America doesn’t have more crime than other rich countries. It just has more guns.
167 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48575887]Except if you were to institute basic fucking reforms like background checks anytime a gun is purchased or hell even a fucking gun registry (don't give me that bullshit about "They'll be confiscated immediately", if the law was instituted federally no they won't, the outcry alone would be enough to stop Lawmakers from even considering that), then that wouldn't hurt the 3rd of the populace but would significantly fucking help the crime rate.[/QUOTE]
Have you ever tried to purchase a gun? A background check is required from any store. The only reason you don't need one for private transfer is that it's [I]not possible[/I] to enforce without a registry which, [B]yes[/B], in [B]every single case to date[/B] has led to confiscation within less than five years. That includes many other countries. That's not bullshit. A registry serves one purpose to a government - it's a shopping list.
Finally if I want to commit a crime with a gun I'm not going to try to go somewhere I know I'll be flagged. I'm gonna buy one smuggled in from Mexico with scrubbed serials. And this might come as a shock to you but those aren't going to go away because the government asked nicely. I'd wager they'd only be more popular. Remember Prohibition? Every anti-gun liberal I've spoken to has used the Prohibition argument against illegalizing marijuana. It's the same thing with firearms.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48575887]Except if you were to institute basic fucking reforms like background checks anytime a gun is purchased or hell even a fucking gun registry (don't give me that bullshit about "They'll be confiscated immediately", if the law was instituted federally no they won't, the outcry alone would be enough to stop Lawmakers from even considering that), then that wouldn't hurt the 3rd of the populace but would significantly fucking help the crime rate.[/QUOTE]
The problem with gun registries is that based on who is in power, the registries can be hella abused.
There was an incident on the East Coast (New England?) where a man had his registered handgun confiscated because his son brought a toy gun to school. So no way in hell am I ever gonna get behind that.
As for background checks, I see that it could be beneficial to have them, and in fact, I do wish there were a bit more checks in place to ascertain the mental health of somebody before they can get a gun. The problem is, checks must be performed by humans who can be biased. We don't want a corrupt background investigator to give bad marks on a black man based on some kind of deep-rooted racism. We also don't want a liberal establishment trying as hard as it can to give as few certifications as possible in order to institute their de-facto gun control.
I think you already need a background check anyways, don't you? It's just not as big as liberals would hope.
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
Oh, now that I think of it, wasn't there a mass shooting where it was discovered that the gun store ran a background check on the subject, but the FBI or ATF or whoever does the check did not send back the results within the timeframe, which would have stopped the subject from acquiring a gun?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48576072]
Finally if I want to commit a crime with a gun I'm not going to try to go somewhere I know I'll be flagged. I'm gonna buy one smuggled in from Mexico with scrubbed serials. And this might come as a shock to you but those aren't going to go away because the government asked nicely. I'd wager they'd only be more popular. Remember Prohibition? Every anti-gun liberal I've spoken to has used the Prohibition argument against illegalizing marijuana. It's the same thing with firearms.[/QUOTE]
Or simply hop on facebook, join your local gun sale group, and buy to your hearts content, in cash, without any paper trail.
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48576255]The problem with gun registries is that based on who is in power, the registries can be hella abused.
There was an incident on the East Coast (New England?) where a man had his registered handgun confiscated because his son brought a toy gun to school. So no way in hell am I ever gonna get behind that.
As for background checks, I see that it could be beneficial to have them, and in fact, I do wish there were a bit more checks in place to ascertain the mental health of somebody before they can get a gun. The problem is, checks must be performed by humans who can be biased. We don't want a corrupt background investigator to give bad marks on a black man based on some kind of deep-rooted racism. We also don't want a liberal establishment trying as hard as it can to give as few certifications as possible in order to institute their de-facto gun control.
I think you already need a background check anyways, don't you? It's just not as big as liberals would hope.
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
Oh, now that I think of it, wasn't there a mass shooting where it was discovered that the gun store ran a background check on the subject, but the FBI or ATF or whoever does the check did not send back the results within the timeframe, which would have stopped the subject from acquiring a gun?[/QUOTE]
At least here in Indiana you couldn't walk out a gun store without your background check passing, they pass in moments through the internet. You just need to fill out a few forms and stroll around the store for a few minutes.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;48576288]Or simply hop on facebook, join your local gun sale group, and buy to your hearts content, in cash, without any paper trail.[/QUOTE]
To make it even more secure, make sure you only buy guns with scratched serials. This way its completely anonymous
[QUOTE=Code3Response;48576304]To make it even more secure, make sure you only buy guns with scratched serials. This way its completely anonymous[/QUOTE]
Scratched serials are supposed to be illegal I thought?
completely
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48575887]Except if you were to institute basic fucking reforms like background checks anytime a gun is purchased or hell even a fucking gun registry (don't give me that bullshit about "They'll be confiscated immediately", if the law was instituted federally no they won't, the outcry alone would be enough to stop Lawmakers from even considering that), then that wouldn't hurt the 3rd of the populace but would significantly fucking help the crime rate.[/QUOTE]
You look into existing laws for gun control. Any solution that you propose has likely been already in effect several years ago.
