Another week, another school shooting

[CorvallisBMW]

You have got to be kidding me! You seriously believe that all people who acquire guns illegally do so from a legal purchaser becoming a straw man for the criminal? Have you ever heard of, theft? It is also a well known fact that most guns used in the commission of a crime are stolen, period.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hot-guns-fueling-crime-us-study/story?id=18318610

Your whole argument is a red herring.

His point that all original points of sale are legal is 100% correct. All guns start out as legal sales, it's not like Smith & Wesson just drops of a dumptruck-full on skid row in LA every other week.

The point is that if you limit straw purchases you limit the number of guns being purchased by criminals. Straw purchases are not made by "law abiding" citizens, therefor everything possible should be done to stop them.

[CorvallisBMW]

^
Why is it then where the most restrictive firearms laws in the country are in place, yet have the worst rates for gun crime then????

False.

When was the last time you heard about a school shooting in MT??? Oh yeah I think it was 1986, and thats the ONLY ONE ( 1 died I think) . When was the last time you heard about a MASS shooting in MT that was not at the little big horn (where property owners were defending them selves from the govt) ???? Oh yeah thats right there haven't been any...................... Whats the firearm ownership per capita in this state again??? Huh funny not to viloenty crimey here.

False again. Please not where Montana sits

as pretty much everyone on this board has posted ad nauseum most sane and rational people would be content to start with a simple background check

Because it's not what they want to hear. They want to paint the 90% of Americans who support universal background checks as fanatical gun-banning liberals because it's the only way they can justify being fanatical child-murdering conservatives. Yin and Yang. If your side is so far out in to right field that they've lost support of 74% of the members of their biggest lobbying group, their only choice is to falsely label their opponents as equally crazy, therefor making their position look justified in the face of a made-up threat.

it is quite baffling when you have all the laws you wish to have in place that restrict LAW ABIDING citizens, yet does little to stop what those that already have no regard for the law form doing what they do..... Yes its quite baffling why you would want to continue that behavior and apply it too the rest of the nation, Yup thats sure to work out well. About as well as Chicago, DC, Philly, and Oakland

Please tell me about every gun you have been unable or unwilling to purchase, as a "law abiding citizen", because of background checks. I'll wait here.

[marshallnoise]

Where do you think guns make it into the illegal market? They start off as legal sales...then somewhere along the line they make it through an undocumented channel and hit the streets running.

You have got to be kidding me! You seriously believe that all people who acquire guns illegally do so from a legal purchaser becoming a straw man for the criminal? Have you ever heard of, theft? It is also a well known fact that most guns used in the commission of a crime are stolen, period.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hot-guns-fueling-crime-us-study/story?id=18318610

Your whole argument is a red herring.

[marshallnoise]

Yes.

The main catalyst for universal background checks came during the Clinton era. You might not remember it depending on how old you are...but you'll surely recognize the name: Columbine.

The guns were bought by a friend at a gun show as a private party sale. She testified that had she been subjected to a background check she would not have bought the guns.

The gun in this Oregon shooting is currently being traced. Because Oregon is lax in records of private party sales it's going to take the FBI working from point of sale forward through a long, laborious and costly process of ownership. Rest assured, this isn't rocket science, the firearm didn't appear out of thin air and it wasn't hand built. So if you can't figure out that it was bought legally at one time, perhaps you could do us a favor and explain how else it got from the legally purchased point of sale into the hands of the killer without any record?

The other shooting I referenced, VTech, was another slip through background check lapse. It was that shooting that closed the loophole where people adjudicated as mentally unsound would not pass a background check. And with that....


kindly show me where in the 2a amendment it states that felons and mentally unstable (not defective, that's odd you'd use that terminology though) are precluded from firearm ownership?

now be a doll and let the class know if there's any indication of regulation in that precious gem of an amendment...

Lack of universal background checks is a boogeyman. People who want to shoot people up are going to get guns from any source, regardless of legal barriers.

