Good and Bad

[tarosean]

Come on guys. Don't be so hard on him. How about we all agree to give up all our guns for one year. Then the next year we'll petition .gov to give them back. That's reasonable.....right? I mean .gov has always been in the habit of giving power to the citizens. Not taking it away. You guys are just being mean. Now stop it or I'm gonna tell!!!

I don't know man... Might want to consult a Native American to see how well it works out?


All kidding aside.. With all the shootings splashed all over the media recently. We are in for a heck of a fight, facts be damned....

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Editing.... may have misread something.... will have to come back later...

 

[Speedo66]

A lot here just cannot believe that a firearm owner like myself would welcome some changes to firearm laws.

NY's Gov. Cuomo says he's a gun owner too (shotgun). Lot of good it's done the State of NY.

 

[Robert]

Yup no one could envision the future of firearms...

These rights are not derived from a piece of paper, therefore then can not be limited or removed.

 

[benEzra]

Shootingthebreeze, what you are suggesting did not help UK gun owners preserve their rights after Dunblane, nor did it help Australian gun owners preserve their rights after Port Arthur. On the contrary, having given away most of their rights previously, and having turned gun ownership into a privilege rather than a fundamental right, it was trivial for the government post-Dunblane to ban anything they wanted. And nothing is now stopping the UK government from going to even further extremes after the *next* UK mass shooting; after all, pump shotguns are just as prone to such misuse as handguns and autoloading or pump-action rifles are.

What you seem to be suggesting is to treat the prohibitionists as reasonable people who act in good faith, and accept whatever restrictions the prohibitionists offer that are not *too* onerous in hopes that it will reduce their desire to inflict further restrictions upon us.

The problem, as I have discovered, is that the prohibitionists are *not* reasonable people acting in good faith. Appeasement works until next year or the next high-profile shooting or the next well-funded push, when the prohibitionists take the new law as the new line of scrimmage and start trying to move the ball further.

I do certainly believe that we need to pick our battles, and that (say) repealing the NFA or the current NICS system is not feasible at present. But the gun control fundamentalists have shown clearly in the past couple of years that they are not interested in the slightest in crime control; what they hate the most is lawful gun ownership, not criminal misuse.

 

[frank c]

Per some urging of fellow member (which I do thank for input) I decided to start my thread titled Good and Bad.
Most if not all members here are against any form of firearm control. Which is understandable due to the language of the Second Amendment.
However, times have changed since the Founding Fathers laid the foundations to the US Constitution. For one, they could not envision the changes in our society and the evolution of firearms that we have today. Nor could they envision the complex issues of mental health and random shootings we are experiencing today including gang violence.
Today, we are experiencing a wave of firearm bills at state level never seen before due to inaction at the Federal level. A few, to me good, and bad as an example, the NH bill which cites that anyone buying a firearm from another friend or relative should have a background check. I say this bill is good in that it seals a loophole with firearm sales. Anyone buying a new firearm is subjected to a background check; why should a person buying a firearm privately be exempt? Another, bad, which I had read about was re-registering firearms to include a fee for re-registration. To me, that is not necessary at all, that registration should be a one time only thing period.
The lack of will to enact sane firearm controls at the Federal level without endangering the Second Amendment is causing a tsunami of bills and laws at state level and these bills are increasing almost at a weekly level. Some will be bad, some will be in the right direction in denying firearms to the wrong people.
My argument is that because of this inaction at the Federal level we will have soon a quilt like pattern of firearm laws at state level, some good some bad due to the lack of will to have experts hammer out changes to firearm controls at the national level.
Resistance to change will cause states to enact firearm laws which in the long run will erode the Second Amendment because good and bad bills will be passed. We are seeing this today.
If we want to keep our rights to bear arms then we also need some flexibility relating to firearm control. I'm not a legislator or a lawyer I'm an RN. Security of firearms needs to be tightened to prevent children from getting killed every year. Denying firearms to those who should not have them needs to be addressed. One firearm death is one too many.
In the subject of self defense I have no problems with that. But our world today is much different than the one when the US Constitution was hammered out. Being flexible to that fact can only strengthen the Second Amendment, not weaken it.
A lot here just cannot believe that a firearm owner like myself would welcome some changes to firearm laws. A few of my friends, also firearm owners feel the same way. We are a very small minority because the majority is scope locked on the right to bear arms versus being flexible to change at the national level. But by being this way, the back door to the states is wide open to a flood of good and bad bills which have already started to flood.
And the flood is getting deeper.

