The Gun Control Challenge

Post Reply New Topic

I honestly think that when Police make a traffic stop, it would be wise for them to be prepared that the person they're stopping may be armed and that there is a non-zero chance of a shoot out. I'm not in favor of terry stops that involve pat downs unless the cops are prepared to make an arrest by probable cause.

But since firearms require registration anyhow(4473), I think that when someone buys a handgun the information they supply to the 4473 form should be linked to their license plate/drivers license/state ID card so when cops run the plates, they will immediate be aware that the person they've stopped is packing heat.

That's the problem - police *are* prepared for a person with a gun when they pull someone over, and letting them know in advance that you're not a criminal who means them harm but a law abiding citizen who is carrying lawfully and who means them no harm.

Also - who said anything about pat-downs? That's not what constitutes a terry stop.



Um, form 4473 isn't a registration form. It's a background check. The agency running the check cannot retain the personal information, and the seller is only required to keep a record of the transaction in case LEO's seize the gun as evidence and want to know who bought it (which, by the way, they need a warrant/subpoena for). That's a faaaar cry from a central database of gun owners and what they own.

Just some context for this remark:

It's a reference to this post: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4877904.html#4877904, where I said:



See, in the snark trade we call that a 'callback', a joke referring to an earlier joke; I'd hoped that the emote would make it clear that I wasn't serious. Perhaps we've gone emote-blind in addition to face blind? .

My earlier attached comment holds here as well, I'm not talking to those who are making a genuine effort to engage here, but to the handful of children throwing stones from the sidelines; I didn't and don't feel the need to name names. I apologize to any of those people who felt unfairly maligned.

Why is it a problem? My whole thesis is that if you fix the underlying social issues, than the guns themselves will become a virtual non-issue, as the mere presence of a gun does not turn a non-violent person violent. Do you feel differently, and more importantly, can you provide any supporting documentation for that feeling? That is the idea of the thread after all.

But as you and I both know, sometimes they can be a bit, *persistent*, and even the most patient of us can only ignore insults and condescension for so long before the urge to respond in kind becomes overwhelming. I'm not saying that doing so is the best thing to do, a certain baby seal incident comes to mind, but us gun people do absorb a lot of abuse simply for stating our opinions, so I think we deserve a bit of slack if we occasionally shoot back, pun intended.



I'm actually with you 100% here, I'm just also not always in straight "hearts and minds" mode, I'm usually in "stretch my intellectual legs and enjoy myself" mode, and that entails throwing the occasional verbal jab at a deserving target. Now the fact that I tend to punch a bit above my weightclass can make my retaliatory posts a bit more memorable than their frequency would suggest, but I'm not going to apologize for being good at what I do.



Personally, it changes with me from post to post. Sometimes I'm looking to educate someone who seems genuinely curious, sometimes I'm taking apart a flawed argument, and sometimes I'm just clubbing someone over the head because it needed doing, it all depends on the post and the poster to which and whom I'm responding.

California does this and it has proven totally worthless. Registered are rarely used in crimes and even more rarely carried around on the street illegally. Not only that but the cops are accustomed to hearing that people have guns and nothing happens, and cops often don't find out until they are running the driver's license and already walked up to the car.

So the people doing illegal things don't have registered guns, and take off the vast majority of the time. so if they are not a problem, let the dispatcher rattle off a list of guns owned, if they are a problem, flip on the siren and float the valves.

The law was written by some idiot politician that still thinks criminals fill out a form 4473 and register their guns so the cops can find them.

One of these days Raptor, you really ought to link and quote some of your older posts from the 2008 period, before you just got fed up with the BS. I remember you from when I first joined up, and you're exactly right, you were patient and respectful and got nothing but condescension and scorn in return. You remember Slowmutant?

I disagree. I've been stopped a number of times while carrying, and there's never been any reason for any of the officers to know that I was armed, it would only increase tensions and possibly create a dangerous situation if they wanted me to disarm for "officer safety", and tried to unload my cocked and locked 1911 and/or DAO .380. That's not even getting into the fact that legally I don't have allow them to disarm me for a simple traffic stop, and what would happen if I actually refused. Until the time a cop wants me to step out of the vehicle, and that's never happened, they have no need to know that I'm carrying, and really no way for them to visually observe that I'm doing so.

Perhaps one of these days I'll make a informational video for gun control supporters...mainly using sock puppets, crayons, and sponge-bob pop-sickle stick figures.

Yeah, nice post.

That's why there should be a mandatory gun licence/permit. I want a gun, so I ask for permit/BC - and gun can be sold to me by anyone only after showing the permit. And selling a gun to anyone without permit would be punishable for both.
And you need to register all guns at the same time to make it work plus monitor all transfers. Every unregistered gun is illegal and owner prosecuted.
Sure thing potential antigovernment insurgents get mad reading this. But boys - do you really want to say nobody knows you own guns? Many people know therefore government knows and would take action anytime needed. You were disclosed long ago, it is just a delusive sense of security.




Why? You have to do this with house or car. Why not gun?





It is the same principle - as you called it "sort of assumed guilty". We think he might be a bad boy - we don't allow him to entry. We think he might be a bad boy - he will not pass the background check.
I must admit I don't know what methodology FBI uses exactly, know a bit of Europe reality though. If FBI just checks whether or not you are convicted felon, this is not a background check I have in mind. Real, relatively nice working BC is much more complex.
Now I know you don't want to wait lets say a week for it. Why is it so biggie?




serious debate means, when you make such strong statements like
"mentally ill are insignificant in the gun control debate. The interest in guns in that group is almost non-existent. There is no correlation between wanting a gun and being a danger to others"
you back it up with sources. If not, I simply ignore it because I don't want to beg for anything that should be a matter of course.




Security of common citizens, that's the justification. If you don't want this, say it. Sometimes you need to choose. This is the choice between security of countrymen and own comfort.
Culture, what does it mean exactly? I understand it when we talk about US vs Afghanistan/Africa. But US vs EU?

-
I said it before, but probably not very comprehensible: confiscations that whiped out most of guns from Europe came after WWII. During WWII guns were spreading among people, especially in areas of actual fighting activity. But it is not relevant.




Well, it is standart for all gun owners in Europe. Hunters, sport shooters, everyone. And concealed carry is mandatory for everyone except hunters and security personnel. Makes people more relaxed not to see guns I assume




And this is why all guns and gun owner should be registered! Separate legal from illegal and fight the illegal afterwards. Where there's a will there's a way. Note there is no real desire to fight drugs for example, in fact we cultivate them even





PS:
Guys, are you discussing with me, or your past? I don't care what did someone write 5 years ago. I wasn't me and it has nothing to do with me. I understand your frustration though. And if it makes you more balanced, continue to throw it at me. No biggie, I like to help by any mean.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the EU doesn't have quite the gang culture the us does.

In addition to culture, location matters. Not sharing a border with a country that does a great deal of illegal drug trafficing is a plus. Though I'll admit I'm fairly ignorant of to what extent illegal drug trafficing exists in europe.

You guys have Soccer Thugs.

ruveyn

That's true, and I agree with you, but at the same time there has to be some form of obstacle to keep criminals from just walking into a gun store and buying a gun. The background check provides that. So, when you have a legal way to buy a gun without that check - it kind of defeats the purpose.

I'm *not* advocating that we treat private sellers like gun shops and make them follow the whole dog-and-pony show that dealers do, just simply to get ID from the person they're selling to, go onto a website, punch in the guy's information - and then the website tells you whether you're clear to go through with the sale or not. And then have an exemption for immediate family members.

It's simple enough to do that it doesn't unreasonably burden private sellers, and it makes sure that all legal gun sales have gone through a background check.

The states that currently require a permit to purchase a gun use that permit as a mechanism to effectively deny gun ownership to 90% of their population. New York City requires a permit to purchase a gun, and it's virtually impossible to qualify for one unless you have political connections. So I'm not going to go along with that idea. Sorry.




No you don't - you just sign the title over. I've been gifted a car, and I'm about to be gifted a house (long story). No third party involved other than a Notary to witness the signature.





That's an arbitrary condition that is extra-legal. Have you ever committed a crime that you weren't prosecuted for? The nice thing about our legal system is that it doesn't presume guilt. Until you're convicted of a crime, you get all the rights you're supposed to. Freedom of speech, right to due process, right to vote, and yes - the right to own a firearm. That's how it works.

Most criminals running the streets have *some* kind of conviction - drug use, something. They've served time, and come back out. They don't want to put all their information on a piece of paper that ties them to a gun - even if they'll pass the background check - because when they commit a crime with that gun, and it gets tossed - the police know who the manufacturer of the gun is, they know which dealer that gun was shipped to - and it's a simple matter of time before they go knock on that dealer's door and ask for the paperwork.




Concealed carry requires a permit in the majority of states, open carry doesn't. I know, it doesn't make much sense to me either. I don't see an issue with open carrying a gun (which would explain why I do it), the people who are afraid just need to get over it - and I've never had a *bad* experience carrying (although I've heard plenty of stories from people who have). And as I said before - I see nothing wrong with requiring a permit for carry, as long as permits are issued on a shall-issue basis, which right now isn't always the case.

You are aware that I'm American, right? Your post suggests you are not.

Well it depends:



www.angelfire.com/planet/crimeandsociol ... Europe.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_t ... ed_Kingdom

See? Even gangs here don't use firearms so often. WHY?



Yeah, to say Ukraine/Russia/Turkey is not a drug trafficing country is a bit naive Plus most of the drugs are "smuggled" by see or roads in containers I believe.



Drugs are some serious problem here, too. Can't say who is less affected, if EU or US. But you can buy drugs here much easier than guns, that's for sure...




But that's the problem of corruption and power/authority abusing. To hang this "public servants" on the nearest lamp pole may help


Yes, but there is changed some record at department of motor vehicles afterwards. And that is the point. Without this they could assume you have stolen that car or whatever. It doesn't matter it is notary or ATF - the record was made. Now maybe you have in mind a situation when you want to give a gun to your brother but ATF says you can't. This could happen only if your brother doesn't have a permit to own one. If he has, no one interferes, it is the same as car - simple change in owners column.



Well yes, I see. And the same right applies for every citizen to work in FBI or elsewhere. But there is something called security clearance/screening. And conviction is only one item on the long list of this process. And this kind of screening is what I talk about.
So every citizen has right to own a gun in Europe too. If he passes that screening. Not to be convicted doesn't mean everyone is reliable. Not to cause an automobile accident doesn't mean you can drive a car automatically.




This is really interesting. Why don't security personnel around US officials carry openly? What do they say about this?