Another week, another school shooting

[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 :|

[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]

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...

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ParsedOut]

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

So exactly how do you "limit straw purchases"? The whole point is that someone with a clean background buys it and sells to someone who cannot legally purchase it. The law is already in place and the punishment is severe.

Your credibility on this topic is non-existent...but keep spewing the same ignorant crap and maybe someone will buy it.

[smooth]

So exactly how do you "limit straw purchases"? The whole point is that someone with a clean background buys it and sells to someone who cannot legally purchase it. The law is already in place and the punishment is severe.

Your credibility on this topic is non-existent...but keep spewing the same ignorant crap and maybe someone will buy it.

In California, both parties go to an FFL and pay $10 dollars (hardly "preventing commerce," but I digress). A simple background check, ten day wait period, a legally documented transfer and two happy, law-abiding citizens go back to their daily routines--one less a gun and one with a new gun.

If you sell the gun off the record and it turns up at a crime scene you get punished. Then all those severe punishments you and sleeve extol come into effect.


Contrast this with bordering states Nevada or Oregon where two private citizens can buy/sell guns in their garage, completely off the record. When the gun turns up at a crime scene it gets traced to the last point of recorded sale. The only requirement is that sellers don't "knowingly" sell to prohibited persons. The law that is already in place with severe punishments is unenforceable under those conditions. How else do you propose to strengthen that already existing law since you and sleeve say you support doing so?



If a Californian wants to commit a crime that requires a gun but can't get a gun from a gun store, or didn't want to purchase a gun on the record, is the person more likely to go rifling through their neighbors homes searching for a firearm to use or are they going to drive a couple hours to buy one?

[CorvallisBMW]

So exactly how do you "limit straw purchases"? The whole point is that someone with a clean background buys it and sells to someone who cannot legally purchase it. The law is already in place and the punishment is severe.

The same way you limit the purchase of alcohol to underage minors. Make it illegal everywhere, regardless of local jurisdiction. Make it not just against the law, but socially unacceptable as well. Put measures in place, such as waiting periods, that prevent people from making impulse buys or just snagging someone off the street to buy it for them. Will it stop 100% of straw purchases? Of course not, and no one is suggesting that it would. but it would help, and if you're unwilling to make even small improvements, then you're guilty by association.

Your credibility on this topic is non-existent...but keep spewing the same ignorant crap and maybe someone will buy it.

Because I have a different opinion than you and post facts that don't fit in with your dogmatic views? Please, tell me more about how everyone you disagree with has zero credibility.

[CorvallisBMW]

In California, both parties go to an FFL and pay $10 dollars (hardly "preventing commerce," but I digress). A simple background check, ten day wait period, a legally documented transfer and two happy, law-abiding citizens go back to their daily routines--one less a gun and one with a new gun.

If you sell the gun off the record and it turns up at a crime scene you get punished. Then all those severe punishments you and sleeve extol come into effect.

Contrast this with bordering states Nevada or Oregon where two private citizens can buy/sell guns in their garage, completely off the record. When the gun turns up at a crime scene it gets traced to the last point of recorded sale. The only requirement is that sellers don't "knowingly" sell to prohibited persons. The law that is already in place with severe punishments is unenforceable under those conditions. How else do you propose to strengthen that already existing law since you and sleeve say you support doing so?

If someone couldn't get a gun from a gun store, or didn't want to purchase a gun on the record, is the person more likely to go rifling through their neighbors homes searching for a firearm to use or are they going to drive a couple hours to buy one?

DING DING DING we have a winner. Don't for a minute think that the pro-gun camp actually wants to see our current laws enforced. They know full-well that they are unenforceable as currently written. You can't be anti-gun regulation but also want current gun regulations enforced; they are, for very obvious reasons, mutually exclusive. Take note of the new law in Georgia that forbids police from asking anyone about the status of their CCL or any other gun permit. How can you possibly enforce the law banning concealed carry w/o a permit, if it's forbidden to ask for the permit?

[marshallnoise]

The same way you limit the purchase of alcohol to underage minors. Make it illegal everywhere, regardless of local jurisdiction. Make it not just against the law, but socially unacceptable as well. Put measures in place, such as waiting periods, what prevent people from making impulse buys or just snagging someone off the street to buy it for them. Will it stop 100% of straw purchases? Of course not, and no one is suggesting that it would. but it would help, and if you're unwilling to make even small improvements, then you're guilty by association.


Because I have a different opinion than you and post facts that don't fit in with your dogmatic views? Please, tell me more about how everyone you disagree with has zero credibility.

The law doesn't stop people from committing crimes. Kids still drink. Often stealing from their parent's stash. Just like guns get into criminal hands.

What is dogmatic is expecting that a new law will make things better. History has already proven that it doesn't.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[smooth]

The law doesn't stop people from committing crimes. Kids still drink. Often stealing from their parent's stash. Just like guns get into criminal hands.

What is dogmatic is expecting that a new law will make things better. History has already proven that it doesn't.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

It's not a new law. It already exists. Our neighboring states don't adhere to it so we have to deal with the consequences.

Do you honestly think that kids wouldn't consume more alcohol if we simply asked store owners to not knowingly sell to minors and didn't require them to check ID?