You can give up your rights if you want (NOT ME).Trust me NOT everyone in Michigan feels this way including me.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

The links that tie buyer to seller and create the "chain of custody" SHOULD be broken whenever at all possible. But that's not a matter of criminal law policy (to which it certainly does become a, perhaps regrettable, hindrance) but of fundamental 2nd Amendment rights (an infinitely more compelling matter) -- if there are lawful remaining ways to fracture any element of government tracking of firearms owners and ownership we SHOULD be taking fullest advantage of that at every conceivable opportunity. This does, of course, broaden the discussion a lot further and perhaps diverges from the question at hand.

Not “perhaps” a hindrance. Definitely a hindrance.

And that is the real discussion.

How much do we want to hinder law enforcement and the justice system in prosecuting criminals in exchange for privacy?

Me? I don’t care too much about privacy. Doesn’t bother me if the gov’t knows I have guns, as long as they don’t do anything to harm me because they know. I’m not too worried about the hypotheticals of a federal confiscation scheme, it will never get through congress and SCOTUS, although some of the state ones are pretty bad (which was the OP’s point… we have no meaningful national law, so we are getting a pile of bad local laws trying to make up for it). I definitely DO care about criminals getting guns. I live in a high crime city… lots of criminals, lots of murders (and many of them random), the less guns the criminals have, the less chance I have to go to a funeral of a friend.

Well, some will, but more importantly, MANY good average joe sorts WON'T. Won't sell privately at all because "what if?" What if the credentials were fake?

What? It isn’t that hard. Go to an FFL, say “I want to sell my gun to Billy.” FFL does the paperwork (same as they do every day) and done. No burden on the Average Joe to do anything except take an extra trip and not forget their ID.

Now, all the ridiculous hoops you have to jump through in CT, NY and CA?? Yeah, let’s get rid of those, they don’t do anything useful. But a simple BC that already gets performed millions of times each year is not some hieroglyphic, indecipherable burden and the FFLs already know how to do it. Put the legal burden on the dealers to do their paperwork right (which, that legal burden is ALREADY on the dealers, so that is nothing new). If Average Joe goes through the process, he is clear.

 

[Sam1911]

Well Pizza, at least we've reached the crux of the disagreement. You're ok with basically all gun sales being a federal matter and that is abhorrent to me. I do hope we never come to a point where we're faced with such a choice. Perhaps if we all keep fighting, the matter remains moot and neither of us have to settle for such a thing whether we're appalled by it (me) or ok with it (you).

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Alright rbernie, I took a look at that document.

Among Federal offenders whose only offense was a firearms offense 47% were persons prohibited from having firearms [and] 23% violated Federal laws that govern dealing in firearms. Among Federal offenders convicted of firearms offenses and other, more serious offenses, 82% used or carried a firearm during another crime [and] 10% were persons prohibited from having firearms.

Your original quote was this:

"According to the DoJ, most folk convicted of federal crimes that involved the use of a firearm were NOT PROHIBITED PERSONS when they obtained the firearm."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your implication was that most people committing crimes with guns would not have been caught by a background check. (If incorrect, please let me know)

This document does not in any way support that claim.

The first half of the data (47%) is not about people who committed crimes “involving the use of a firearm.” The quote is about people whose ONLY offense was a firearm offense (dealing, illegal possession, trafficking, etc.)

“whose only offense was a firearms offense 47% were persons prohibited from having firearms”

“WHOSE ONLY OFFENSE” That means that if someone committed murder, armed robbery, assault, aggravated assault, breaking and entering, rape, sexual assault, drug charges or ANY violent crime, they are not included in that statement.

The second half of the quote is a bit odd, it is targeting a very narrow group (people convicted of a federal firearms offense but also convicted of another, more serious offense) and I’m not really sure who those would be. I am guessing those are people who are first time offenders that prosecutors added the federal offense to enhance the sentence. With repeat offenders, sentence enhancement is not as big a priority. BUT, that is speculation, there really isn’t enough information in the document to figure out who they are, but with a bit of work I could determine the number. Roughly, it is about 4,200 cases nationwide in 1993. I wish they had a breakdown of the other offenses, that would tell us if these were violent criminals or just people trying to make some money outside the law. We don't really know.

Regardless, the document as a whole has little bearing on the discussion of general crime across the country and is primarily looking at the effects of federal involvement in sentencing. This is looking at a very narrow list of 6,000 prosecutions that made it to federal court, mostly related to gun trafficking and illegal dealing. This has little to do with day to day crime on the streets. The majority of violent crimes are prosecuted at the state level without federal involvement and, as such, are not included in this document at all.

If you get robbed at gunpoint, if your house gets robbed or thugs beat you up in the street, your case will not make it to FEDERAL court unless it is a very unique case. It will be prosecuted at the state level. Most of the examples in this document are cases of Federal charges being added to another charge for sentence enhancement.

However, at the bottom of the document, there is an indication of how many offenders who committed VIOLENT crimes were prohibited persons.

“More than 70% of violent Federal offenders had been sentenced in the past, regardless of firearms involvement.”

According to this document, the vast majority of violent offenders, those who I am MOST interested in keeping from obtaining guns, are past offenders that would not pass a background check.

So, in summary, this report was looking at 6,000 very unique, federal cases. There were nearly 2 million instances of violent crime in 1993 [ http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls ], that particular 6,000 is not a representative sample and even within that sample, most of the violent offenders (not just someone trying to make an unlawful buck off selling guns) had previous convictions.

 

[Claude Clay]

been said

 

[JN01]

"The 1993 NEJM article received considerable media attention, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded by campaigning for the elimination of the center that had funded the study, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. The center itself survived, but Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury. Dr. Kellerman stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”

Citing a hack like Kellerman to prove that the NRA is suppressing the truth is ridiculous. Why should gun owners have their tax dollars spent by the CDC to produce junk-science propaganda pieces (like Kellerman's for example) to prop up legislation to strip them of their rights?

If all it takes to avoid punishment is saying "I sold that gun in a private sale. I checked his DL and had no reason to believe he was a prohibited person, so I met the minimum requirements of the law. I moved the gun to the "SOLD" sheet on my excel sheet,” then the risk of punishment is very low and people will continue to break the law.

If you make the transfer without a BC illegal, then the risk of being caught goes up (your name attached to every gun you buy from dealer or FTF) and the risk of prosecution goes up (the sale itself is illegal, no need to prove that you “knowingly” sold to a criminal), then the law has a more effective deterrent effect.

Do you think “family and friends” that can currently sell at little to no risk would do the same if their NAME and ADDRESS were attached to the gun and they KNEW that if it was recovered by police, the police would come in arrest them and they would face years in jail?

It is currently a crime for criminals to attempt to buy guns. Some attempt to do so from FFLs. They are almost NEVER prosecuted. What makes you think your new law will do any better?

Secondly, there are hundreds of millions of guns currently in circulation, the vast majority of which were last transferred by a FFL years or decades ago. Were you to recover a crime gun, track it the the FFL that sold it, then the buyer, how are you going to prove that he sold it illegally yesterday (without going through your UBC) rather than 10 years ago (when your UBC wasn't required)?

Let's assume that your UBC is 100% effective and that no legal gun owners transfer any guns without a background check. Would that dry up the pool of available guns for criminals, or would it create an even more lucrative black market resulting in more burglaries, assaults, etc, to obtain more guns for greater profit?

