The Gun Control Challenge

Post Reply New Topic

The private sale loophole is an interesting problem - and one I don't have a good answer for. The concern is that making background checks available to the public at large could be abused to conduct background checks on unwilling people. However, most of the information looked at on a NICS check is public record, and all they give you is "approved", "denied", or "hold" - so I don't see any huge problems making NICS available to private sellers and requiring them to use it. Some of the hard-core paranoid government-is-out-to-get-me folks may disagree.

I think the bigger problem is one of logistics - NICS is notoriously flaky as a system, which is why some states have adopted their own background check system. There's no real reason NICS couldn't be made to work reliably, and quickly enough to be usable - it comes down to throwing money at the problem.

The other solution - the one I'm not terribly fond of - is to require all gun transfers to go through an FFL (of course, with the customary $45-$75 fee). Maybe that would be OK in some circumstances - but I don't want to have to go through a third party just to gift a gun to someone in my immediate family. That's just stupid.

From page 7 of the “Why use guns for killing” thread.

aSKperger wrote:

(Bolding mine)

This seems to sum up aSKperger's concerns about armed citizens .......

There is no constitutional mandate to let any non-citizen into the country. The background form is checked against the FBI database, and depending on the circumstances they or the ATF (usually the ATF) can investigate and prosecute you criminally.


So it's not serious since it can be shown to be a strawman and you can't defend it?


until the EU crime rates are not reached, this has very little value if any at all.


The EU, at least most western member countries, are a different culture than the US and there was never much justification to restrict guns the way they did- even before the confiscations during WWII. Concealed carry does matter even if our stats aren't the same as the EU- crime isn't going to go down by itself!

The "wild west" arguments apparently do matter because they were used in just about every state introduced a bill legalize concealed carry. It's ironic because the "wild" west had a far more effective system of gun control than we ever had in the 20th century: you can buy anything you want, cash down, no questions asked, no design restrictions; you can carry anything you want, no design restrictions; if you used a gun maliciously, you could expect to hang for it if you weren't shot during the crime. When communication and infrastructure got better, some people were sent to prison instead, but keep in mind that there was no A/C, no utilities, no indoor plumbing, no TV, and little if any tolerance of repeat offenders.

You should do it then! It's not like it would be that time consuming, the average gun control supporter only uses about a 5th grade level of reasoning, reading, and writing.

This is offensive. Or inappropriately snarky. Take your pick.

IQs and levels of attentiveness vary on all sides of issues, it isn't like you guys don't know that.

And people like me already readily admit to not having enough interest to delve into the level of detail that someone with a special interest in guns will. That has nothing to do with brain power or reading comprehension ability, just interest.

While I totally understand the frustration that comes from trying to deal with both interested interested posters who lack the ability to debate effectively, and fly by posters who happily share opinions but don't really try that hard to be effective about it (*waves*), it isn't fair to use that to reach a negative conclusion about all people who disagree with you.

PS - I know exactly what 5th grade writing looks like. The stuff on this board isn't it.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 09 Sep 2012, 2:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Best light machine gun of all time: The MG42

Worst light machine gun of all time: The Chauchat






^JB still rides the short bus, so it's to be expected that he says ret*d things.

DW_a_mom wrote:

It’s appropriate given the tiresomely willful ignorance displayed by the anti-gun crowd.
We come with logic and fact and they come with ill founded emotion and canned rhetoric.


Maybe the grammar and sentence structuring are above 5th grade level but the intellect would be an insult to any 5th grader with more than two brain cells to rub together.

If you think someone is willfully ignorant, you don't have any duty to talk to them.

If you want to make your case in hopes at chipping away at their already made up mind, you take a deep breathe, and add another angle or more facts. Believe it or not, pieces of that will eventually sink in and influence.

But when you degrade the people you are debating, all you do is harden them in their positions.

I guess it is all about what you hope to accomplish: confirmation of your flawed instinct that you are the only one in the room with brains, or actual understanding and a chance at progress.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 09 Sep 2012, 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

^ This. We were finally getting somewhere somewhat productive, and then the whole thread went to hell in a handbasket. And, I'd like to point out that it's mostly my friends on the pro-gun side who are overreacting. Good job guys!

^ They've held the torch for about 19 pages with regards to condescending BS and now it looks like the tables have turned with the page. Come on guys, no need to stoop to the same crap all the sudden.

I appreciate the honesty, but this is exactly why I think a lot of gun control folks should stay in their lane. There's the type that support stuff like banning "assault weapons" merely because they're intimidated by the tactical appearance. Anyone who is even somewhat knowledgeable about guns would know it's as ridiculous as banning ricer body kits for Honda Civics because they make them look too sporty.

DW_a_mom wrote:

Actually my purpose is only to provide a counter to theirs and/or try to keep them from dragging the undecided over to their side. I really don’t care to convince the antis themselves of anything.


If you’d read some of their threads you’d see that they are self-degrading and that's putting it nicely.


