First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Shooting Near San Antonio
16508 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 11/10/17 , edited 11/10/17

Nasigno wrote:

Again, "knowledge is key' as a OWNER, you are expected to know that and EXPECTED to ask. This isn't one of those "oh their isn't a penalty so you ain't gonna know or care" statements. You are hung up on making a penalty or a law for something that already is an existing law, and just using semantics to say well "its not against the law" well that does not fly as a reasonable argument, it is lawyer level arguments, which lets be honest that level of argument is akin to why someone can sue for spilling hot coffee because they decided their legs make for better cup holders than actual cup holders.

So again, if the known expectation is that anyone from out of state is required to go through an FFL, why add another law saying the same thing? "ignroance" is not an acceptable response for why someone did something illegal, why is it in this subject matter? Literally you can google "gun laws by state" and you'll have the NRA-ILA, GunPolicy, and multiple other sources that -will- tell you the laws at every level and even state by state. So yea, no "ignorance" in 2017 is not an acceptable answer to not knowing the law.

You own something, you take ownership of it's everything of it, including regulations, laws, and expectations as an owner when trying to sell it. And not at the level of lawyer speak, at the level of what the law says plainly is required.

That aside, to actually have a "working system" that proves this working is to only suspend 4th Amendment rights, as again without having true checks you are at the whim of literally enforcement after the fact. And with the same level of stupidity of "knowledge" argument, they could turn every case into "it was stolen, and did not know where to report it" case, making it impossible to actually enforce the law. So again, either throw away rights in fear, or just accept the existing laws.


You seem to misunderstand. It is not a question of not knowing the relevant law, it is a question of not knowing information about the buyer. People knowing the law is a part of the reason they don't ask. The law draws a huge loophole which explicitly makes it legal to sell to anyone as long as you don't know information about them.

I brought up the relevant law last post to explain this. If you still don't understand, I don't know what else there is to say. Like, do you feel like we should do away with all background checks because I mean, gun stores should have psychic powers and be able to tell when someone is prohibited on sight alone? As is, the law only works if we assume that every private gun owner has superpowers. Personally, I like to assume we aren't living in a fantasy land, but maybe that is just me.
1613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 11/10/17 , edited 11/10/17

sundin13 wrote:

You seem to misunderstand. It is not a question of not knowing the relevant law, it is a question of not knowing information about the buyer. People knowing the law is a part of the reason they don't ask. The law draws a huge loophole which explicitly makes it legal to sell to anyone as long as you don't know information about them.

I brought up the relevant law last post to explain this. If you still don't understand, I don't know what else there is to say. Like, do you feel like we should do away with all background checks because I mean, gun stores should have psychic powers and be able to tell when someone is prohibited on sight alone? As is, the law only works if we assume that every private gun owner has superpowers. Personally, I like to assume we aren't living in a fantasy land, but maybe that is just me.


Then in other words, the person who is going to circumvent it going to anyways. As per your statement, they know the law, and know how to get around. Sooo the penatly you want and requirement you want to add is functionally useless.

Don't put up a "you don't understand this" as its pretty insulting since you think I'm either retarded or illiterate.

The straight counter point is, the existing law is in place that has a requirement. Whether or not, you "know they are" is a lawyer scape goat. It's the sheer stupidity that breeds in why "Wet floor" signs have to exist, or any other common sense warning label that somehow has became legally required because we have to "protect people" by basically considering them functionally inept to notice very obvious things without it slammed in their face.

Again the "knowing information" is an easy counter argument as many "loop holes" can be found. Like I said, you can easily claim stolen, and how would you get found guilty for it? Heck, it isn't a crime to "lose a gun and not report it" in 48 states in the US you could just claim lost, and say you never reported and boom no crime, nothing.

But lets be honest, the biggest issue with "proving it works" is actual quantifiable accountability. Without accountability it is pointless from losses, illegal sales, whatever you want that causes discrepancies and breaks of laws will slip right through and all you'll have is a law without any real backing. So again, without a registry, and then periodic inspections, it will amount to nothing besides a band-aid on a missing limb.




16508 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 11/10/17 , edited 11/10/17

Nasigno wrote:

Then in other words, the person who is going to circumvent it going to anyways. As per your statement, they know the law, and know how to get around. Sooo the penatly you want and requirement you want to add is functionally useless.


They know the law and they know how to legally get around it, so what is wrong with making it so you can't legally get around it?