 

[rbernie]

“More than 70% of violent Federal offenders had been sentenced in the past, regardless of firearms involvement.”

According to this document, the vast majority of violent offenders, those who I am MOST interested in keeping from obtaining guns, are past offenders that would not pass a background check.

I can be convicted of multiple misdemeanor violations and still not be a prohibited person. The fact that they were convicted of being a violent felon at one point does not imply that they were previously convicted of violent felonies. In fact, that's exactly the point that the document makes - these violent felons WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY VIOLENT FELONS but were well known to the criminal justice system nevertheless.

The second half of the quote is a bit odd, it is targeting a very narrow group (people convicted of a federal firearms offense but also convicted of another, more serious offense)

Based on how I read it, you have it backwards - the 47% data point is for folks ONLY convicted of a firearms offense who should have been prohibited of acquiring and owning a firearm. The 10% quote is the total number of folks convicted of both firearms-related AND non-firearms related felonies who were prohibited persons at the time of conviction.

In other words, almost half of the folk being conviced of ONLY gun felonies were prohibited but only ten percent of folk who engaged in other examples of Badness Using A Gun were prohibited.

So, in summary, this report was looking at 6,000 very unique, federal cases.

You call the study group unique - on what basis? If you're going to take data and call it invalid, there needs to be some rationale as to why, other than the fact that it doesn't fit your narrative.

Based on the document, I gleaned the following: during the 12 months ending September 30, 1993, 42,107 people were sentenced for having violated Federal laws of some kind, and that of that number there were 6,987 (16.6%) folk that commited their special brand of Badness using a firearm. Of that approximate seven thousand person sampling, more than half were not prohibited people when they obtained their firearm.

I don't know how that can't be relevant, and I certainly don't see anything that would indicate that the sample population was unrepresentative in any way.

It is currently a crime for criminals to attempt to buy guns. Some attempt to do so from FFLs. They are almost NEVER prosecuted. What makes you think your new law will do any better?

The last time that I looked at the NCIS statistics, the percentage of prohibited folk that were prosecuted for knowingly trying to buy a gun was in the single digit range.

Why would that be so, if the goal was to actually find Bad People and keep them from doing Bad Things?

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Citing a hack like Kellerman to prove that the NRA is suppressing the truth is ridiculous. Why should gun owners have their tax dollars spent by the CDC to produce junk-science propaganda pieces (like Kellerman's for example) to prop up legislation to strip them of their rights?

I didn't cite Kellerman, I cited a publication of the APA that has a quote from Kellerman in it.

The NRA HAS worked to suppress research into gun injuries and gun violence. This is not some wild conspiracy theory, it is something the NRA is proud of and the congressman who authored the bill has said he was working "as the NRA’s point person in Congress."

The truth is, the NRA does not want there to be any research on gun violence. They don't think they would like the results, so they try to prevent it.

Also, if the CDC is "junk science," then I guess we need to scrap most everything they have taught us about disease prevention, workplace safety, causes and prevention of car accidents, treatment for traumatic injuries, food safety, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

You only disagree with the CDC on the one issue you have a passionate emotional attachment to, other than that you probably never give them a thought and would have no problem with 99.9% of what they say.

THe .1% you disagree with probably has more to do with YOU than the quality of the CDC's science.

 

[rbernie]

To those that espouse mandatory and universal background checks, I offer the following, taken from a previous post that I made here on the subject some years back:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/bcft05.txt

* 1.6% of the 8.3 million applications for firearm transfers or permits in 2005 were rejected by the FBI (66,700 applications)or State and local agencies(65,200 applications).

* The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm and Explosive's(ATF) field offices investigated 9,575 National Instant Criminal Background Check System(NICS)denials that were referred by the FBI in 2005.

* In 2005 U.S. attorney offices accepted for prosecution 135 NICS denial cases investigated by ATF.