We’ve had dozens of threads like this in the five years I’ve been coming here and especially in the past few months. There’s nothing to understand about their position on this except that in effect they favor the enabling of violent crime and have no regard for their would-be victims. Yeah, that’s exactly what it is when someone wants to disarm the law abiding citizen and turn a blind eye to what the predators of society are doing.

sliqua-jcooter wrote:

You weren’t making any progress. As soon as you think you are they just default back to gunz-r-bad. Usually the thing that’s going to win them over is to personally be in a situation where they are forced to realize what kind of people are out there and that they are usually the only ones that are likely to be able to protect themselves during those times.
Then maybe you can help them if they ask for advice on how to prepare themselves for those situations.
Been there done that.

AceOfSpades wrote:

The last expected threat of major anti-gun legislation (Jan ‘09) was met with a HUGE boost in gun, magazine, and ammo sales that lasted several months if not over a year.
AR-15’s, AK’s, and semiauto handguns where the biggest sellers. So much that the supply could not begin to keep up with the demand and the supply line was doing its damndest since it put billions in their pockets. A lot of new gun owners where born during that time.
I’m sure the industry eagerly awaits another scare so they can deposit more profits.

You realize that you're coming off as completely hypocritical. You want to preach about how none of the anti's want to listen to reason, while not even listening to them long enough to understand their concerns. You keep on preaching - some of us are actually having a conversation...you know, a two way one.



I've had tons of bad experiences arguing with people who legitimately believe that *no one* should be able to own guns, under any circumstances. I agree that it's incredibly frustrating. This is not that conversation, and these are not those people. We've been having a relatively calm, mostly rational conversation on what works, what doesn't, and why. I personally think there's been a lot of really awesome discussion here, because people are willing to *listen*.



Yeah, we're all well aware. I'm sure even those who aren't in the gun culture heard something about it on the news. That was just as bad a knee-jerk reaction as the "gunz-r-bad" people. Everyone was flipping their sh*t because we elected a democratic president. And then watch as...not a damn thing happens, and everybody looks pretty stupid for buying a brick of .40SW for $80.

This is not my first gun control debate on WP. All in all I've been more patient with them than they have with us. I've actually read thier posts, the whole thing, but it's evident that many of them do not give us the same consideration.


Actually I've done a lot more reading than replying in this thread and I've managed to hold my tongue when I could have done more ripping. I have noticed that the people that came into this thread with an ant-gun stance have not changed and I don't expect they will. That's not being pessimistic but actually realistic. How you think you've made progress here is beyond me.



It was a knee-jerk reaction but in effect it created a huge hatch of new gun owners that wouldn't have been otherwise in addition to adding more guns to the arsenals of those that already were gun owners. My point being that if the antis get any serious looking legislation going it'll just create another knee-jerk gun and ammo buying spree.

Whatever, though, go ahead and chat it up with them. If the thread has any real momentum it won't derailed on my account.

I really wish it were possible to abrogate the CCW permit requirement nationwide. Also, I say that anybody should be able to have a gun who's 18 years or older. F*ck the 4473 form! Gun control = using both hands.

If you are looking for anti-gun people to come join the NRA, and that is how you define "change," you are right, it won't happen.

But there actually are people like me who read here and there, and think hard about you all say, and make adjustments accordingly. They may not be the adjustments you ideally want, ie all out agreeing with you, but they are adjustments none-the-less, and quite important to how politics on these issues will play out in the long run.

You underestimate the value of solid argument that moves people slowly towards the middle.

You are right, on this board it is the same debate, over and over and over and over. But occasionally I do actually see something that sticks with me. But it isn't me who ever starts these threads. Think about that.

And that said, I'm done throwing my two cents into the wind for this thread. As long as there is "something" in the way of licensing, education, laws and control, I'm OK with it. I think the power of the weapon requires that level of gravity be associated with its use, despite some of the well formed arguments on why some of what exists doesn't work; I'd be willing to let it be tweaked in smarter ways, as long as there is something. Which is a lot closer to center than I was 30 years ago.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 09 Sep 2012, 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As long as permits are shall-issue, I don't see any particular problem with requiring a permit for carry (in general, not specifically concealed).

a) Carrying a gun for protection is a lot different than owning a gun for show, or going out to the range. In those controlled environments - the risk to other people is small, and there are people there trained to make sure accidents don't happen. You need a hunting license to hunt - and part of those requirements it usually some form of Hunter Education. I've never hunted, but I'd imagine the hunter education courses go over basic firearms safety, and some specific rules to make sure you don't pull a Dick Cheney and accidentally shoot someone in the face.

Carrying (concealed or otherwise) requires *at minimum* the person know basic firearm safety, judicious use of force, where carry is/isn't permitted and whether no carry signs have force of law, laws related to carry in a vehicle, and how to interact with police. Requiring someone to go through a course before they can carry concealed is a good idea - provided that the state can't use the permitting process to exclude anyone based on arbitrary reasoning (aka. no "may issue").

b) There's a legitimate need for police officers to know whether or not a person is lawfully carrying a weapon if they're involved in a terry stop, both for officer safety as well as to protect the person carrying from police overreaction. Having that license information come up when the officer runs the ID and/or vehicle plate numbers is a really good thing, and I'm convinced it's saved lives.