Private Gun Show FFL transfer...would you use one?

[Pizzapinochle]

I am trying to figure out the reasoning behind statements like:

"No gun law will do anything to prevent criminals from getting guns."

I see that repeated over and over and over by pro-gun folks.

I simply don't understand why people believe that.

I think that there is a value judgement to be made between two conflicting values:

Value #1: protection of privacy and guns (for SD/HD, sport, or protection from tyranny) from government intrusion

Value #2: preventing bad people from having the most dangerous weapons (guns)

Many gun control laws have a positive impact on value #2, they will have some impact on preventing bad people from getting guns.

Many gun control laws have a negative impact on value #1, they make the population more vulnerable to government intrusion.

If someone says:

"I understand that gun laws will provide a degree of protection from bad people by making it more difficult to get guns, but I think it is MORE important to keep the government further out of our lives."

Then I will have no issue with them. They see the situation and decide on a subjective value.

BUT, that is NOT what people like Warp say. Warp, and many others, say that gun control laws will have no impact whatsoever and that only naive people would advocate for such stupid/asinine ideas.

THAT is the mindset I am trying to figure out. Do people who claim this really believe that laws have no impact, even though all of our society is structured by the laws and the impacts they have? Do they just not understand how laws work? Do they understand but choose to claim what they know to be false to take a rigid stance out of fear of compromise?

Just trying to figure that out... this is the best way I know how to try and do that.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

akv3g4n-

Correct, but in a state like mine that is difficult to prove as well.

People buy guns and then very quickly decide they don't want them anymore. It may happen to me soon, I have acquired two .380 pistols. I don't need both, so I will be selling one soon once I decide which one I want. I will probably sell it in a FTF private sale to someone.

That (legitimate) sale on my part is indistinguishable from a straw sale unless there is PROOF ("beyond a reasonable doubt" that you can convince a jury of) that I bought the gun on behalf of another person.

Not saying that it is impossible, obviously it happens, but the proof that the prosecution has to gather is very abstract (proving someones intentions regarding a purchase) and not an easy case to prove. It takes a lot of resources and interviews and such to build such a case, which means they are less likely to be prosecuted.

UBC simplifies the process by making cases clear cut. Either you sold with a background check or you did not. One is legal, one is not. No consideration of "intention."

 

[Warp]

And, just for clarification, I am NOT trolling.

I have been trying to find the reasoning behind some aspects of the pro-gun thinking.

Most notably, the idea that "no gun law will do anything to prevent crime/criminals from getting guns"

I ask questions like the ones I asked above with clearly laid out, simple real life implications of a possible law and ask for an explanation as to why the impact that I see is somehow incorrect.

And I ALWAYS get a reply like the one Warp gave.

Full of ideas and thoughts, but never a real answer to the question I gave.

Three laws (UBC, traceable database of sales, and mandatory reporting of lost/stolen guns) makes a felony conviction MUCH MORE LIKELY for anyone committing a straw sale.

With a felony conviction much more likely, the number of people willing to participate in straw sales and provide guns to nefarious folk will decrease.

If I am incorrect, please explain the flaw in my logic.

Saying that the gov't has no business, it is an infringement of rights, it is stupid, or it is asinine is not an explanation of how the reasoning is incorrect.

It will do more harm than good, just like virtually every gun control law.

Criminals will still violate it.

Committing a murder on the sidewalk very easily leads to a felony conviction. But people with illegal guns in gun control meccas do it all the time.

The only people whose actions are truly controlled by the law are the law abiding, who aren't a problem to begin with.

It is asinine to require federal government permission for me to exchange property with another sovereign individual.

It's just another way to make owning and using firearms more expensive, time consuming, and difficult.

 

[Warp]

UBC simplifies the process by making cases clear cut. Either you sold with a background check or you did not. One is legal, one is not. No consideration of "intention."

What amounts to a national firearms registry is not a good thing

 

[bigfatdave]

Would people be as willing to facilitate straw sales under Scenario #2 as they are under Scenario #1?

"I sold it before your silly UBGC law passed"

None of it works without 100% registration, and that's impossible.

Contrast to UBC, where all that has to be proved is that a sale without a background check took place

Contrast to keeping these people too dangerous to own a firearm from being out in public in the first place.

I am trying to figure out the reasoning behind statements like:

"No gun law will do anything to prevent criminals from getting guns."

I see that repeated over and over and over by pro-gun folks.

I simply don't understand why people believe that.

Because you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Banning technology does not work, never has, never will.

Here are a couple examples - when you make the black market the only option, you get machinists turning out crude SMG's, because they're the easiest thing to make

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...e-guns-seized-israel-palestinian-territories/
home-made SMGs produced where guns are "banned"

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/submachine-guns/polish-blyskawica-smg/
Polish occupation didn't stop SMG's

Similar stories are coming up right now in Australia, also.
Now compare to the number of guns already in circulation right here in the US. Then add in all the BP pistols/revolvers, because that's plenty for a mugger/rapist to ply their trade.

Focusing on your three-point plan will reduce violent crime by zero percent. Focusing on serious sentences for violent offenders, not paroling repeat violent offenders, and ensuring citizens are not easy targets for the predators WILL reduce violent crime.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

"Focusing on your three-point plan will reduce violent crime by zero percent."

And there it is again. 100% absolutist close mindedness that is absolutely not true.

I don't think that three point plan would completely eliminate violent crime, obviously, but it would have a significant impact over time.

BUT... on the plus side, Warp finally came around:

"It will do more harm than good, just like virtually every gun control law."

Depending on your definitions of harm and good, possibly. I don't think so, but y definition of harm and good may not be the same as yours, and that is ok.

 

[bigfatdave]

Your nonsense is also a plan to convict citizens for the crimes other citizens might do in the future, rather than keeping the known criminals away from victims they can harm.

No. Simply No.
Any law that needs a registry will be fought to the hilt, and then ignored if it passes.
No.

 

[Warp]

Depending on your definitions of harm and good, possibly. I don't think so, but y definition of harm and good may not be the same as yours, and that is ok.

Do you consider Chicago's violent crime rate to be good?

 

[Pizzapinochle]

"I sold it before your silly UBGC law passed"

None of it works without 100% registration, and that's impossible.

A few things:

-Excuse doesn't work with any new guns with a date of purchase attached.
-Excuse won't work with any gun that has gone through a background check that has a date on it post-UBC law
-Might be true for awhile, but in 2079 you are going to have a hard time claiming that you sold the gun in 2010.
-Gun people always say that 99% of guns are owned by law abiding gun owners. When these law abiding gun owners make transfers, they will follow the law and the gun will enter the system when transferred. No need for registration, just give the law time to filter everything into the system.

If you only think a year or two into the future your points make sense, but if you are talking about a long term policy of a nation that has been around for 200 years and is planning on at least another 200, then your view is short sighted.

So yes, it would take time for the law to have impact and it would not be 100% effective. No one has ever claimed otherwise. But over time and with proper implementation, it would have a significant impact.

Contrast to keeping these people too dangerous to own a firearm from being out in public in the first place.

Ok... if you will support the massive tax increase to pay for lifetime incarceration for all felons, you can advocate for that. Highly effective! BUT... sorry, I don't want to pay 20% higher taxes just for that.

Because you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Banning technology does not work, never has, never will.

Here are a couple examples - when you make the black market the only option, you get machinists turning out crude SMG's, because they're the easiest thing to make

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...e-guns-seized-israel-palestinian-territories/
home-made SMGs produced where guns are "banned"

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/submachine-guns/polish-blyskawica-smg/
Polish occupation didn't stop SMG's

Similar stories are coming up right now in Australia, also.
Now compare to the number of guns already in circulation right here in the US. Then add in all the BP pistols/revolvers, because that's plenty for a mugger/rapist to ply their trade.

If we ever reach the point that homeade guns and BP pistols are the only weapons available to criminals, I will say we have done a pretty darn good job with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

[Warp]

Ok... if you will support the massive tax increase to pay for lifetime incarceration for all felons,

This is a straw man.

Nobody said anything about lifetime incarceration for all felons. Not. Even. Close.

If we ever reach the point that homeade guns and BP pistols are the only weapons available to criminals, I will say we have done a pretty darn good job with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

And there it is. The end game. Total confiscation and banishment of all firearms.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Do you consider Chicago's violent crime rate to be good?

I actually don't know Chicago's violent crime rate.

BUT, relative to

Detroit
New Orleans
St. Louis
Baltimore
Newark
Oakland
Stockton
Kansas City
Philadelphia
Cleveland
Memphis
Atlanta

I think Chicago's MURDER rate is good. Those are all the cities who have a higher per capita murder rate than Chicago.

Relative to:

San Fransisco
Los Angeles
New York
Sacremento
Seattle
Boston
Washington DC
(not a complete list)

Which all have lower murder rates, Chicago's murder rate could use some work.

All in all, for the second largest city in the country, Chicago's crime rate is pretty middle of the pack.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

This is a straw man.

Nobody said anything about lifetime incarceration for all felons. Not. Even. Close.

Contrast to keeping these people too dangerous to own a firearm from being out in public in the first place.

Big Dave, if you want to clarify this, you seem to focus on keeping criminals off the street, I interpret that to mean MUCH longer prison sentences. Maybe not lifetime, but how long is long enough in your mind?

 

[Pizzapinochle]

And there it is. The end game. Total confiscation and banishment of all firearms.

Wow.... talk about straw man.

Big Dave is the one who said that even if we succeed in keeping commercially manufactured firearms (the ones that start their market circulation with a background check) out of the hands of criminals they will turn to homemade and BP weapons. I never said anything about confiscation or banning.

Let me rephrase it for you:

If gun control laws force criminals to rely on homemade pipe guns and BP revolvers while I carry a legally obtained Glock on my person with an AR rifle in my closet, I think that would be a significant improvement in the the gun control situation of the US.

Will we ever get 100% there, when NO criminals have commercially manufactured guns? No, of course not, there is always theft and such.

Can we get to the point that MOST criminals cannot obtain commercially manufactured guns because they are too difficult to obtain? Yup, I think we can.

If those criminals turn to homemade pipe guns instead of precision manufactured semi-automatic pistols, I can live with that and I think that would be an improvement.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Your nonsense is also a plan to convict citizens for the crimes other citizens might do in the future, rather than keeping the known criminals away from victims they can harm.

Again, sounds like you are arguing for indefinite incarceration.

 

[akv3g4n]

I actually don't know Chicago's violent crime rate.

BUT, relative to

Detroit
New Orleans
St. Louis
Baltimore
Newark
Oakland
Stockton
Kansas City
Philadelphia
Cleveland
Memphis
Atlanta

I think Chicago's MURDER rate is good. Those are all the cities who have a higher per capita murder rate than Chicago.

Relative to:

San Fransisco
Los Angeles
New York
Sacremento
Seattle
Boston
Washington DC
(not a complete list)

Which all have lower murder rates, Chicago's murder rate could use some work.

All in all, for the second largest city in the country, Chicago's crime rate is pretty middle of the pack.

But the ratings look very different when you weed out murders that were committed with firearms. In that case, the top three cities (2009-2010; latest available numbers) are all from states with very strict gun laws.

Overall number of gun murders:

1. Los Angeles.......................1,141

2. Chicago..............................1,139

3. New York.............................1,101

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/2/l-chicago-hold-nations-top-slots-murder-report/

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Focusing on your three-point plan will reduce violent crime by zero percent.

Do you really believe that?

0% is absolutely no impact whatsoever. You are saying that of the 400,000-500,000 crimes committed with guns each year, UBC and a traceable database would not have impacted even a single one of these crimes? Is that correct?

Or

Do you think that the impact it WOULD have is not enough to justify the possible gov't intrusion or added inconvenience in obtaining a firearm?