So - 130,000 folks were denied legal access to a firearm via NICS denial in 2005, of which sixty seven thousand purchases were blocked by the FBI. Of those sixty seven thousand FBI-blocked transactions, less than ten thousand represented denials that were worthy of ATFE investigation, and only 135 denials actually represented cases suitable for Federal prosecution.

161,000 appeals of denials from 1999 to 2005; 57,000 reversed

This means that almost TEN THOUSAND folk were inappropriately denied the right to purchase a firearm in 2005 (presuming the reversal rate trends flat from year to year), and all for the result of one hundred and thirty five Bad Guys getting prosecuted.

More importantly - if 67,000 denials were issued by the FBI in 2005 (the last year for official .gov statistics) and almost 10,000 were demonstrably inappropriate - that's a pretty sobering ratio. Even factoring in the state denials, the NICS system by their own numbers erroneously denies the right to buy a firearm to someone who was legally empowered to do so for at least eight percent of the denials.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

You call the study group unique - on what basis? If you're going to take data and call it invalid, there needs to be some rationale as to why, other than the fact that it doesn't fit your narrative.

It isn’t a study group. These are the only cases that made it to federal court. That means that all of these cases met one of several unique criteria.

Read this page for more information: http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.n...CCA93B3B87C844BC85256C7900460860?opendocument

Most criminal cases involve violations of state law and are tried in state court, this document does not represent most criminal cases.

Federal convictions under federal law are not representative of general crime in the US. They just aren’t. Federal courts only hear cases that meet unique criteria and only a TINY percentage of criminal cases meet those criteria.

There is plenty of reading out there about the difference between Federal courts and State courts, I’m not going to rehash it here.

 

[PJSprog]

Well shootingthebreeze, I'll give you this much; after searching some of your recent posts, it seems your wavering stance on the Second Amendment has been fairly consistent.

I have to wonder, though, how many of the rest of our Constitutionally guaranteed Rights you are willing to compromise. Where does that insanity stop?

... and speaking of insanity ... you are aware that buzzwords like "sane," "reasonable," and "common sense," when used in regards to gun laws, are the very words used by those who would ultimately disarm us, are you not?

 

[rbernie]

Federal convictions under federal law are not representative of general crime in the US. They just aren’t. Federal courts only hear cases that meet unique criteria and only a TINY percentage of criminal cases meet those criteria.

Well, you and I are going to have to disagree on the relevancy of the Federal data on the question at hand. My perception has been that the definition of a Federal crime generally places it in the 'worser than pickpocketing or child support disputes' category (e.g. bank robbery vs. robbery of the Gas-n-Go), and therefore has the potential to OVERREPRESENT the impact of gun violence than would looking solely at state crimes. In other words, there are more gas station robberies in total, but more folk rob banks with guns (on a percentile basis) than rob the local gas station with a gun. Your cite hasn't changed that opinion.

But in the end, you continue to display the singular behavior of investing calories to refute the claims by others that a UBC is bad but won't invest the calories to show the potential benefit of a UBC to those of us who don't see the benefit.

I see no point in trying to debate a position with somebody who won't engage in debate.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

My perception has been that the definition of a Federal crime generally places it in the 'worser than pickpocketing or child support disputes' category (e.g. bank robbery vs. robbery of the Gas-n-Go),

Well… your "perception" is, quite simply, wrong.

Federal vs. State has nothing to do with severity and everything to do with jurisdiction. The largest category of federal cases are immigration cases, not because they are the most severe, but because immigration is a federal law. Firearm crimes are one of the smallest, because most of the time when a crime is committed with a gun (robbery, assault, murder, etc.) it does not fall under federal jurisdiction, it falls under state jurisdiction.

But in the end, you continue to display the singular behavior of investing calories to refute the claims by others that a UBC is bad but won't invest the calories to show the potential benefit of a UBC to those of us who don't see the benefit.

First, I just went back and looked. You edited in a bunch of stuff into your posts about UBC that I missed. If you had included it in your original post, I would have responded.

I basically explained it in post #71 and I have typed way too much on here today, but here is the short version.

Under current law, there is a low risk of being prosecuted for providing guns to criminals because FTF/private sale laws are so loose that you can sell to a convicted felon and just tell the police it was a private sale. As such, guns flow freely into the criminal market and the people providing them (friends, family, acquaintances, etc.) face little risk of prosecution.

With UBC, that stream becomes inherently illegal. You can no longer claim that the gun you gave to a criminal was a legal sale, because the law now states you must perform a background check and you did not. All those friends, family, acquaintances, etc. will now face criminal charges if they give a gun to someone. This will be a deterrent to potential providers of guns and a tool for prosecuting individuals who provide criminals with guns.

 

[JRH6856]

I have to wonder, though, how many of the rest of our Constitutionally guaranteed Rights you are willing to compromise. Where does that insanity stop?

You know, maybe we should just do away with the whole Bill of Rights. It's so outdated and all. I mean, why do we need freedom of religion? People who believe in an all powerful invisible being in the sky are obviously mentaly unstable and probably dangerous; especially if they vote the way the being tells them to. They shouldn't have access to guns, either.

Why do we need to be protected from quartering soldiers? Like when does that ever happen?

illegal search and seizure? Are you a criminal? What do you have to hide? No one is going to want to search your house without good reason, so be a good person and they won't have a good reason.

You already said you are not a criminal, right? If you aren't going to commit a crime then why do you need access to an attroney or trial by jury? Or protection against self-incrimination? Bad things don't happen to good people. Just tell the nice policeman everything.

And all that stuff about a speedy trial, and confronting your accuser and cruel and unusual punishments?. Again, if you aren't a criminal you don't have to worry about that and if you are, your attorney will handle it (if you can afford one).

Remember, Big Brother Loves You and you love Big Brother. :banghead:

 

[rbernie]

Firearm crimes are one of the smallest, because most of the time when a crime is committed with a gun (robbery, assault, murder, etc.) it does not fall under federal jurisdiction, it falls under state jurisdiction

We've already established that the vast majority of all violent State crimes don't involve the use of a firearm, per the BJS links provided. Your assertions remain unconvincing, but they are clearly yours.

With UBC, that stream becomes inherently illegal. You can no longer claim that the gun you gave to a criminal was a legal sale, because the law now states you must perform a background check and you did not. All those friends, family, acquaintances, etc. will now face criminal charges if they give a gun to someone. This will be a deterrent to potential providers of guns and a tool for prosecuting individuals who provide criminals with guns.

Prove the benefit to making it illegal. Saying it has benefit doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't begin to address the cost (dollars and non-dollars) involved. We can review statistically some of the positive and negative impact of the current NICS check, using 2005 data, as shown in Post #89 - I think it only fair to show the impact of extending the NICS check into a universal check.

There have also been a fair number of suggestions in this thread that stolen guns and other currently illegal transfers are a significant contributor to the misuse of firearms by prohibited persons, and I'm sure that it would be useful to know how a UBC addresses that issue.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

We've already established that the vast majority of all violent State crimes don't involve the use of a firearm, per the BJS links provided. Your assertions remain unconvincing, but they are clearly yours.

I don’t know the relevance of the first sentence. Yes, it is more common for someone to commit a crime without a gun than with a gun. How is that relevant?

If you don’t understand the difference between federal and state prosecution (which, apparently you do not based on your belief that it is just a matter of severity) then yes, I can see how it would be unconvincing. To anyone who understand the two court system, it shouldn’t be that difficult to understand.

Prove the benefit to making it illegal. Saying it has benefit doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't begin to address the cost (dollars and non-dollars) involved. We can review statistically some of the positive and negative impact of the current NICS check, using 2005 data, as shown in Post #89 - I think it only fair to show the impact of extending the NICS check into a universal check.

There have also been a fair number of suggestions in this thread that stolen guns and other currently illegal transfers are a significant contributor to the misuse of firearms by prohibited persons, and I'm sure that it would be useful to know how a UBC addresses that issue.