The straight counter point is, the existing law is in place that has a requirement. Whether or not, you "know they are" is a lawyer scape goat. It's the sheer stupidity that breeds in why "Wet floor" signs have to exist, or any other common sense warning label that somehow has became legally required because we have to "protect people" by basically considering them functionally inept to notice very obvious things without it slammed in their face.


It isn't a lawyer scapegoat, it is the law. It is explicit. Knowing is an element of the crime. There's no other way about it. I don't know what point you are trying to make here. Like, if something that we legally don't want to happen isn't being punished as it should, the law should be improved. It's a pretty simple concept. The language of a law is of paramount importance to the prosecution of said law. What is wrong with making things just work better?


Again the "knowing information" is an easy counter argument as many "loop holes" can be found. Like I said, you can easily claim stolen, and how would you get found guilty for it? Heck, it isn't a crime to "lose a gun and not report it" in 48 states in the US you could just claim lost, and say you never reported and boom no crime, nothing.


First of all, it is one thing for a loophole to be "I did something legal to get around the law" and a whole other thing for it to be "I did something illegal to get around the law". What you are describing is breaking the law. That said, there are things that can be done about someone lying. One is to get testimonies from other people. If you can establish that this person has a history of doing these things than that helps build a case against them. Two would be to do some investigation and maybe find them listing a posting for said firearm. You could get a warrant and find communications between the seller and the buyer. Like, theres things that the police can do. Lying isn't the end of it. If someone says "I didn't kill that person" the cops don't just go "Oh, well I guess he didn't do it. Maybe we'll get him next time."


But lets be honest, the biggest issue with "proving it works" is actual quantifiable accountability. Without accountability it is pointless from losses, illegal sales, whatever you want that causes discrepancies and breaks of laws will slip right through and all you'll have is a law without any real backing. So again, without a registry, and then periodic inspections, it will amount to nothing besides a band-aid on a missing limb.


Again, I disagree. While you wouldn't be able to prosecute it 100% of the time, it would provide some manner of accountability. If you are just some guy who wants to sell his gun, your options are "make the buyer get a background check" (which isn't asking much) or "potentially be sent to jail for selling this guy the gun that he used to kill 50 people". I think its an easy choice and I certainly don't see what the big deal is about such a simple requirement. If you are legally allowed to have a gun than there is nothing to worry about.
1613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 11/10/17 , edited 11/11/17

sundin13 wrote:

They know the law and they know how to legally get around it, so what is wrong with making it so you can't legally get around it?

It isn't a lawyer scapegoat, it is the law. It is explicit. Knowing is an element of the crime. There's no other way about it. I don't know what point you are trying to make here. Like, if something that we legally don't want to happen isn't being punished as it should, the law should be improved. It's a pretty simple concept. The language of a law is of paramount importance to the prosecution of said law. What is wrong with making things just work better?

First of all, it is one thing for a loophole to be "I did something legal to get around the law" and a whole other thing for it to be "I did something illegal to get around the law". What you are describing is breaking the law. That said, there are things that can be done about someone lying. One is to get testimonies from other people. If you can establish that this person has a history of doing these things than that helps build a case against them. Two would be to do some investigation and maybe find them listing a posting for said firearm. You could get a warrant and find communications between the seller and the buyer. Like, theres things that the police can do. Lying isn't the end of it. If someone says "I didn't kill that person" the cops don't just go "Oh, well I guess he didn't do it. Maybe we'll get him next time."

Again, I disagree. While you wouldn't be able to prosecute it 100% of the time, it would provide some manner of accountability. If you are just some guy who wants to sell his gun, your options are "make the buyer get a background check" (which isn't asking much) or "potentially be sent to jail for selling this guy the gun that he used to kill 50 people". I think its an easy choice and I certainly don't see what the big deal is about such a simple requirement. If you are legally allowed to have a gun than there is nothing to worry about.


Because, again your idea requires more than you are willing to actually facilitate. It has zero accountability, which again is the major concept you do seem to enjoy skipping over. With over 300 million guns, and the possibility of repeated transfers of firearms for last few decades, and so on, it leaves the point you cannot ever hope to see this work even in the next hundred years. You have no baseline information of owners, you have no baseline who has purchased these through FFL versus Private. You have zero means to obtain ALL this information, and be able to process it even in the next decade.

Lets be honest, your new law provides for the original owner, who may of sold the firearm a decade ago to be legally responsible for who owns it after the passing of your law. Because guess what, that is the only true information available to you, thus you'd be be making someone wanted for something that left his hands a decade ago. You'd waste tax money for both the warrant, summons, and investigation just to find out practically nothing. At best you can only track the original 4473, and then it's only on file for so long, last I recall 20 years at most that is required.

It provides for zero accountability as it does not have any means to place each firearm that has -already- been privately transferred into a means to actually use in a court case. You are going to say it provides something, but in the end, you have zero quantifiable data on how many private transfers occur in a day, week, month, year, or decade. And you are going to somehow revert back, and provide "accountability" for an unknown total of firearms transferring between people on a private basis for since well... the birth of America?

So again, I ask this how are you going to prove the people who have zero firearms through any FFL are not illegally trafficking firearms after your law passes? What is your answer to deal with that? Again you cannot just say "we'll start now with this law!" and think it'll somehow work and just ignore the 300+ million guns prior, with no known number of how many times it traded hands privately.

Heck, this is as much a witch hunt as the "3D printed or 80% lower" laws. I've yet to hear a pandemic of those being used in crime, and that provides for the LEAST tracking as guess what, it has no serial, no FFL involved, and is pretty easy task to get done. So why they ain't in prolific use? Oh right... it is because just like the private sale loophole you are so worried about, it is a non-issue.

Let's get to a real solution. Actually punish breaking the law. Drop probation, drop plea bargaining for felonies, and actually enforce the law.

It's amazing when you look into the depth of most the homicide, it is predominantly people with existing records, on probation, already a long list of crimes they've been guilty of, and and it goes on. Heck, by all accounts over 76 murders a year are found to be done by people actively on probation. And that is not even including all the other crimes in the mix of that. We know gang members, and have an existing database at the federal level, pretty easy to use that to actually curb the majority of homicide, where is -that- suggestion in your idea?

Instead you chase a ghost of a problem, and throw out a ridiculous notion that "background checks or guilty for 50 deaths" when literally no mass shooting you can name has had a victim count that high from a "privately sold firearm" it is just disingenuous and uses crimes committed by legally purchased firearms to facilitate -your- argument for privately sold ones.

But of course, when actually presented the only way to provide for an actual accountable system, that would work, you back away because you aren't willing to commit to a real solution at the cost of saying "your rights are less important than a witch hunt" but rather you'll promote a worthless law that will just cost more in tax dollars with zero effect.

16508 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 11/11/17 , edited 11/11/17

Nasigno wrote:
Because, again your idea requires more than you are willing to actually facilitate. It has zero accountability, which again is the major concept you do seem to enjoy skipping over. With over 300 million guns, and the possibility of repeated transfers of firearms for last few decades, and so on, it leaves the point you cannot ever hope to see this work even in the next hundred years. You have no baseline information of owners, you have no baseline who has purchased these through FFL versus Private. You have zero means to obtain ALL this information, and be able to process it even in the next decade.

Lets be honest, your new law provides for the original owner, who may of sold the firearm a decade ago to be legally responsible for who owns it after the passing of your law. Because guess what, that is the only true information available to you, thus you'd be be making someone wanted for something that left his hands a decade ago. You'd waste tax money for both the warrant, summons, and investigation just to find out practically nothing. At best you can only track the original 4473, and then it's only on file for so long, last I recall 20 years at most that is required.

It provides for zero accountability as it does not have any means to place each firearm that has -already- been privately transferred into a means to actually use in a court case. You are going to say it provides something, but in the end, you have zero quantifiable data on how many private transfers occur in a day, week, month, year, or decade. And you are going to somehow revert back, and provide "accountability" for an unknown total of firearms transferring between people on a private basis for since well... the birth of America?

So again, I ask this how are you going to prove the people who have zero firearms through any FFL are not illegally trafficking firearms after your law passes? What is your answer to deal with that? Again you cannot just say "we'll start now with this law!" and think it'll somehow work and just ignore the 300+ million guns prior, with no known number of how many times it traded hands privately..


Again, I've explained this a few times, but you don't need any of what you are saying. Of course it would be better to have all the information in the world, but just as having background checks for sales through licensed dealers is better than nothing, having background checks for well-intentioned private dealers is an improvement. It works on the same logic. When it comes to prosecution of crime (and prevention), the more information you have, the better. This provides more information. Simple as that. I really don't understand your argument here. You seem to have an "all or nothing" approach. If this can't stop 100% of crime, it just isn't worth it. That idea just doesn't work. I've said many times, there is no silver bullet. Multiple pieces of legislation should come together, each taking small steps to get us closer to resolving this issue.

As for your question about people trafficking without going through an FFL, again, not every individual will be caught. However, there would be a few changes for this law. How are they getting their guns? Are they going through private sellers? At some point, pretty much every illegal gun was legal. It isn't uncommon for traffickers to purchase firearms from private sellers so now this reduces the supply or adds traceability to some percentage of these guns and either provides a paper trail on some of these people or reduces the amount of sellers providing them with supply.

I feel at this point I've provided you with all of the evidence you've asked for to show you that this is indeed a problem and a reasonable explanation as to how this change would help as well as a quick assessment of how this change would hurt.

Overall, I believe I have demonstrated that there is a clear, quantifiable hole in our background check system, enacting this law would provide several steps towards closing that hole while having virtually no drawbacks. Even if the improvement is minor, the cost benefit analysis still leans positive due to the virtually harmless nature of this proposal.

PS: About criminal justice reform. Last time you brought it up, I agreed that it was imporant. I still feel that way. However, as I've said, one proposal does not invalidate another. By bringing it up, you are simply distracting and scapegoating. I will gladly discuss it elsewhere, but not here.

PSS: I've already brought to your attention that Columbine, one of the most famous mass shootings ever involved privately sold guns. Like again, the fact that you are trying to use a tiny fraction of a minority of homicides as a way of insisting this isn't a problem is laughable, even moreso when you are just blatantly wrong.

PSSS: Some studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704273/

"Although cities in states with the most comprehensive gun sale regulations attract some guns from states with weaker gun laws, the combination of strong gun dealer regulations and regulation of private handgun sales were still associated with fewer trafficked guns even after controlling for local levels of gun ownership. Consistent with our findings, a recent study found that states which regulate private gun sales exported crime guns to other states at a rate that was half as high as that of states that did not regulate private guns sales"

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-014-9865-8

"Using death certificate data available through 2010, the repeal of Missouri’s PTP law was associated with an increase in annual firearm homicides rates of 1.09 per 100,000 (+23 %) but was unrelated to changes in non-firearm homicide rates. Using Uniform Crime Reporting data from police through 2012, the law’s repeal was associated with increased annual murders rates of 0.93 per 100,000 (+16 %). These estimated effects translate to increases of between 55 and 63 homicides per year in Missouri"

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/3/184.short

"In cities located in states with both mandatory registration and licensing systems (five cities), a mean of 33.7% of crime guns were first sold by in-state gun dealers, compared with 72.7% in cities that had either registration or licensing but not both (seven cities), and 84.2% in cities without registration or licensing (13 cites). "

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302703

" We estimated that the law was associated with a 40% reduction in Connecticut’s firearm homicide rates during the first 10 years that the law was in place. By contrast, there was no evidence for a reduction in nonfirearm homicides."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743512003295

"More background checks are associated with fewer homicide (IRR:0.93, 95% CI:0.91–0.96) and suicide (IRR:0.98, 95% CI:0.96–1.00) deaths. "

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673615010260

"After adjustment for relevant covariates, the three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase (multivariable IRR 0·39 [95% CI 0·23–0·67]; p=0·001), "

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2595892/firearm-acquisition-without-background-checks-results-national-survey

"For firearms purchased privately within the previous 2 years (that is, other than from a store or pawnshop, including sales between individuals in person, online, or at gun shows), 50% (CI, 35% to 65%) were obtained without a background check. This percentage was 26% (CI, 5% to 47%) for owners residing in states regulating private firearm sales and 57% (CI, 40% to 75%) for those living in states without regulations on private firearm sales."
55427 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 11/11/17 , edited 11/11/17
I'm sure lot like this happen before the internet came out and the difference is that we have internet and we get news update every min from everywhere.. We now know what going on within the min new reporter posts them on internet.

Its does seem like internet not only bring joy but also depressing news! >.<

Does it sound like they're completing with others gunman? First come to mind is Columbine high Eric and Dylan.

Does it seem like they felt that they're at the end of the point of their life where its no longer matter.. and they start thinking God, Jesus and Angels are all man made?
11291 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
14 / F / California
Offline
Posted 11/11/17 , edited 11/11/17
Air force should pay out to the victims and the victim's families on this one.
3897 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/11/17 , edited 11/12/17
This is how it is now aday. Clueless people acting like they are experts on the topic in question. It's the blind leading the blind.

MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle Falsely Claims ‘An Assault Rifle is Different Than a Gun’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajs2yXkhNhQ

"An Assault Rifle is Different Than a Gun " said Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC More memes are coming....



42589 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
shujin academy
Offline
Posted 11/11/17 , edited 11/12/17
This country needs goddamn mental health reform and recognition. Doubtful that it’ll happen, but seriously, our mental healthcare coverage is shit. And it only makes the people who are legitimately harmful even more harmful.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.