Another week, another school shooting

[smooth]

In response to smooth, forgot to quote.

I've said it before, I'm all for the universal background check concept as are the majority of Americans. That would in theory limit criminals easily getting their hands on guns, agreed as well. Prices on the underground market would explode, luckily criminals are usually swimming in I'll gotten funds, so there's that. Back on topic, how do you create a universal background check without creating a national gun registry? You can't unless you just want to throw another gun law put there that can't be enforced. A gun registry is not something we as Americans should lay down and accept. In history confiscation always follows registration.

So there's my non ad hominem response to your question, if you care to share the same respect I'll continue the discussion but I doubt it'll be fruitful for anyone involved, they never are.

In response to your "remove robbery law" comment, there you go again comparing an action with the tool. If you can't tell the difference I can't help you.

The armed robbery example isn't comparing an action to the tool. I understand why you would think I was doing that because that's probably what you usually hear from some people.

In this example, however, I wasn't using it to describe how guns are the cause of robberies nor was I arguing that by criminalizing guns we can thwart robberies. I was simply comparing the behavior of robbery limited by the law against robbery to the behavior of selling guns off-record being limited by the law against doing so.

I don't have the answer to your concern about a national gun registry. Presumably we should leave the states to maintain records on gun sales/purchases as the states that currently regulate private party sales already do.

Aside from that, we as a nation have to decide what is worse for us...dealing with the consequences of these loopholes that exist in some states and not others (thereby reducing the efficacy of the laws in place in the states that regulate private party sales) or dealing with the consequences of a list of owners.

It's not entirely clear that registration leads to confiscation. Isn't it true that fully automatic weapons are among the most regulated firearms in this country? Yet they haven't been confiscated wholesale.

I can't give you any more concrete protections that your guns won't be confiscated than the 2nd amendment. I'm sorry, I just can't because I can't conceive of one. I am willing to suspect that in the event of a large-scale government takeover of guns that a national registry wouldn't stop them from going house to house confiscating weapons. In fact, a registry might have the opposite effect than what you're speculating on: officials might well leave you alone knowing that you have an arsenal in your home. They'd come for me before you, that's a certainty. I have a lot more to lose under that kind of scenario than you do so it's not a world I'd like to facilitate.


EDIT: I'm not sure how much impact regulating private party sales would have on unregulated gun sale pricing, but I imagine you're right in suspecting that prices would rise. Currently most guns on the black market, at least the many I encountered in my youth, were inexpensive. That's an interesting secondary barrier to illegal ownership. Good point. I don't see it as a bad thing. Luckily, most street criminals are poor. They're not swimming in cash. Illegal gun sale pricing would have zero effect on legal purchases as far as I can surmise. You wouldn't have to worry about that but, as the earlier point, I'd be far more impacted by that kind of chain of events. I'm ok with that, I'm willing to argue against my own self interest in this situation for the greater good.

[CorvallisBMW]

You see, if alcohol sales were contingent on the honor system, where people could just claim that they didn't know the purchaser was a minor, or cigarette sales, or sex even, then people would just say, "hey, I didn't know" and all the regulations about minors doing those things become futile.

But as soon as you require someone to actually verify the purchaser, or that the person doing the behavior, is legally entitled to do the thing you're trying to regulate, then you get increased compliance.

Sure, some minors still buy alcohol and drink, some still buy cigarettes and smoke, and some still have sex with people they shouldn't, but that isn't grounds for eliminating the requirement that people verify. No one, except in here, argues that since you can't maintain 100% compliance of the law that you should then eliminate the law.

Nailed it. Again.

In history confiscation always follows registration.

Really? Because we've been registering automobiles for many, many decades now. And *yep*, I just checked, mine is still parked outside and has not in fact been confiscated. Fully automatic weapons and explosives are mong the most heavily regulated and registered "tools" in the country, yet there have been no such confiscation efforts on those either. Given that the 2nd amendment clearly forbids it, in what possible scenario could you envision confiscation of all privately-held firearms??

In response to your "remove robbery law" comment, there you go again comparing an action with the tool. If you can't tell the difference I can't help you.

Since you conveniently ignored 3/4 of his examples, I quoted them for you above. I truly don't understand why you feel there is any difference between behaviors and tools within the context of these laws. Can you please explain to me why laws regarding behavior are different than laws regarding tools?

[agent]

I'll ask again since it seems to have slipped through the cracks:

OP, how do you propose we keep rifles out of the hands of high school students? In your estimation, what could/would have prevented this incident?

[smooth]

I'll ask again since it seems to have slipped through the cracks:

there isn't any current legislation real or imagined that would have prevented this specific tragedy. The opening of the thread was speaking to a broader issue, however, so while it's unsatisfactory in regards to the Oregon shooting it's an endemic problem that merits discussion.

this incident does speak to the constant point we often raise to people that guns in the home are far more dangerous to the dwellers than strangers are to them, statistically.

[ParsedOut]

The armed robbery example isn't comparing an action to the tool. I understand why you would think I was doing that because that's probably what you usually hear from some people.

In this example, however, I wasn't using it to describe how guns are the cause of robberies nor was I arguing that by criminalizing guns we can thwart robberies. I was simply comparing the behavior of robbery limited by the law against robbery to the behavior of selling guns off-record being limited by the law against doing so.

I don't have the answer to your concern about a national gun registry. Presumably we should leave the states to maintain records on gun sales/purchases as the states that currently regulate private party sales already do.

Aside from that, we as a nation have to decide what is worse for us...dealing with the consequences of these loopholes that exist in some states and not others (thereby reducing the efficacy of the laws in place in the states that regulate private party sales) or dealing with the consequences of a list of owners.

It's not entirely clear that registration leads to confiscation. Isn't it true that fully automatic weapons are among the most regulated firearms in this country? Yet they haven't been confiscated wholesale.

I can't give you any more concrete protections that your guns won't be confiscated than the 2nd amendment. I'm sorry, I just can't because I can't conceive of one. I am willing to suspect that in the event of a large-scale government takeover of guns that a national registry wouldn't stop them from going house to house confiscating weapons. In fact, a registry might have the opposite effect than what you're speculating on: officials might well leave you alone knowing that you have an arsenal in your home. They'd come for me before you, that's a certainty. I have a lot more to lose under that kind of scenario than you do so it's not a world I'd like to facilitate.


EDIT: I'm not sure how much impact regulating private party sales would have on unregulated gun sale pricing, but I imagine you're right in suspecting that prices would rise. Currently most guns on the black market, at least the many I encountered in my youth, were inexpensive. That's an interesting secondary barrier to illegal ownership. Good point. I don't see it as a bad thing. Luckily, most street criminals are poor. They're not swimming in cash. Illegal gun sale pricing would have zero effect on legal purchases as far as I can surmise. You wouldn't have to worry about that but, as the earlier point, I'd be far more impacted by that kind of chain of events. I'm ok with that, I'm willing to argue against my own self interest in this situation for the greater good.

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

Nailed it. Again.

Really? Because we've been registering automobiles for many, many decades now. And *yep*, I just checked, mine is still parked outside and has not in fact been confiscated. Fully automatic weapons and explosives are mong the most heavily regulated and registered "tools" in the country, yet there have been no such confiscation efforts on those either. Given that the 2nd amendment clearly forbids it, in what possible scenario could you envision confiscation of all privately-held firearms??

Since you conveniently ignored 3/4 of his examples, I quoted them for you above. I truly don't understand why you feel there is any difference between behaviors and tools within the context of these laws. Can you please explain to me why laws regarding behavior are different than laws regarding tools?

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

[smooth]

At some point you're going to have to personally weigh the pros/cons of an incredible amount of legally purchased guns filtering through those legal hands into criminals' hands vs. that of the prospect of a national registry resulting in wholesale confiscation. I can't argue you into agreeing with my personal calculation of that equation and I wouldn't want to anyway. It's an issue that merits discussion and resolution.


I do have one idea, however, that you might be willing to consider: we could mandate that private sellers maintain records of their sales. So in such a scenario a private seller and private buyer go to a FFL. Buyer submits for background check, waits requisite period, obtains weapon. Seller maintains record of the sale.

De-identified record goes to the state recording the transfer. Seller has permanent record of relinquishing ownership of firearm, State has record of relinquishment, Buyer has submitted to the regulations, State has no record of Buyer's identity.

All we're doing here is making sure that the buyer goes through proper channels. Completely understood that some people want to remain anonymous and, for all intents and purposes, they should have that right if they are law abiding.


But currently these kinds of background checks and record keeping are already maintained for retail purchases so the issue doesn't seem to be problematic. But regardless, there you are for private sales.

[ParsedOut]

At some point you're going to have to personally weigh the pros/cons of an incredible amount of legally purchased guns filtering through those legal hands into criminals' hands vs. that of the prospect of a national registry resulting in wholesale confiscation. I can't argue you into agreeing with my personal calculation of that equation and I wouldn't want to anyway. It's an issue that merits discussion and resolution.


I do have one idea, however, that you might be willing to consider: we could mandate that private sellers maintain records of their sales. So in such a scenario a private seller and private buyer go to a FFL. Buyer submits for background check, waits requisite period, obtains weapon. Seller maintains record of the sale.

De-identified record goes to the state recording the transfer. Seller has permanent record of relinquishing ownership of firearm, State has record of relinquishment, Buyer has submitted to the regulations, State has no record of Buyer's identity.

All we're doing here is making sure that the buyer goes through proper channels. Completely understood that some people want to remain anonymous and, for all intents and purposes, they should have that right if they are law abiding.


But currently these kinds of background checks and record keeping are already maintained for retail purchases so the issue doesn't seem to be problematic. But regardless, there you are for private sales.

Currently the background checks (which are little more than NICS checks for ineligibility) are retained at the FFL for a certain period of time and the ATF or any other gov't agency is not allowed to obtain the full records, only specific ones under due process. Myself I have purchased many guns through FFLs (actually I've never bought a gun private party, sold a few though) and don't really mind having my NICS check on file there.

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.

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. I've said it before and I'll say it again, when the motivation is there to cause harm to another individual there are always effective means. I agree with Obama on one thing and one thing only, we as a country "need to do some soul searching" and realize that violent crime is a result of certain cultural and societal classes. There needs to be further money/time/legislation spent on outreach and educational programs to help curb the true epidemic that faces our nation. Too many kids are brought up with gang violence as "the norm" and there are too many kids of all culture and class that are raised with emotionally absent parents who end up being young adults with no morals and even less self worth. It's not a matter of mental illness, it's a matter of our youth not being taken care of and nurtured to become productive members of our modern society.

[smooth]

people who can't pass background checks buying guns from private parties who don't run background checks is a problem that exists

extend current retail regulation that you're ok with to private party sales

couldn't be simpler

why you think that creates a registry ripe for confiscation and current retail regulation doesn't is a mystery

[ParsedOut]

people who can't pass background checks buying guns from private parties who don't run background checks is a problem that exists

extend current retail regulation that you're ok with to private party sales

couldn't be simpler

why you think that creates a registry ripe for confiscation and current retail regulation doesn't is a mystery

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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.