First, in regards to post #89.

Your analysis is that the only benefit of the NCIS system is the 135 convictions. Is that accurate?

Second, as I have said before, UBC will do nothing to prevent stolen guns. If you want a magical law that solves every problem with one stroke of the pen, you will need to look elsewhere. You can always list more creative and innovative ways that criminals can get guns and we will never eliminate every possible method and yes, you can list more methods than I will take the time to respond to. That does not mean that passing UBC would not significantly reduce the number of guns in criminal circulation and improve public safety.

As quoted from post #71:

Second, people will break laws all day long, every day, all year if they feel little to no risk of being caught or punished.

If all it takes to avoid punishment is saying "I sold that gun in a private sale. I checked his DL and had no reason to believe he was a prohibited person, so I met the minimum requirements of the law. I moved the gun to the "SOLD" sheet on my excel sheet,” then the risk of punishment is very low and people will continue to break the law.

If you make the transfer without a BC illegal, then the risk of being caught goes up (your name attached to every gun you buy from dealer or FTF) and the risk of prosecution goes up (the sale itself is illegal, no need to prove that you “knowingly” sold to a criminal), then the law has a more effective deterrent effect.

Do you think “family and friends” that can currently sell at little to no risk would do the same if their NAME and ADDRESS were attached to the gun and they KNEW that if it was recovered by police, the police would come in arrest them and they would face years in jail?

If you make the sale illegal and easily prosecuted, then individuals who currently would be willing to give a gun to a criminal (b/c there is low risk of prosecution) will now have a higher risk of prosecution ad they will be less likely to break the law. Currently straw sales have a low risk of prosecution, so there is little deterrent effect for someone who might consider breaking the law.

 

[rbernie]

If you don’t understand the difference between federal and state prosecution (which, apparently you do not based on your belief that it is just a matter of severity) then yes, I can see how it would be unconvincing. To anyone who understand the two court system, it shouldn’t be that difficult to understand

The issue was whether an analysis of Federal firearm crime data taken from Federal prisons was relevant to the discussion regarding violent crime in general. Other than pointing out the superficial differences in jurisdiction, you've done nothing to further the notion that the firearms data from the Federal system has no bearing on the larger gun control issue. Continuing to assert 'But it's different, and you're a ninny if you don't get it!' doesn't actually answer the mail - crafting an actual argument that shows how it's irrelevant, on the other hand, would be useful. At some point, I'm going to have to assume that you're not actually interested in crafting a defensible position as much as you just want to be seen as winning.

If you make the sale illegal and easily prosecuted, then individuals who currently would be willing to give a gun to a criminal (b/c there is low risk of prosecution) will now have a higher risk of prosecution ad they will be less likely to break the law. Currently straw sales have a low risk of prosecution, so there is little deterrent effect for someone who might consider breaking the law.

But you've dodged the effort to quantify the benefit and quantify the impact. Much like the 'war on drugs' created second and third order effects, so too will a UBC. Your unwillingness to analyze those potential effects, for good and ill, does not make your position any stronger.

You keep repeating that the UBC will reduce the flow of guns to prohibited persons - I suggest that you try to explain by how much the flow of firearms to prohibited persons will be inhibited, the expected resultant increase in public safety caused by that inhibition, by what mechanism will it be implemented, by what mechanism will it be enforced, what penalties will be enacted to punish non compliance, and what will be the expected or allowable error rates associated with the UBC?

 

[Pizzapinochle]

First, in regards to post #89.

Your analysis is that the only benefit of the NCIS system is the 135 convictions. Is that accurate?

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Also, did you read the suggested reading that outlines the basic differences between federal and state courts?

 

[plodder]

Quote from OP:

Resistance to change will cause states to enact firearm laws which in the long run will erode the Second Amendment because good and bad bills will be passed. We are seeing this today.

I usually don't respond or react to totally asinine, ignorant and misguided statements and points of view.........but I guess I just did:banghead: