Oregon gun laws improved last year by implementing universal background checks?

[Red Wind]

The answer is ," The Sounds of Silence", 1966.

 

[Jlr2267]

So making it easier to prosecute people that are breaking the law is creating criminals in your mind?

No, passing laws that provide no benefit to society while putting more folks in prison is "creating criminals"

 

[Red Wind]

Continue to feed the Statist.This is a gun forum, not the Daily Kos.

 

[Warp]

So making it easier to prosecute people that are breaking the law is creating criminals in your mind?

Still waiting on your evidence from states with UBCs

I realize I'm waiting for something we both know doesn't exist, but I'd like to ensure that any passers by who read any part of this thread are fully aware of that fact, as well.

 

[Jlr2267]

Still waiting on your evidence from states with UBCs

I realize I'm waiting for something we both know doesn't exist, but I'd like to ensure that any passers by who read any part of this thread are fully aware of that fact, as well.

All you'll likely get is more obfuscation...a classic tactic of the anti's

I'm definitely done with this one.

 

[Deanimator]

Registration isn't required to enforce a ban. If something is banned the simple possession of the prohibited item is cause for arrest.

Without REGISTRATION, how would they even KNOW you possessed it... apart from that WARRANTLESS HOUSE TO HOUSE SEARCH you're dancing around?

We know what you want. You know we know what you want.

 

[Deanimator]

Continue to feed the Statist.This is a gun forum, not the Daily Kos.

On the Daily Kos, you wouldn't be allowed to refute him.

NEVER let that ability go to waste.

 

[Warp]

Registration isn't required to enforce a ban. If something is banned the simple possession of the prohibited item is cause for arrest.

Thank you for admitting that banning firearms, or most types of firearms, is in fact the goal you support

 

[Deanimator]

So making it easier to prosecute people that are breaking the law is creating criminals in your mind?

"Prosecuting criminals" has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it. Obama's already proved that beyond ANY doubt by his pathetic record of NOT prosecuting attempts at illegal purchases, and even MORESO by his sending THOUSANDS of firearms to hyper-violent drug gangs in Mexico.

It's ALL about greasing the skids for REGISTRATION => BANS => CONFISCATION.

 

[Red Wind]

Thread continues to be entertaining, without changing the subjects mind a New York Minute, about the 1791 RKBA.

More popcorn has been ordered!

 

[Deanimator]

Thread continues to be entertaining, without changing the subjects mind a New York Minute, about the 1791 RKBA.

More popcorn has been ordered!

The goal is never to change the propagandist's mind.

The goal is to thwart his efforts to disinform others.

So-called "UBCs" can NEVER be pushed through without lies.

Those lies can NEVER be successfully peddled without the complicit silence of those who know the truth.

 

[JSH1]

Thank you for admitting that banning firearms, or most types of firearms, is in fact the goal you support

I don't advocate banning any firearms. (I advocate loosening regulations on types of firearms). I am just pointing out that registration isn't needed for a ban. That is why the whole "Background checks = Registration = Confiscation" argument falls flat.

It the votes were there ( they aren't) and it was legal ( it isn't ) handguns could be banned tomorrow. No registration required. As I point out time and time again, Australia didn't have a registry before their ban.

 

[jerkface11]

So making it easier to prosecute people that are breaking the law is creating criminals in your mind?

Easier to prosecute criminals? So there should be an increase in prosecutions of felons for trying to buy guns in states with UBC's right? If so show us those stats.

 

[Deanimator]

I don't advocate banning any firearms. (I advocate loosening regulations on types of firearms). I am just pointing out that registration isn't needed for a ban. That is why the whole "Background checks = Registration = Confiscation" argument falls flat.

It the votes were there ( they aren't) and it was legal ( it isn't ) handguns could be banned tomorrow. No registration required. As I point out time and time again, Australia didn't have a registry before their ban.

Without REGISTRATION, bans are merely a suggestion.

Its the REGISTRATION you want that makes bans capable of being ENFORCED.

But then you knew that...

 

[danez71]

JSH1 uses Inductive Reasoning which is a type a predictive reasoning thats a bottom up approach. (Ex. Without UBC, the prediction is that bad guys will get guns and commit crimes and that the guns are untraceable leading to more gun crimes)

Unfortunately for JSH1, there are decades of real life history of this exact scenario and the results don't support that prediction


Conversely, Deductive Reasoning is top down approach.

Starting with end result of a murder, if you apply the well established 5 Whys used in Six Sigma DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control), the causation of guns used in crimes is never the lack of UBC


JSH1 is unable to provide any data fore his argument is a predictive argument rather than an argument based on documented results.

 

[Deanimator]

Here's an interesting historical question for JSH1:

Before the Germans started deporting and killing Jews, what did they do first?

They... REGISTERED them so that they'd know where to go to get them when they "banned" them.

A thinking person would conclude that without that REGISTRATION, the Holocaust would have been a LOT more haphazard and ineffective in its implementation.

 

[Red Wind]

Those lies can NEVER be successfully peddled without the complicit silence of those who know the truth.

Sad and weak. It NEVER works with the true ideologue. Lenin and Stalin knew that from Marx. Give it up. The 2A will continue to bloom without these frenetics on this thread.

Stuff the egos. The Statist's ideas will die, as history has shown.

Unfortunately for JSH1, there are decades of real life history of this exact scenario and the results don't support that prediction

On the money!

 

[pintler]

JSH: you say the felon's girlfriend (or non felon addict, ...) won't be willing to straw purchase because she would be prosecuted for an unpapered transfer. All she has to do is put the gun in her dresser drawer and go to the mall. When she comes home, she's horrified to find someone jimmied the back door and stole the gun. She immediately calls the police and reports the crime, and calls the landlord to fix the door. If she has renter's insurance, she files a claim, and the insurance company - well, actually the other policyholders - end up buying the gun for her felon boyfriend.

I expect you're an honest, law abiding guy, and so is almost everyone you know. IMHE people with that background seriously overestimate the degree with which criminals care about the law. I used to make the same mistake, but my police officer friends have educated me .

Heck, lots of crooks don't read the paper or watch the news, and so they won't even know an unpapered transfer a crime. And the ones that are renting a 'community gun' for long enough for a mugging won't care.

On whether FFL background checks are effective at reducing crime: in 1967 the homicide rate was 6.2. It climbed to 10.2 in 1980. If an antibiotic worked that 'well', the FDA wouldn't approve it.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Deanimator: confiscation is only possible with registration.

JSH1: a ban is possible without registration

CNB: You can ban without a registration list. So what? That is not the point Deanimator made. An Australian style confiscation would only be possible in America with what Australia had: a registration list of legally owned guns. Without a registration list, the Australian so-called buy-back could not happen. Also, the Australian Government had to compensate owners for the banned guns they took, since their gun laws are based on a product regulatory model. Our federal gun laws are modeled on the Harrison Narcotics Act and are on a criminal law model; advocates of bans have already stated: no compensation for surrendered contraband.


Moving to UBC impact on the sources of weapons used by Firearms Using Offenders.

Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D., BJS Statistician, "Firearm Use by Offenders", U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Michael Planty, Ph.D., and Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians, "Firearm Violence, 1993-2011", DoJ, OoJP, BoJS.

Firearms Using Offenders

Source of firearms possessed 
by state prison inmates at time of offense. 

Source of firearm          1991  1997  2004 

Retail Purchase or trade   20.8% 14.0% 11.3%
- Retail store             14.7   8.2   7.3
- Pawnshop                  4.2   4.0   2.6
- Flea market               1.3   1.0   0.6
- Gun show                  0.6   0.8   0.8

Family or friend*          33.8% 40.1% 37.4%
- Purchased or traded      13.5  12.6  12.2
- Rented or borrowed       10.1  18.9  14.1
- Other                    10.2   8.5  11.1

Street/illegal source      40.8% 37.3% 40.0%
- Theft or burglary        10.5   9.1   7.5
- Drug dealer/off street   22.5  20.3  25.2
- Fence/black market        7.8   8.0   7.4

Other                       4.6%  8.7% 11.2%

The years of the inmate surveys are 1991, 1997 and 2004.

1994 The Brady Act waiting period to allow local CLEO BG checks started.

Nov 1998 The NICS check for FFL dealer sales on a 4473 transfer kicked in, replacing the Brady waiting period. In my home state the FFL BG check replaced the Application for Permission to Purchase a Handgun with CLEO sign-off by county sheriff or city chief of police required under state law.

FUO retail purchase or trade through an FFL with NICS check is often done by a friend, relative or lover/spouse with no criminal record, someone chosen to NOT show up on a BG check. Even so, the trend has been down on retail sources. (Notice that the FUO Gun show source is actually a pin prick, not a loophole.)

Seriously trending up are the drug dealer/street gun sellers and that "Other" category which from 1991 to 2004 went from 4.6% to 11.2% -- that needs to be defined.

But UBCs to affect FUOs would need to be conducted by:
- Family or friend of a FUO who have a gun to sell, trade, rent, or lend*
- Thieves
- Burglars
- Drug dealers
- Street gun sellers
- Fences
- Black marketeers
- "Other" gun sources

And to those who say we need Australian style gun control in addition to UBC, Hilary: the Victoria state police asked the Australian federal government not in increase legal restrictions on semiauto pistols because that was fueling illegal traffic, in particular smuggling of handguns by Australian drug dealers. Australian outlaw motorcycle clubs manufacture MAC10s in the machine shops where they build and maintain their motorcycles: a MAC10 is a lot simpler than a Harley. ♪ ♫ Cue: Creedence Clearwater Revival "Bootleg".

* CNB note: Friend or family of a state prison inmate who is a Firearms
Using Offender are often criminals themselves or at least aid, abet or
associate with FUOs.

 

[JSH1]

Deanimator: confiscation is only possible with registration.

JSH1: a ban is possible without registration

CNB: You can ban without a registration list. So what? That is not the point Deanimator made. An Australian style confiscation would only be possible in America with what Australia had: a registration list of legally owned guns. Without a registration list, the Australian so-called buy-back could not happen. Also, the Australian Government had to compensate owners for the banned guns they took, since their gun laws are based on a product regulatory model. Our federal gun laws are modeled on the Harrison Narcotics Act and are on a criminal law model; advocates of bans have already stated: no compensation for surrendered contraband.

Australia did not have a gun registry before the ban and buyback. Australians did not turn in their guns because those guns were on a registry they did so because they were useless to law abiding people after the ban. A gun that you cannot use without fear of arrest is useless.

Moving to UBC impact on the sources of weapons used by Firearms Using Offenders.

Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D., BJS Statistician, "Firearm Use by Offenders", U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Michael Planty, Ph.D., and Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians, "Firearm Violence, 1993-2011", DoJ, OoJP, BoJS.

Firearms Using Offenders

Source of firearms possessed 
by state prison inmates at time of offense. 

Source of firearm          1991  1997  2004 

Retail Purchase or trade   20.8% 14.0% 11.3%
- Retail store             14.7   8.2   7.3
- Pawnshop                  4.2   4.0   2.6
- Flea market               1.3   1.0   0.6
- Gun show                  0.6   0.8   0.8

Family or friend*          33.8% 40.1% 37.4%
- Purchased or traded      13.5  12.6  12.2
- Rented or borrowed       10.1  18.9  14.1
- Other                    10.2   8.5  11.1

Street/illegal source      40.8% 37.3% 40.0%
- Theft or burglary        10.5   9.1   7.5
- Drug dealer/off street   22.5  20.3  25.2
- Fence/black market        7.8   8.0   7.4

Other                       4.6%  8.7% 11.2%

The years of the inmate surveys are 1991, 1997 and 2004.

Thank you for posting that survey, I've linked it in the past as it shows the effectiveness of background checks at the dealer level. The offenders that got their firearm from retailer dealers dropped in half after background checks were required.

That survey about the best attempt at finding out how criminals get their guns. It is good but far from perfect for our discussion as we do not know how many of those offenders were prohibited persons and how many could have legal purchased a gun before their crime.

EDIT: Here is a similar study that is more recent and deals with criminals in Chicago (Linked from the NRA's page)
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150904/study-criminals-don-t-get-guns-from-legal-sources
https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/1508093/ccjstudy.pdf

He has some things that don't fly with the official story that criminals don't go out of state to buy their guns in areas with less strict gun laws:

"Local people buy guns out of state, sometimes on behalf of gangs.
R32: “Six out of 10 times, people go out of state and brings them
back.” R69: “The gang leaders, they'll choose and pick who to go
out and get the guns and bring 'em back.” There is also some
mention of outsiders who bring guns into the neighborhood, either
from other neighborhoods in Chicago, or from out of state. R8: “I
know the person, they purchase a lotta guns, it's called a crate”
(which are then distributed within “the organization”). R85:
“Some people getting on a train and bring them back, can be up to
5 or 6 guns depending on how much risk they want to take.”

 

[Deanimator]

Australia did not have a gun registry before the ban

Britain did.

Nobody's buying the disinformation.

We know what you REALLY want and WHY.

 

[JSH1]

Britain did.

Nobody's buying the disinformation.

We know what you REALLY want and WHY.

Good for them. What does that have to do with the fact that a registration isn't needed for a ban? Or for that matter that a registration doesn't always lead to a ban or confiscation (Michigan has had a handgun registry since the 30's)


If you want to prevent a ban, than work to prevent a ban. I does no good to plan how to keep banned guns after a ban because by then the cause is lost and the damage is done.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

"Australia did not have a gun registry before the ban and buyback."
The ban and buyback was 1996. Australia's constitution does not give the federal government (commonwealth) authority over firearms. The registration lists were at the state level and the different states had more or less restrictions. Starting in the mid 1980s several Australian states required registration of all guns. It was not a national registry. Howard's policy of confiscation with compensation was facilitated by the state registries. Estimates are they missed 250,000 unregistered semi-auto rifles and semi-auto and pump shotguns, which appparently have entered the grey or black markets since 1996: is that a thing to be desired?

 

[Pushrod]

JSH1, this is going to be a long post, but please take the time to read the entire post before commenting.

So... to begin... would you agree with the posit that our forefathers' purpose in proposing and ratifying the Second Amendment was to make sure and to assure that the federal government would not be able to deprive the people of respective states of the ultimate means to resist the actions or policies of that federal government should they reach a point that they believed that federal government was acting in ways that it was not authorized, or established, to act in?

Do you agree with that posit as it is written? If not, are there ways in which it could be tweaked such that you would agree with it, or do you reject the essence of the idea it conveys completely? The bolded portion is important, I'm asking about what they thought was necessary or important and what they thought they were doing.
1. Do you think that it was reasonable of our forefathers to have the concern which they had and which prompted their enactment of the Second Amendment? For my part, I do.

2. If yes to the first question, do you think that the nature of our (i.e. the people's) relationship with the federal government has changed (from the Founders' time to now) in some fundamental way such that having that concern now is silly or otherwise not worth considering? I'm not asking you to balance how important it is relative to other concerns, just whether the concern still meets some threshold of reasonableness such that it should be taken into consideration when it comes to enacting public policy. For my part, the answer to the question is I do not. That is to say, I believe it is a reasonable concern which still warrants consideration.

How particular polices might address or affect the respective concerns is important when it comes to whether or not they prudently balance those concerns. For example, if we accept that a given policy would do absolutely nothing to reduce the risk (of bad people bad things), then it might not make sense to implement it even if its affect on the other concern (that people retain an ultimate means to resist government action should it reach a sufficient level of impropriety) is minimal. Likewise, if a given policy would in no way diminish people's ability to effectively resist government action should such resistance be necessary, then it might make sense to implement it if it would reduce the risk of bad people doing bad things. I'm going to assume that we're in agreement on that general concept. (Though, to be clear, this is without consideration of what the Constitution approves of.)

But I wonder if we're in agreement on this next point. It seems to me that the original concern of our Founders, the one that we agree still has at least some relevance, contemplates the possibility that the people of this nation might find themselves in open physical conflict with their government - that it's possible that might be necessary to prevent an unacceptable exercise of power by that government. Or, at least, this concern contemplates that the threat of such open physical conflict is needed to discourage an unacceptable exercise of power by that government.

If that's the case, then allowing the government to deny people in general the right to own arms in general is concerning - it negatively impacts their ability to resist (or threaten to resist) the government. But, doesn't allowing the government to decide what arms people may possess also negatively impact that ability? Further, doesn't allowing the government to decide who may or may not possess arms negatively impact that ability? Further still, doesn't providing the government with information regarding who may own what arms negatively impact that ability? Assuming it's possible that the government and the people might one day find themselves as enemies in battle (which is what I believe the Founders contemplated, and what I believe this concern that we've discussed continues to contemplate), does it not do harm to the people's position to let the government decide what arms they may have and who among them may have arms, and to let the government know who has what?

Those questions seem silly in the context where the government and the people are, at least in theory, allies. But the whole point here is that it's possible those entities won't always be allies. France and Germany are functional allies at this point. But would it not be reasonable for France to not like the idea of letting Germany tell it what arms it can have and how many it can have? Without regard to what arms France may need and what arms make sense for France to have, would it make sense for France to let Germany decide such things? And to know what arms France has and where they're likely located? France and Germany may not always be allies. Obviously these situations are far from identical, but the notion that it might be inadvisable to grant the other entity (i.e. Germany in that case, our government in this case) the decision making authority seems, to me, fairly consistently applicable.

So, the point I'm getting at is this: If we accept this concern as legitimate in general, then we must also accept that it's legitimate to be concerned about allowing the government to decide what arms may be had by who and to know what arms are had by who. Would you agree with me that allowing the government that authority impacts to some degree the people's ability to possibly resist that government? And that therefore, how it impacts that ability should be considered when we get to the balancing of conflicting interests? We may disagree on what amounts to the most reasonable balancing of those interests, but do you at least recognize why many people are concerned with the idea of background checks and limitations on what arms may be purchased? It's not just opposition for the sake of opposing something or because many of us want to make it as easy as possible for bad people to do bad things. Will you give me that?

The federal government is not the Cowboys and the people are not the Redskins. Even still, the idea of letting the federal government decide what arms the people may have is unnerving in much the same way that the idea of letting the Cowboys decide what players the Redskins may have is unnerving (to Redskins fans). Further, the idea that the Redskins have to ask the Cowboys for permission to use certain plays, and that thus the Cowboys know what their plays might be, upsets the natural (and acceptable) balance of power between the two. The same might be said for the people having to ask the federal government for permission each time they hope to acquire a firearm. That upsets what is, to my thinking, a very important balance of power - a balance of power that I'd rather see err too far in favor of the people than in favor of the government.

 

[TimSr]

So making it easier to prosecute people that are breaking the law is creating criminals in your mind?

How to create criminals with legislation 101:

Today I sell my rife to my buddy I've known since childhood as an upright, law abiding citizen. I am not a criminal.

After UBC I sell my rife to my buddy I've known since childhood as an upright, law abiding citizen. I don't want to pay $10, $15, or $25 to an entity to tell me he is not a criminal, or worse, to tell me that he IS a criminal because his name is John Smith, and they have a John Smith listed a felon on their database.

I was legislated into becoming a criminal for having better information than NICS, and for selling a rifle to a friend with a spotless criminal record.