to what we've actually said?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48578118]I always love non-Americans defensively throwing up the culture card when they're happy to tell us what to do with our guns, you can actually watch the high horse get a little shorter[/QUOTE]
Yup. England is glad to tell us colonists what to do, several hundred years later.
[QUOTE=Zyler;48578005]...but don't criticize other cultures for not enjoying the same things you do.[/QUOTE]
Huh, your argument seems to have done a 180.
[QUOTE=CoilingTesla;48578154]Huh, your argument seems to have done a 180.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to hear exactly how that is. I never said that America should take up Australian cultural values and neither I nor AntDawg were suggesting that America should take up Australian gun control regulation. His argument was that gun control should be privatized (i.e. taken out of government hands) and gun dealers should self-regulate and do their own background checks as a part of registration to a gun club, which as far as I know is not how it works in Australia or anywhere else in the world. I was arguing against that solution and stating why I thought it wouldn't work. Neither of us were ever arguing that America should take up Australian gun regulation laws, as both of us agree that it wouldn't work.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.