Another week, another school shooting

[marshallnoise]

questioning someone is one thing, insulting is another.

in any case, I'm done interacting with you. Ignore and report and hopefully the mods will clean what appears to have become a cesspool.

I figured it would be a badge of honor for you to be shouted at from below your ivory tower?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[Farbin Kaiber]

Hey smooth, I've been wanting to ask, what are the two triangular gray ! images supposed to mean?

[smooth]

questioning someone is one thing, insulting is another.

in any case, I'm done interacting with you. Ignore and report and hopefully the mods will clean what appears to have become a cesspool.

[marshallnoise]

I called you ignorant to the details, that does not mean stupid. Anyway, feel free to add me back to your ignore list. Haha, I just read the part about "benefit from my company"...that really made me laugh, thanks for that. Good one.

Arrogant pick if you ask me. "Don't question my authority, I sit in the ivory tower!"

Fuck that noise.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[ParsedOut]

I am extremely smart and highly educated and I make the assumption that other people I'm interacting with are also intelligent human beings. That's why I don't call you stupid or insult you in my posts. That's also why I took you off my ignore list when you stated you wanted to have an honest and non-inflammatory discussion. So I don't know about whether you should go back to a cave but I do know if you want to benefit from my company start treating with the respect I deserve and that you said you were going to extend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I called you ignorant to the details, that does not mean stupid. Anyway, feel free to add me back to your ignore list. Haha, I just read the part about "benefit from my company"...that really made me laugh, thanks for that. Good one.

[ParsedOut]

This makes for a nice soundbite and all, but you're missing a few key points. The US does not hold a monopoly on violence. We don't hold a monopoly on bad parenting. Or gangs. Or disenfranchised youth, or poverty, or mental health issues, or the mentally ill, or, or, or... What we do hold a monopoly on is guns. At 88.8 guns per 100 people, we have the highest rate of gun ownership in the developed world and therefor, quite logically, the highest rate of gun homicide. Given that fact, why do you think guns are a non-factor? And if guns aren't driving the gun homicide rate, what is?

Of course the rate of gun homicide is higher since we have more guns. It's like saying there are more cow related accidents in states with higher cow populations, it doesn't mean anything. The statistics have been posted ad nauseum in these threads, our TOTAL violent crime rate per capita is much lower than you seem to acknowledge.

As for your other questions, I don't have time to spoon feed you information you'll ignore.

[ParsedOut]

You simply prove to the state that you did your due diligence before selling the firearm.

The background check gets done, the state keeps a record of you selling the gun, or you keep it in your safe if that makes you feel better, so that if it ever shows up on the street the cops run a check on the gun and your name comes up as last owner but you're in the clear because you made the buyer jump through the same hoop that an FFL would have.

What does it matter that the state keeps a record of you selling your firearm? You don't own it anymore!

The good it would do is make sure that anyone who couldn't pass a background check when going through a legit dealer would also not be able to show up at someone's garage or craigslist and purchase a firearm without a background check.

You're missing the point. What good does a record of me selling a gun do when there was never a record of me owning it?! So you purpose I own a gun without being on a registry, I meet seller at FFL, they do a check on him, he passes, I submit a record that I sold a gun (that they never knew about!) and that I no longer own this gun with S/N that was never linked to me in the first place. So now if it's used in a crime they can come hassle me about a gun (they never knew about until I sold) to find out who I sold it to? Or do I simply show them an FFL "receipt" with an anonymous buyer to prove that I did it legitimately? Once again, I ask you Mr Educated, how do you enforce a law on private party transfers without a registry?

[CorvallisBMW]

It's a catch 22 on all fronts, and I'm sorry but I'm not willing to give in on a registry to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Violence is the problem, there are root causes of this problem among young men in our country, regulating the tool used in these crimes will not stop them from happening.

This makes for a nice soundbite and all, but you're missing a few key points. The US does not hold a monopoly on violence. We don't hold a monopoly on bad parenting. Or gangs. Or disenfranchised youth, or poverty, or mental health issues, or the mentally ill, or, or, or... What we do hold a monopoly on is guns. At 88.8 guns per 100 people, we have the highest rate of gun ownership in the developed world and therefor, quite logically, the highest rate of gun homicide. Given that fact, why do you think guns are a non-factor? And if guns aren't driving the gun homicide rate, what is?

[smooth]

I am extremely smart and highly educated and I make the assumption that other people I'm interacting with are also intelligent human beings. That's why I don't call you stupid or insult you in my posts. That's also why I took you off my ignore list when you stated you wanted to have an honest and non-inflammatory discussion. So I don't know about whether you should go back to a cave but I do know if you want to benefit from my company start treating with the respect I deserve and that you said you were going to extend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ParsedOut]

I thought you were going to try and have a civil discussion?

I'm asking you to explain to me why the current regulations that are in place when you buy a firearm from an FFL don't lead to wholesale confiscation.

In California, we already mandate that private gun owners sell firearms through FFL. There is no functional difference between the shop owner selling the firearm or a private seller. Neither one leads to a more onerous gun registry than the other. We already do this in my state and we haven't suffered wholesale confiscation. I don't know every single state's laws. That doesn't mean I can't understand something you're writing.

Given my expertise and intelligence, it's far more likely you're either not explaining yourself adequately or you simply just want to argue around in circles by saying that you support universal background checks but don't want to make it a requirement of private sales.

I thought I just explained this. Didn't realize "right here" was a place in CA. So you already have a state registry of sorts. If your state decides to outright ban certain (or all) firearms then those possessing them would be required to turn them in or be sent to prison. That is a huge infringement of 2A rights that the average citizen would have little control over. Our current administration would love for this to be a national registry so further on there is option for confiscation (under what ever "reasonable" cause shows up).

I forgot, you're extremely smart and educated. Excuse me, I'll go back to banging a rock against the wall.

[smooth]

So your solution sounds reasonable, but what good does a relinquishment statement do if the state doesn't have a registry of what is owned and by whom? Unless it's a completely anonymous system of both buyers and sellers? Not sure what good that would do.

You simply prove to the state that you did your due diligence before selling the firearm.

The background check gets done, the state keeps a record of you selling the gun, or you keep it in your safe if that makes you feel better, so that if it ever shows up on the street the cops run a check on the gun and your name comes up as last owner but you're in the clear because you made the buyer jump through the same hoop that an FFL would have.

What does it matter that the state keeps a record of you selling your firearm? You don't own it anymore!

The good it would do is make sure that anyone who couldn't pass a background check when going through a legit dealer would also not be able to show up at someone's garage or craigslist and purchase a firearm without a background check.

[CorvallisBMW]

We don't disagree on the concepts however I've studied the real consequences to "closing loopholes"

Really? Tell me all about the studies you done. I'd like to see them.

...and we can pass all the laws we want but without a registry we cannot enforce them. Going back to the robbery vs selling guns "off record" (in states where prohibited) is exactly the same thing. The law is in place and can only be enforced if there is proof that said action took place. How do you enforce robberies? You can either catch the individual in the process (same can happen with a gun sale in a public parking lot) or you have physical evidence that the individual committed the crime. What physical evidence could you have that a gun was sold off record? Without a registry there is no way to track the ownership path. I'm sorry but I don't trust the state to run a registry any more than the feds. If that state decides to outlaw specific firearms (ie. NJ and "assault rifles") then they know exactly where they are and if/when not turned in they know where to go and with how many guys necessary to extract said firearm and send the previously law abiding citizen to federal prison. Making more criminals to feed an agenda of disarmament, not saying that is the ONLY possible outcome of a registry but it's very realistic given the open motivations from certain political movements.

See his earlier example of private transactions being performed in front of a licensed dealer, a la the Notary system.

Your naivete is cute...keep repeating debunked and false "facts" and making absurd comparisons.

I've noticed you're very good at ignoring questions that you don't have an answer for. So please, tell me:

1) What "debunked and false facts" did I mention in that post?
2) Given the 2nd amendment, in what possible scenario could you see the confiscation of all privately-held firearms?
2) Please explain how the laws regarding behavior are fundamentally more enforceable than those involving tools

[smooth]

I thought you were going to try and have a civil discussion?

I'm asking you to explain to me why the current regulations that are in place when you buy a firearm from an FFL don't lead to wholesale confiscation.

In California, we already mandate that private gun owners sell firearms through FFL. There is no functional difference between the shop owner selling the firearm or a private seller. Neither one leads to a more onerous gun registry than the other. We already do this in my state and we haven't suffered wholesale confiscation. I don't know every single state's laws. That doesn't mean I can't understand something you're writing.

Given my expertise and intelligence, it's far more likely you're either not explaining yourself adequately or you simply just want to argue around in circles by saying that you support universal background checks but don't want to make it a requirement of private sales.

[ParsedOut]

please explain how requiring private party sellers and buyers to process sales through an FFL is any different than what they currently do when buying/selling retail?

It's already illegal for private citizens to sell/gift a firearm to someone who is known ineligible or "should have known" ineligible. The difference is currently FFLs are subject to checks and audits to ensure they are not circumventing the NICS, if they do it's a really big deal and jail time is mandatory. How exactly do we check and audit that a private party transfer was done if the firearm isn't registered? They can pass all the useless laws they want unless there are checks and balances it won't do a damn thing, also see NJ recent ban of "assault rifles". The fact that you ask this question and don't understand this most basic concept tells me that you're just as ignorant as Corvallis to the details of what you demand.

[smooth]

You obviously haven't been reading what I'm saying or you don't fully understand what the current regulations are and how they don't and CAN'T apply to private party transfers without registration. I'm not going to do the research for you, but I have.

please explain how requiring private party sellers and buyers to process sales through an FFL is any different than what they currently do when buying/selling retail?