You make the incredibly stupid assumption that all mental health is diagnosed and documented in such a way that a universal background check will immediately render someone unfit to purchase a gun. Most guns that are used in crimes are acquired illegally in the first place. Adam Lanza stole guns from his mother, then proceeded to pull off Sandy Hook.

It is clear to me that your end goal is to restrict all private party sales. In fact, the Columbine testimony you quoted makes it clear that your motive is exactly that. Had the friend, who gave the guns as a gift been subjected to a background check, she would not have bought them. Now, I don't know if that was because she would have failed the background check or has personal beliefs that she doesn't feel she should have to. Regardless, the end goal for YOU would be that it would have prevented commerce. And there is the agenda.

Are you going to blame a private party sale when a purchaser 10 years after buying the gun goes into a school and kills a couple of students and then himself? This isn't "Minority Report" you know.

Its pretty clear to me that you don't care about the 2nd Amendment and inalienable rights. This isn't about preventing school shootings for you, its about preventing gun ownership. Or, you are simply that stupid to think that you can PREVENT crime from occurring.

[smooth]

If I am remembering correctly the original intent was that once you paid your debts to society your rights were to be restored, and the mentally ill 200 years ago was not as diagnosable as today now was it??? My point was that some things might be a good idea on limitations. Those 2 items are "reasonable" and have been part of the equation for a while now. I am not against regulation I am for getting good at enforcing the ones we have before we go adding all willy nilly

As to indication of regulation in the 2a, well anything that was available in the inventory to be deployed by a foot soldier should be available to the militia aka the public to maintain their regulation with that particular weapon system. Regulate in this context means proficiency with, or : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of. I/E Regulate a car tires air pressure









You get caught as a strawman your going to fucking jail its already illegal, up to 250k in fines, and 10 in prison, and FFL's that knowingly sell to a straw face prosecution as well. You dont hear too much about gun crimes in MT do you. Normally its a when someone snaps and kills someone thats fucking their wife........ Not someone just going postal. I think your definition of "problem existing " and mine severally differ

20 years for a straw buy

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/12/27/2013-in-review-straw-buyer-sentenced-for-supplying-gun-that-killed-cop/

Already sentenced to prison time on NYS charges and is facing up to 30 years in the Federal Pen for a strawman and knowingly transferring to a felon

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S3447592.shtml

Just 2 examples I can think of off the top of my head. The penalties for a straw buy are sever as it is now.... They are not as common as you are trying to imply they are.




As I have tried to explain to you its the private party transfer that makes your background checks legal. You have a big up hill fight to change this.

Apparently you just make this shit up as you go along. Or wait, do you actually believe what someone apparently told you even though it's just complete bullshit? Tell me you didn't just hear this somewhere and are blindly repeating it as if it's fact? I mean, you know that a number of states don't allow private party transfers from one individual to another, right?

You know there's no legal basis for what you just stated, right? I'm not even sure where you picked this up...

How do you propose you strengthen gun regulation that already exists when firearms are going to flow through the path of least resistance and the most you're willing to advocate for is a system where the bare minimum of refusing to ask people whether they're eligible to own a firearm is sufficient?

Oh gee...let's strengthen the laws we already have! Let's make it a capital offense to knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person. I mean [derp derp] what could possibly go wrong? Couldn't possibly imagine a scenario where people simply refuse to inquire about another's eligibility. Let's make it even stronger...how strong can we make it? Let's make it a capital offense if someone lies about whether they knew or not...a capital offense for people to actually sell, knowingly sell, or even think about knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited person! That'll stop 'em...we can even set stings up so under-covers can nab all the baddies when they openly admit they don't care about the law. I mean, what's 1/3 of a million private party transfers that end up in criminal's hands anyway if it's not a proverbial drop in the bucket? Documented...traced...over 300,000. It doesn't happen as often as I think? Well then, tell us how often you thought it occurred? I mean, really, how many millions of straw purchases are you ok with if 1/3 of a million isn't a concerning number? Legal owner to illegal owner...how many transfers are acceptable to you before you start to wonder just where that political line in the sand you've drawn starts to collapse in on itself and you grab a bucket and start digging the trench with the rest of us?

So your hypothesis is that the lack of murder in your state is due to the lax gun regulations? It's not because your entire state has a smaller population than San Diego? And your murder rate, hovering a little over 2%, isn't high by your standards? Wow, are you surprised that you actually have a murder rate just a little under all those urban areas you think are so shitty and dangerous that basically mandates fellow citizens to carry for fear of their lives? I mean, that's your argument, right? The US is so dangerous that everyone best be packin' lest they get carried out in a body bag? But when we start talking gun policy all of a sudden the world's the safest it's ever been? Just curious which story you're going with this morning, bud?

I am not arguing that we should abandon the NICS its a fairly decent system for what it is. Why would forcing a private party transfer have any effect on crime rates. When most all such transactions are one current owner to another, that in many case know each other?? Criminals are still going to be getting their arms from other criminals. Look at most of the records of these sensationalist shooters they are clean in many cases and those that arent resort to theft of the weapon anyway. Again how would forcing private party transactions change any thing?? Other than how you feel, about them anyway...

what the fuck are you talking about?

All the incidents I referenced: Columbine, VTech, Santa Barbara, Oregon shootings; all had documented histories of mental illness and procured their guns through private party transfer!

the cop killing duo -- husband had a felony record. Procured gun through private party transfer!

Where do you think guns make it into the illegal market? They start off as legal sales...then somewhere along the line they make it through an undocumented channel and hit the streets running. Then all bets are off! What's wrong with your logic that you're incapable of making the required deduction that a gun starts off legal and then winds its way into someone's hands through a narrow gap in the law? Then you stand around opining on a car forum about how bewildered you are that areas with tight gun restrictions still suffer from high gun violence...and this is somehow evidence to you that gun regulation doesn't work?! Rather than the obvious "revelation" that guns start out in lax areas and move through legal hands until they ultimately end up in a criminal's hands in a tightly regulated area...

How are you even splicing the difference between someone arrested for a straw purchase and private party transfer?

So straw purchases are when people are stupid enough to tell authorities that they knew the firearm was going to a prohibited person but they did it anyway? And what are private party transfers...when people are smart enough to shut their damn mouths about what they either knew or didn't (care to) know? Do you even listen to yourself?!

There are even rules as a seller in the private arena that if you suspect or knowingly sell a weapon to the wrong person you can be on the hook for it. While this can be hard to prove one way or the other, its still part of the equation. I know I dont sell locally to anyone I dont know or known by someone I know and they would sell too....

surprise...surprise...such a law doesn't mean jack shit if you aren't required to actually check the background of someone you're selling the firearm to and then actually document the sale! In fact, lawful citizens should be all for this because it creates a safeguard against liability. No person who is already doing this, as you suddenly claim you are in contrast to your earlier claim that you intentionally moved out of a state that requires this, would be opposed to such regulations. The only people who are against this are people like you who don't care who you sell a firearm to when you want to off-load it...and don't care where it ends up at the end of the day. Out of sight out of mind. If your state isn't experiencing high gun violence then what is it to you how many children my students have to scrape off the streets of our cities due to the lax attitudes of people like yourself about gun responsibility!

But hey, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you actually care who you off-load your firearms to. You have zero ability to know who they sell it to...and given your opposition to a rather concrete and effectual policy change I recommended you don't care to, either. Because, apparently, you don't feel it's your responsibility. Well, I have news for you bud, it is your responsibility when you bring a firearm into the streets and then off-load it when you're done. And it's one of my life's work to make sure that irresponsible citizens like yourself become fully responsible under the law when someone murders someone with a weapon you directly or indirectly enabled them to use in the commission of a crime. And if you don't like that, document who you sell a firearm to and place it in your safe along with the guns you still own. Then when someone uses a gun you legally bought and sold you have a record of who you sold it to and, if the person was legally entitled to own the firearm, no skin off your nose. But as for that "uphill battle" you're in for a shock because the majority of the country is with me on this one: you won't be getting off with the ole' "I didn't know and didn't want to know" nonsense. We don't allow it for alcohol, we don't allow it for cigarettes, we don't even allow it for sex, and we sure as shit shouldn't be allowing it for something like a firearm either.