 

[bigfatdave]

Big Dave, if you want to clarify this, you seem to focus on keeping criminals off the street, I interpret that to mean MUCH longer prison sentences. Maybe not lifetime, but how long is long enough in your mind?

Sure!

Until they're not a danger to the public.

Making parole boards responsible for crimes the people they release commit (essentially eliminating parole) would be a start.

If it overcrowds the prisons, quit putting non-violent offenders in.

Recidivism is a MAJOR factor in violent crime statistics. And slowing or stopping the current revolving door we use as a "justice system" would make violent crime less appealing.

... If you still don't like any of that, I might be persuaded to compromise by not giving violent felons regular ID when they're released as a prohibited person.
Which is a lot simpler and more humane than chopping off their hands, or tattooing "violent scumburger mugger" (or whatever crime) on their foreheads.

===

But I find your plan of further expanding government infringement on a fundamental constitutionally enumerated right entirely unaccaptable. And I will NEVER support (or comply with) a registration scheme.

Almost all of GCA68 is crap. The requirement for BGC with retail sales is crap.
No new gun laws are acceptable until most of the non-working ones are repealed. I have yet to see a guncontrol-pushing politician willing to actually compromise. Taking sound supressors out of NFA in exchange for a national CC/FOID card would be a compromise - ramming through more BGC nonsense is not.

That's why I'm (with many others) pushing for Alaska-style carry here in Ohio, to redefine the concept of "compromise". We probably won't win it, but it sure makes the "trim mandatory training and add SYG" bill look like a "compromise". The politicians that oppossed the "SYG & CC reform" bill are now faced with a "constitutional carry" bill, and have been derailed from their little anti-gun anti-rights plans nicely.

 

[Warp]

Wow.... talk about straw man.

Big Dave is the one who said that even if we succeed in keeping commercially manufactured firearms (the ones that start their market circulation with a background check) out of the hands of criminals they will turn to homemade and BP weapons. I never said anything about confiscation or banning.

There is only one way to keep all commercially manufactured firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Let me rephrase it for you:

If gun control laws force criminals to rely on homemade pipe guns and BP revolvers while I carry a legally obtained Glock on my person with an AR rifle in my closet, I think that would be a significant improvement in the the gun control situation of the US.

This is not possible, even if you rip the Constitution to shreds in the process.

Will we ever get 100% there, when NO criminals have commercially manufactured guns? No, of course not, there is always theft and such.

Exactly.

Can we get to the point that MOST criminals cannot obtain commercially manufactured guns because they are too difficult to obtain? Yup, I think we can.

Maybe...if you also make them too difficult and expensive for many law abiding citizens to obtain, and tear the Constitution to pieces at the same time.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

But the ratings look very different when you weed out murders that were committed with firearms. In that case, the top three cities (2009-2010; latest available numbers) are all from states with very strict gun laws.

Overall number of gun murders:

1. Los Angeles.......................1,141

2. Chicago..............................1,139

3. New York.............................1,101

Amazing! So you are telling me that the three BIGGEST cities have the three HIGHEST number of murders?

So if there are 8 million people in one place, you are going to have more murders than if there are 800,000?

Compare rates per capita. All that number tells us is the population of each city.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

This is a straw man.

Nobody said anything about lifetime incarceration for all felons. Not. Even. Close.

So, to clarify, yes, BigDave WAS talking about the possibility of lifetime incarcerations for felons. Maybe not all felons (i exaggerated a bit, I'll admit), but his basic premise is increase prison time, which means increased cost to the rest of us.

 

[bigfatdave]

Do you really believe that?
0% is absolutely no impact whatsoever. You are saying that of the 400,000-500,000 crimes committed with guns each year, UBC and a traceable database would not have impacted even a single one of these crimes? Is that correct?
Or
Do you think that the impact it WOULD have is not enough to justify the possible gov't intrusion or added inconvenience in obtaining a firearm?

I'll admit to a touch of exaggeration there, but the effect would be too small to measure in any reasonable time frame.
Look at 10 years of AWB - no measurable effect.

And nothing says that you'll see a drop in actual violent crime, even if you managed to magically turn every unregistered gun into rust with a wave of a magic wand.

I'm unwilling to cede power to the government in hopes that it might reduce crime, somehow, in decades. Maybe you trust today's government, but in case you never noticed, we swap out politicians and their appointed drones once in a while and they interpert laws in new ways, pushing the limits every chance they get (see the crrent ITAR nonsense for an example, or ... you know ... anything the BATFE has been doing since the early 90's).

 

[Warp]

So, to clarify, yes, BigDave WAS talking about the possibility of lifetime incarcerations for felons. Maybe not all felons (i exaggerated a bit, I'll admit), but his basic premise is increase prison time, which means increased cost to the rest of us.

No, it doesn't.

A great deal of felonies shouldn't even be illegal to begin with. So while we are just up and changing the whole system, all of those things would cease to be felonies and the same resources we already spend can be used much more efficiently and effectively by prosecuting the violent criminals.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

If it overcrowds the prisons, quit putting non-violent offenders in.

Recidivism is a MAJOR factor in violent crime statistics. And slowing or stopping the current revolving door we use as a "justice system" would make violent crime less appealing.

Not sure if I agree with the methods (making parole boards responsible... eh... get the idea, can't see anyone taking the job if you did that), but I don't disagree with some of the ideas.

I have yet to see a guncontrol-pushing politician willing to actually compromise. Taking sound supressors out of NFA in exchange for a national CC/FOID card would be a compromise - ramming through more BGC nonsense is not.

And i don't see any pro-gun politicians proposing anything like this either. And I don't blame them... based on the responses around here, if a pro-gun politician made any attempt to build a true compromise deal (which I have one in mind that I think would be great!), they would get DESTROYED by the NRA and you folks as a traitor and turncoat.

So, what we are left with is pro-control people pushing through what they can without any input from the pro-gun side, because the pro-gun people can't afford to look like the compromised. There have not been many attempts on the part of pro-gun politicians to roll back national gun laws, although the AWB was allowed to expire, but there is no way they would catch the same level of criticism from their base for compromising as the pro-gun side would dish out on their side. For better or worse, (and I think it is both sometimes) the passion is MUCH higher on the pro-gun side.

 

[bigfatdave]

So, to clarify, yes, BigDave WAS talking about the possibility of lifetime incarcerations for felons. Maybe not all felons (i exaggerated a bit, I'll admit), but his basic premise is increase prison time, which means increased cost to the rest of us.

Wrong. Stop cramming non-violent criminals into prison* and focus on the actual dangers to the public.
And I'm not really against the death penalty for repeat violent criminals, anyway. That's pretty cheap compared to a lifetime of even the worst prison living. It should be only in cases with hard evidence, and it should be swift. Call me a monster if you like, but when I read the records on the scum that are arrested for violent crime, I have to wonder why they're breathing, let alone released to freedom.

Or take the compromise I offered and start pushing for Convicted Violent Criminals (CVC) to be unable to obtain normal ID ever again. We already have special ID for adults under 21, and special ID for repeat DUI offenders, and special ID for people that don't drive ... why not a special "NO GUNS & NO VOTING" card for these "prohibited persons" that you claim wouldn't pass a federal BGC.


*(which seems to turn many of them into violent criminals - this could be a disadvantage thing or a "criminal college" thing)

 

[Warp]

And i don't see any pro-gun politicians proposing anything like this either. And I don't blame them... based on the responses around here, if a pro-gun politician made any attempt to build a true compromise deal (which I have one in mind that I think would be great!), they would get DESTROYED by the NRA and you folks as a traitor and turncoat.

Please, propose to us a "true compromise deal".

Let's say that what we give is your three steps of UBC and national registration and all that. Those are BIG, serious infringements with far reaching consequences. All that is on "our" part is give give GIVE

So, what would we get?