That's why people further restriction questionable. You see politicians and celebrities who delude people into thinking that US is a place where you can get guns easily as candy and it's simply not true. All of the existong control like waiting periods, age limits, and background checks don't do much to prevent stuff like mass-shootings.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48576072]Have you ever tried to purchase a gun? A background check is required from any store. The only reason you don't need one for private transfer is that it's [I]not possible[/I] to enforce without a registry which, [B]yes[/B], in [B]every single case to date[/B] has led to confiscation within less than five years. That includes many other countries. That's not bullshit. A registry serves one purpose to a government - it's a shopping list.
Finally if I want to commit a crime with a gun I'm not going to try to go somewhere I know I'll be flagged. I'm gonna buy one smuggled in from Mexico with scrubbed serials. And this might come as a shock to you but those aren't going to go away because the government asked nicely. I'd wager they'd only be more popular. Remember Prohibition? Every anti-gun liberal I've spoken to has used the Prohibition argument against illegalizing marijuana. It's the same thing with firearms.[/QUOTE]
First of all, ever single case to date has been at the fucking state level. Having one at a Federal level would be entirely different case simply because of how many more people would be aware of it. Second of all why don't we just put provisions in there that stop the confiscation from being abused. Once again, lawmakers can't just repeal it because of how many people would be aware of the gun register and it's laws. Besides, if it works in other countries like Norway, or Australia, why can't it work in ours?
And don't give me that bullshit argument about how they can just get it easily illegally. A person who's going to participate in unorganized crime, IE the type of crime that's most likely going to result in violent crime, is typically not going to have the fucking ability to go down into Mexico and buy a gun with the serial number scratched off. Besides, data from other countries who have a gun registry shows that illegal weapon purchases don't rise significantly when a registry is introduced.
And this isn't prohibition, this is literally taking the guns in America and putting them on a list. It's not like all the guns are being taken away and made illegal to own, purchase, or sell one. People may try to sell homemade zip guns, but they already do that anyways and it's not going to have a significant impact on the illegal purchase of guns.
Oh, and I'm not the typical liberal. I honestly don't want for Marijuana to be legalized, at most just for it to be decriminalized and for medicinal use to be valid.
In NY provisions were put in to prevent confiscation. Then the law was changed. The same thing happened at the federal level with NFA when the ATF started interpreting away our rights. "OK, I'll pay a tax stamp for a machine gun, it's all for safety, right?" lmao try to buy one now. I will never support a nationwide registry, never ever and neither will the majority of gun owners in the US because our government loves to abuse us. Maybe if the US government wasn't corrupt to the core from top to bottom it'd be a different narrative but you cannot trust this government and you know it.
And how the fuck do you track illegal weapon purchases? Naturally you can only track the ones you pick up. There's no way to know how much you miss. That's a bullshit statistic and you know it.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48576571]In NY provisions were put in to prevent confiscation. Then the law was changed. The same thing happened at the federal level with NFA when the ATF started interpreting away our rights. I will never support a nationwide registry, never ever and neither will the majority of gun owners in the US because our government loves to abuse us.
And how the fuck do you track illegal weapon purchases? Naturally you can only track the ones you pick up. There's no way to know how much you miss. That's a bullshit statistic and you know it.[/QUOTE]
And guess what happened? YOU PEOPLE CHANGED IT! You got the gun registry to not be as effective. Instead of doing that this time, you could just get them to change the laws back on the fucking registry. There's a reason we have Democracy and it's to stop some people from having to much power.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48576597]And guess what happened? YOU PEOPLE CHANGED IT! You got the gun registry to not be as effective. Instead of doing that this time, you could just get them to change the laws back on the fucking registry. [B]There's a reason we have Democracy and it's to stop some people from having to much power.[/B][/QUOTE]
Does it look like this is working???
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48576624]Does it look like this is working???[/QUOTE]
I think it is, considering that gun owners effectively destroyed the registry, stopped the Assault Weapons Ban, and even more recently stopped a law from going through congress that would strengthen Background checks. If there's anyone who are some of the most prolific voters in this country it's fucking Gun Owners.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48576597]And guess what happened? YOU PEOPLE CHANGED IT! You got the gun registry to not be as effective. Instead of doing that this time, you could just get them to change the laws back on the fucking registry. There's a reason we have Democracy and it's to stop some people from having to much power.[/QUOTE]
Genius point, we should just [I]make[/I] them change it back! I will write a letter right away, and it will get passed. It should work the same way it did when someone politely asked for them to undo it after it initially passed. Oh, wait...
[QUOTE=Revenge282;48576645]Genius point, we should just [I]make[/I] them change it back! I will write a letter right away, and it will get passed. It should work the same way it did when someone politely asked for them to undo it after it initially passed. Oh, wait...[/QUOTE]
Maybe you can't do it individually, but when [I]third[/I] or more of the country has people who owns guns and the majority of them were to get together and protest against that, that sends a pretty powerful message. I mean for fucks sake, it already is. Just think of the Assault Weapon Ban.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48576628]I think it is, considering that gun owners effectively destroyed the registry, stopped the Assault Weapons Ban, and even more recently stopped a law from going through congress that would strengthen Background checks. If there's anyone who are some of the most prolific voters in this country it's fucking Gun Owners.[/QUOTE]
And yet I can still go to jail for having a shoestring near my AR-15 lmao because we have a government agency that has the power to legislate, enforce [I]and[/I] judge all internally.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48576667]And yet I can still go to jail for having a shoestring near my AR-15 lmao[/QUOTE]
I can't exactly comment on that, but if you actually got other gun owners and even the general populace together, then I'm sure you could change that, but having a shoestring next to an AR 15 is a relatively minor thing in comparison to the banning of an entire class of weapons simply because they look scary.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48576666]Maybe you can't do it individually, but when [I]third[/I] or more of the country has people who owns guns and the majority of them were to get together and protest against that, that sends a pretty powerful message. I mean for fucks sake, it already is. Just think of the Assault Weapon Ban.[/QUOTE]
The Assault Weapons Ban, which is heralded as probably the worst legislation on firearms in the last 50 years.
I'm sure the majority of gun owners who had their guns confiscated were perfectly OK with that. You can't punish a silent majority because of a very vocal minority.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48576689]I can't exactly comment on that, but if you actually got other gun owners and even the general populace together, then I'm sure you could change that, but having a shoestring next to an AR 15 is a relatively minor thing in comparison to the banning of an entire class of weapons simply because they look scary.[/QUOTE]
You can't change it because the ATF is able to make shit up and enforce it as law because they were given the power to "interpret" the 1934 National Firearms Act and they freely interpret it to mean whatever they want. In that example, a shoestring near an AR-15 becomes a machine gun (the shoestring becomes a machine gun, not the AR-15) and you are charged with felony intent. If you tie the shoestring to your AR-15 the combination becomes a machine gun and you are charged with felony possession.
They aren't subject to any kind of judicial review and police themselves. Gun owners in this country are subject to their whimsy. The main lobbies won't do anything because perpetuating this bizarre perversion of justice (rightly) creates a fear that guns will be taken away, which is what keeps NRA and other organizations in business. The individual has no say, period.
[QUOTE=sltungle;48575060]It would in the long run once the ones currently in circulation fall into disrepair (and no amount of illegal firearm purchase/exchange will ever make up for the sheer quantity that occurs legally thanks to the machinery of capitalism).[/QUOTE]
You're underestimating the durability of a gun. There are battlefield-used guns from the Civil War still in decent shape ffs :v:
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;48576729]You're underestimating the durability of a gun. There are battlefield-used guns from the Civil War still in decent shape ffs :v:[/QUOTE]
And being used in heinous crimes all around the country. Oh, wait...
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48576709]You can't change it because the ATF is able to make shit up and enforce it as law because they were given the power to "interpret" the 1934 National Firearms Act and they freely interpret it to mean whatever they want. In that example, a shoestring near an AR-15 becomes a machine gun (the shoestring becomes a machine gun, not the AR-15) and you are charged with felony intent. If you tie the shoestring to your AR-15 the combination becomes a machine gun and you are charged with felony possession.[/QUOTE]
Are you making this up?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48576736]Are you making this up?[/QUOTE]
No. Someone in the 80s found out you can tie a shoestring to an AR-15 in a particular way that makes it bump fire (pesudo full auto) and the ATF ruled in 2004 that the shoestring was a machine gun and that possessing a shoestring and an AR-15 could result in a felony intent to construct charge.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48576745]No. Someone in the 80s found out you can tie a shoestring to an AR-15 in a particular way that makes it bump fire (pesudo full auto) and the ATF ruled that the shoestring was a machine gun.[/QUOTE]
Someone in the 80s?
Could I like, see a source or the ATF ruling itself?
[QUOTE=Revenge282;48576693]The Assault Weapons Ban, which is heralded as probably the worst legislation on firearms in the last 50 years.
I'm sure the majority of gun owners who had their guns confiscated were perfectly OK with that. You can't punish a silent majority because of a very vocal minority.[/QUOTE]
Yeah and guess what? IT GOT REPEALED.
E-fucking-xactly. Maybe if that silent majority became loud like they did during the AWB, maybe we could have a nice happy medium between gun control and complete gun freedom. But nope, because some gun owners are lazy, thousands more will unnecessarily die every year.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48576752]Someone in the 80s?
Could I like, see a source or the ATF ruling itself?[/QUOTE]
Yes, I just went and found it - it's actually an M1 Garand in their example, sorry.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/pNQMvsc.jpg[/img]
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48576755]Yeah and guess what? IT GOT REPEALED.
E-fucking-xactly. Maybe if that silent majority became loud like they did during the AWB, maybe we could have a nice happy medium between gun control and complete gun freedom. But nope, because some gun owners are lazy, thousands more will unnecessarily die every year.[/QUOTE]
You are aware that the AWB expired and was not repealed, right?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48576709]You can't change it because the ATF is able to make shit up and enforce it as law because they were given the power to "interpret" the 1934 National Firearms Act and they freely interpret it to mean whatever they want. In that example, a shoestring near an AR-15 becomes a machine gun (the shoestring becomes a machine gun, not the AR-15) and you are charged with felony intent. If you tie the shoestring to your AR-15 the combination becomes a machine gun and you are charged with felony possession.
They aren't subject to any kind of judicial review and police themselves. Gun owners in this country are subject to their whimsy. The main lobbies won't do anything because perpetuating this bizarre perversion of justice (rightly) creates a fear that guns will be taken away, which is what keeps NRA and other organizations in business. The individual has no say, period.[/QUOTE]
I'm not even sure what to say anymore. I know that nothing I'll say will ever change your mind or probably anyone elses, so why even bother. I'm not even sure why I tried in the first place. It's the reason I try to stay out of most threads this forum is solid on, because it seems like nothing will ever change the opinion of people on Facepunch.
This ATF registered shoestring is fitted with a tag bearing a serial number.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/kOccdJu.jpg[/img]
[editline]30th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48576773]I'm not even sure what to say anymore. I know that nothing I'll say will ever change your mind or probably anyone elses, so why even bother. I'm not even sure why I tried in the first place. It's the reason I try to stay out of most threads this forum is solid on, because it seems like nothing will ever change the opinion of people on Facepunch.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it's because you're arguing with someone who owns guns and has been through the system and currently owns a 100 year old gun tied up in red tape which the ATF flip flops on all the time, from the position of someone who's completely clueless about the legal and political system in this country. At any second my C96 could become an illegal item because I have a replica of its issued shoulder stock and there's [B]nothing I can do about it[/B]. How is that fair? Why should I be satisfied with this system, or worse, voluntarily give this abusive entity even more power?
The ATF ruling was that the shoestring in combination with the gun made it a machinegun, not that the shoestring itself was a machinegun.
It seems rather confusing to state otherwise, because the letter very obviously makes that point clear.
No, the letter states that the shoestring itself is a machine gun. Full auto trigger groups for AR-15 type rifles are also considered "machine guns" among other F/A parts - that is, the parts themselves, not the assembled weapon. Additionally, open bolt guns are considered machine guns whether they're full auto or not.
But the M1 in that example is [I]not[/I] fully automatic, it's bump firing.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48576859]No, the letter states that the shoestring itself is a machine gun. Full auto trigger groups for AR-15 type rifles are also considered "machine guns" among other F/A parts - that is, the parts themselves, not the assembled weapon. Additionally, open bolt guns are considered machine guns whether they're full auto or not.[/quote]
It states that the item converted a semiautomatic into a machinegun. If you had used a piece of metal instead of a string then the same rules would apply.
[quote]But the M1 in that example is [I]not[/I] fully automatic, it's bump firing.[/QUOTE]
The legislation covers machine guns, which defines a machine gun as being a gun that fires more than one bullet when the trigger is pressed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.