[mrsleeve]

If I am remembering correctly the original intent was that once you paid your debts to society your rights were to be restored, and the mentally ill 200 years ago was not as diagnosable as today now was it??? My point was that some things might be a good idea on limitations. Those 2 items are "reasonable" and have been part of the equation for a while now. I am not against regulation I am for getting good at enforcing the ones we have before we go adding all willy nilly

As to indication of regulation in the 2a, well anything that was available in the inventory to be deployed by a foot soldier should be available to the militia aka the public to maintain their regulation with that particular weapon system. Regulate in this context means proficiency with, or : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of. I/E Regulate a car tires air pressure

Here I am talking about regulating 3rd party sales not being subject to background checks and you stating that such a problem doesn't exist...









not sure how I can ask it more clearly. you simply want to argue bullshit.

the lax regulations in your state Montana (and the state you left to an extent) are exactly why we need to strengthen background checks between private parties and straw man purchases. more to the point of the thread, in Oregon, it's a problem that resulted in the death of an innocent child.

those lax regulations answer the question as to why areas with strict gun regulations still have a proliferation of guns in the area...because people like you circumvent the law and put guns in the hands of criminals. you must be proud of yourself. real upstanding american citizen :|

You get caught as a strawman your going to fucking jail its already illegal, up to 250k in fines, and 10 in prison, and FFL's that knowingly sell to a straw face prosecution as well. You dont hear too much about gun crimes in MT do you. Normally its a when someone snaps and kills someone thats fucking their wife........ Not someone just going postal. I think your definition of "problem existing " and mine severally differ. When was the last time you heard about a school shooting in MT??? Oh yeah I think it was 1986, and thats the ONLY ONE ( 1 died I think) . When was the last time you heard about a MASS shooting in MT that was not at the little big horn (where property owners were defending them selves from the govt) ???? Oh yeah thats right there haven't been any...................... Whats the firearm ownership per capita in this state again??? Huh funny not to viloenty crimey here.

20 years for a straw buy

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/12/27/2013-in-review-straw-buyer-sentenced-for-supplying-gun-that-killed-cop/

Already sentenced to prison time on NYS charges and is facing up to 30 years in the Federal Pen for a strawman and knowingly transferring to a felon

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S3447592.shtml

Just 2 examples I can think of off the top of my head. The penalties for a straw buy are sever as it is now.... They are not as common as you are trying to imply they are.




As I have tried to explain to you its the private party transfer that makes your background checks legal. You have a big up hill fight to change this.


I am not arguing that we should abandon the NICS its a fairly decent system for what it is. Why would forcing a private party transfer have any effect on crime rates. When most all such transactions are one current owner to another, that in many case know each other?? Criminals are still going to be getting their arms from other criminals. Look at most of the records of these sensationalist shooters they are clean in many cases and those that arent resort to theft of the weapon anyway. Again how would forcing private party transactions change any thing?? Other than how you feel, about them anyway...

There are even rules as a seller in the private arena that if you suspect or knowingly sell a weapon to the wrong person you can be on the hook for it. While this can be hard to prove one way or the other, its still part of the equation. I know I dont sell locally to anyone I dont know or known by someone I know and they would sell too.... Yeah I have been selling to criminals with all 2 of the firearms I have sold or traded to other gun owners.

[smooth]

Is it proven that guns committed in school shootings gave been acquired vis private party sales or some other loophole method?

You seem to be claiming that requiring background checks on private party sales would prevent school shootings. Absurd assertion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Yes.

The main catalyst for universal background checks came during the Clinton era. You might not remember it depending on how old you are...but you'll surely recognize the name: Columbine.

The guns were bought by a friend at a gun show as a private party sale. She testified that had she been subjected to a background check she would not have bought the guns.

The gun in this Oregon shooting is currently being traced. Because Oregon is lax in records of private party sales it's going to take the FBI working from point of sale forward through a long, laborious and costly process of ownership. Rest assured, this isn't rocket science, the firearm didn't appear out of thin air and it wasn't hand built. So if you can't figure out that it was bought legally at one time, perhaps you could do us a favor and explain how else it got from the legally purchased point of sale into the hands of the killer without any record?

The other shooting I referenced, VTech, was another slip through background check lapse. It was that shooting that closed the loophole where people adjudicated as mentally unsound would not pass a background check. And with that....

DO you deny that the 2a grants everyone not convicted of a felony, or adjudicated mentally defective (I will give you those 2) the RIGHTS to own and bare arms??? Simple yes or no question.

If yes then to be allowed to own or acquire property why do I have to ask the govt permission to use my enumerated rights??? OH thats right I DONT!!!!!

kindly show me where in the 2a amendment it states that felons and mentally unstable (not defective, that's odd you'd use that terminology though) are precluded from firearm ownership?

now be a doll and let the class know if there's any indication of regulation in that precious gem of an amendment...

[marshallnoise]

Here I am talking about regulating 3rd party sales not being subject to background checks and you stating that such a problem doesn't exist...









not sure how I can ask it more clearly. you simply want to argue bullshit.

the lax regulations in your state Montana (and the state you left to an extent) are exactly why we need to strengthen background checks between private parties and straw man purchases. more to the point of the thread, in Oregon, it's a problem that resulted in the death of an innocent child.

those lax regulations answer the question as to why areas with strict gun regulations still have a proliferation of guns in the area...because people like you circumvent the law and put guns in the hands of criminals. you must be proud of yourself. real upstanding american citizen :|

Is it proven that guns committed in school shootings gave been acquired vis private party sales or some other loophole method?

You seem to be claiming that requiring background checks on private party sales would prevent school shootings. Absurd assertion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[smooth]

Here I am talking about regulating 3rd party sales not being subject to background checks and you stating that such a problem doesn't exist...

as pretty much everyone on this board has posted ad nauseum most sane and rational people would be content to start with a simple background check

I'd add to that and argue for strict regulations about straw purchases and unregulated 3rd party sales

We have all this already so whats your point.

Which state are you living in that requires background checks for private party sales?

No you asked where there are backgrounds for P/P transaction I told you where.

We have back ground checks, everyone that buys a firearm at retail MUST fill out a 4470.

not sure how I can ask it more clearly. you simply want to argue bullshit.

the lax regulations in your state Montana (and the state you left to an extent) are exactly why we need to strengthen background checks between private parties and straw man purchases. more to the point of the thread, in Oregon, it's a problem that resulted in the death of an innocent child.

those lax regulations answer the question as to why areas with strict gun regulations still have a proliferation of guns in the area...because people like you circumvent the law and put guns in the hands of criminals. you must be proud of yourself. real upstanding american citizen :|

[mrsleeve]

No you asked where there are backgrounds for P/P transaction I told you where.

We have back ground checks, everyone that buys a firearm at retail MUST fill out a 4470. The 1st question address the straw purchaser situation. You falsify a govt doc..... well you know how that will go.

Private party sale is just that..... States can make laws to regulate this, but there is a catch......

The Private party transactions "loop hole" as you call is the very thing that makes the 4470 and the whole NICS system LEGAL . DO you deny that the 2a grants everyone not convicted of a felony, or adjudicated mentally defective (I will give you those 2) the RIGHTS to own and bare arms??? Simple yes or no question.

If yes then to be allowed to own or acquire property why do I have to ask the govt permission to use my enumerated rights??? OH thats right I DONT!!!!! I dont have to fill out a 4470 unless I wish to buy form a FFL. Since FFLs seem to have the most firearms for sale at any given time and they seem to have the ability to acquire something you might want if they dont have it on the shelf in a few days, most people buy from the retail market out of convenience and there by fill out their background check form and ask permission.

Well if your willing to wait, you can buy your firearm from your neighbor when he wants to sell something..... Its this avenue to utilizing a protected right, that makes your NICS even legal in the 1st place. The hitch is you might not get what you actually want or in the condition you want it in, but you can participate with out the nanny state getting into your private business. With the MI B/G check and all other "registration" states the check is not at the point of sale or by the feds, its your local PD generally, and a condition of state law to own that particular type of weapon... Which as far as I know has not met a major legal challenge.

Its not the job of the govt to PREVENT CRIME, or really to even stop it for that matter, its their job to investigate it and prosecute those it believes responsible for purporting it. The whole NICS is a bogus sham in the 1st place, but its legal because you dont have to participate with in it if you wish not too. Its the same principal that makes driving, flying, or even getting on a bus a PRIVILEGE, your freedom of travel is not being violated by denying you a means of transportation since there are many other ways to get where you want to go, even if that is by walking. By making you fill out a 4470 to buy a retail firearm is not violating your rights since you dont have to participate with in that system.

As to long guns and crime they are not as severally regulated because they are not the issue when it comes to crimes here is a handy chart form the FBI showing that Rifles and shotguns combined account for less than .08% of total firearms homicides. Yup those are really the issue. We should stop selling cars because people might go crashing through a mall in another state with it too....

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8

[smooth]

http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/11/ar...oming-the-norm




Hrm...

I knew something was bugging me about this chart but couldn't place why the numbers were off.

Then I recalled that last spring, when I taught Intro to Crim Justice system to a few hundred students, I led off with the Virginia Tech incident to get my students to talk about how our various bureaucracies interact with one another (or in that scenario failed to as it were).

So for those who have forgotten the incident, Mr. Cho killed 32 people and wounded 25 others.
You can see how the black and dark green lines for 2007 can't account for those murders (and doesn't even attempt to illustrate "wounded" -- I'll come to that in a bit). The BJS doesn't actually explicitly state this, you have to extrapolate it from the data, but it's only tabulating elementary through secondary schools.

We have to keep in mind that college shootings aren't accounted for in that data.
Colleges, and certainly parents sending their "kids" off to college, are part of our "school" system regardless of where the law cuts off childhood from adulthood (and keeping in mind that colleges consider people under the age of 25 as minor dependents).


Now, as to why I mentioned "casualties" as a point of interest. There have been a few studies in my field, most recently by a group of Harvard doctors, who have argued that part of the reduction in our gun deaths is, at least in large part, due to medical advances. Simply put, those 25 victims that lived would probably not have lived had they been shot a few decades ago. The advances in medicine, also in large part responsible for reducing military deaths, were spearheaded in metro hospital trauma centers in response to the catastrophic murder rates at the height of the crack epidemic in this country.

That's why, for those of us who study and write about gun violence in the US, we use hospital admittance records when tabulating the other three violence sources for a more accurate picture of what's going on.

There's no rosy picture about any of this.

[smooth]

Michigan Pistols, Any state requiring registration 1 small part of the reason I dont live in MI anymore

Your answer confuses me. I asked where you are living that requires private party background checks...since you asked me why I supported that policy change if "we already have background checks?"

so you live in a state that does *not* require background checks and you're asking me why I desire to mandate background checks for private party sales?

and you're also confused as to why some states with stricter gun regulations still experience high rates of gun violence despite those regulations?

and we're having this discussion in a thread about a school shooting in a state that does not mandate background checks, or any records for that matter, of private party sales?

are you being facetious?


Michigan doesn't regulate private party sales of long firearms, the kind that was used in this school shooting, and allows anyone from any state to purchase those weapons in MI. Someone with a felony murder on their record could travel to MI and purchase a rifle from a private party and use it to commit another murder. Why would you support that kind of loophole?


edit: in fact, in your state Montana, private party sales are *not* subject to background checks. and even more alarming, dealers don't even have to perform a background check if the purchaser presents certain state permits to the dealer at the time of purchase. CCW permit holders, even if they've had their permits revoked but the state hasn't notified the database quickly enough, aren't subject to background checks.

it's bizarre why you would support those kinds of loopholes in your own state. that means that you, a law abiding citizen with a valid CCW, can purchase a firearm without a background check. but someone who is arrested and convicted of violent assault but still holding his CCW that hasn't been yanked in the database yet can *also* purchase another firearm without a background check.

and currently, if the state did yank that permit in time, the purchaser can still go down to the store with his friend and do a straw purchase and obtain the gun anyway. you wouldn't do that, because you wouldn't have to. and if your state closed that loophole he wouldn't be able to do it and you would be literally unaffected because you'd still be able to pass a background check (and in fact, aren't even subject to one).

If those loopholes were shored up, you'd still be able to purchase your firearm in the same amount of time but the person convicted of violent assault wouldn't be. Why would you be opposed to those policy changes?

[mrsleeve]

it's not gone over my head it's just a non-sequitor to the discussion so it's confusing why you bothered to mention it at all. What exactly is your point?

Which state are you living in that requires background checks for private party sales?

Michigan Pistols, Any state requiring registration 1 small part of the reason I dont live in MI anymore

[smooth]

Requiring background checks puts an unnecessary burden on individuals. What is it you would have them do? Effectively, you would make private party sales so burdensome that you would make them pointless.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I would have private party sellers go to a federally licensed firearm dealer, the dealer would do a background check, the dealer would retain record of the transaction. That's exactly how we do it in California, which you aren't apparently aware of given your comments despite the fact you supposedly live in San Diego North County, and there are plenty of legal private party gun sales in California even with this "burdensome" requirement.

back to the thread, in Oregon where the school shooting happened, someone who wouldn't be eligible to buy a firearm can ask his or her buddy to do it and they both go in the store together and purchase the firearm, the buddy hands it off with no record of transaction and it's perfectly legal. that gun can (and does) travel illegally into California where we have to scrape it off the street along with the brains and blood of some dumb teenager and hopefully not a pre-teen caught in the crossfire.

I'm not being a dick for no reason. I'm not even being a dick, but if I was I'd have every reason since you insist on trolling these threads and "acting" dense like you're making valid points...over and over the same trash points comes out of you regardless of refutation or sound logic. despite your views being in opposition to the majority of americans, both gun owning and non-gun owning alike, despite every single factoid to the contrary. you persist.

but the worst is that you remain callous to the string of deaths of innocent children. even going so far as to argue someone into the ground who pointed out that your position of running away from danger in a similar situation even if you were armed was cowardice. that's not something to be proud of by any measure. and if this was happening anywhere else but an anonymous internet forum the bystanders would be wondering why *you* were being such a "dick"

[marshallnoise]

we're having a discussion about school shootings and a graph is posted demonstrating that the national average for school shootings are going down

ignoring, of course, that it doesn't include Sandy Hook, or anything past 2010 for that matter, which ended with 20 children dead, 6 adults, the shooter and his mother thereby damn near tripling the entire country's incidents in 2010 in a singular incident! why that is somehow counted as "success" is baffling to me, but speaks perhaps more to a depraved and sick mentality that permeates some of the people in this society who are "ok" with this kind of violence and death that our children are forced to endure in the name of politics.

in any case, so we're having this discussion about school shootings and I respond to the graph to point out that it's misleading to understand it as an accurate portrayal of school shooting trends across the country since it's an average.

for example, comparing the Sandy Hook incident to the latest Oregon shooting, even if there were just 3 more just like the Oregon incident (and in total less than a handful of deaths), we'd still have to discuss whether we are seeing an uptick of school shootings even though the total murders are lower than the singular Sandy Hook incident.

his response? well localities can implement their own policies.
that's a non-sequitor. Educate yourself on what that term means if you're still confused.



as to your question of what use mandating that private party sales were subject to the same background checks that gun stores had to adhere to, if you can't comprehend the answer on your own then no amount of explaining from me is going to help you understand any better. sorry I can't help you with rudimentary comprehension skills. hopefully someone else in the thread will take the time to explain how gun sales work.

You are being a dick for no reason. The definition of non sequitor does not apply. It is a perfectly related. Especially know how our government is designed to work. Which you ignore completely and cast off as unrelated.

I am also aware of how private party sales work. Requiring background checks puts an unnecessary burden on individuals. What is it you would have them do? Effectively, you would make private party sales so burdensome that you would make them pointless.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk