A discussion of Gun Control for schrafinator

There is a requirement that a dealer at a gun show must do background checks.Private sales are private sales. No loophole. Personally, I get some info when I sell a gun just for my own feelgood.I would have no problem getting someone to get a name and id from a buyer, but I would oppose having to turn that information in.I really don't see a problem with the current system and don't see private sales as much of a threat. Afterall, even the checks through the dealers have been pretty much a total waste of time and effort.Let's explore your concept on private sales for a moment. How will you know when someone sells a gun?As to having statistics on the percentage of tables not selling firearms, nope. Only experience. That isn't something that, TTBOMK, is recorded anywhere.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar, I really do not feel like you are discussing things openly and honestly.You are giving me lots of coy answers and are also thinking completely uncritically about guns and gunshows.I really don't think you are willing to understand my position and are so fearful that someone will take your (happiness is a warm) gun away from you that you have become prettyy irrational on the subject.What would you say to a creationist who denies some evolution who also says that they KNOW they are right because they have read about it at AiG and all the churches and revivals they have been to said the same thing?You are not looking for disconfirming evidence of your cherished and closely-held position.I have, however, gone to the NRA website many times to look for disconfirming evidence, and I have asked you and Verzem to back up your factual claims.I WILL change my views if you provide me with some hard facts, but you continue to feed me personal anecdotes as if they mean anything when you know better.I have got to tell you that I am pretty disappointed.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The government has a right, and I would say an obligation, to reasonably restrict the availability, and regulate the sale, safety, use, and storage requirements of these dangerous, lethal devices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The government has NO RIGHTS. It only the POWER granted to it by the PEOPLE. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to ensure this POWER did not infringe upon the RIGHTS of the POEPLE. In the opening of the Bill of Rights it even states that "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the government's] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added" to the Constitution. The BOR isn't to limit the people, it is to limit the government! Trying to restrict the freedoms of one person because of the irresponsibility of another person is not the way to go.

quote:

---

Trying to restrict the freedoms of one person because of the irresponsibility of another person is not the way to go.

---

Let's look at manufacturers of baby clothing.Out of 1,000 hypothetical companies that produce baby clothing, nearly all of them are responsible companies, making sure that their products are safe; fire retardant, don't have parts that can come off and be choked on, etc.There are a couple of companies that unfortunately think that all of these safety measures are too expensive to research and implement, so they make their baby clothes out of flammable cloth and have buttons that come off easily, etc.There are many infants who die as a result of wearing the unsafe, clothing, and in response, the Federal government, because of public outcry, and also because it is the RATIONAL and RIGHT THING TO DO, passes laws that regulate what kind of cloth, decoration/fasteners, etc. can be used to make baby clothes.We do, in this case, restrict the freedoms of all baby clothes manufacturers because of the irresponsibility of the few bad manufacturers, but not really.The responsible manufacturers were not tempted to put the lives of babies in danger and so did whatever it took to make a safe product anyway, so they will just go on as before.It is quite justifiable, in this case, to restrict accordig to the "lowest common denominator" because the consequences are so deadly and so extreme that strict regulations are needed to prevent death and grave injury.

Well, nice pontification, Scraf.Now let's return to the discussion.I asked

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Do you admit that it is true that not every single seller of guns at gun shows is a licensed dealer?

Of course. We have already said that there will be private sales there. Or in the parking lot. Or across the street. Or over the internet. Or at home.What does that have to do with anything?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Although I agree that Jar is being a bit cute with his answers, I think he has made his position obvious enough.Essentially to end the possibility of private sales of guns (which seems to be your concern) one would have to end the existence of guns altogether. Licensing/background checks are superfluous to that issue as is the existence of gunshows/markets.One way one could use the stats you have shown more usefully is not to indict the events, or advocate greater licensing requirements, but to have law enforcement more vigilant at such events for infringements (private sales).They will never be stopped, but they can be limited.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm not asking this facetiously so please don't take it as such. Exactly which manufacturers are being irresponsible in the way in which they manufacture guns and which ones are not? In your example, some manufacturers are responsible and some are not so I was just wondering if you only had a problem with certain manufacturers or certain types or firearms.

quote:

---

Essentially to end the possibility of private sales of guns (which seems to be your concern)

---

No, no, I don't think that this is realistic or even desireable.I think that most people who buy and sell guns are probably law-abiding.I just think there needs to be much more oversight and recordkeeping anf background checks required when selling something as dangerous as a firearm.It's not like trading baseball cards, for goodness sake.

quote:

---

One way one could use the stats you have shown more usefully is not to indict the events, or advocate greater licensing requirements, but to have law enforcement more vigilant at such events for infringements (private sales).

---

That would be a good start.Since internet criminal background checks are so inexpensive and easy to run, why not require those, too? And why not require prvate sellers to keep a copy of the bill of sale with all the pertinant info on it?

quote:

---

They will never be stopped, but they can be limited.

---

They need to be, because private sales at gun shows are, according to the FBI, a significant source of guns used in crime.Jar doesn't agree with the FBI, even though he has no evidence to support his assertion.

quote:

---

I'm not asking this facetiously so please don't take it as such. Exactly which manufacturers are being irresponsible in the way in which they manufacture guns and which ones are not? In your example, some manufacturers are responsible and some are not so I was just wondering if you only had a problem with certain manufacturers or certain types or firearms.

---

Actually, I was comparing baby clothes manufacurers to gun owners.Most of them are responsible, but some of them are not.Since we cannot rely upon every single gun owner to be 100% responsible at all times, AND because guns are very dangerous, we have to tailor the laws to make illegal the actions of the least reponsible gun owners.That's why we need to have gun storage laws, very thorough criminal background checks, waiting periods, regulated private sales, etc.We ALSO need to better enforce the laws we alteady have.

I asked in post 320 and earlier in 316?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

The government has NO RIGHTS. It only the POWER granted to it by the PEOPLE. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to ensure this POWER did not infringe upon the RIGHTS of the POEPLE.

---

Having a bunch of people running around with fireamrs infringes my rights, IMO, both of freedom of movement and the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

I do actually have a problem with the fact that there are absolutely no quality or safety regulations regarding the manufacture of guns in the US.As such, there are several companies which produce very popular low quality handguns that are used frequently in criminal activity.Theses guns generally fail the "drop test" in which they often will discharge when dropped.Here's an example:Page not found | Violence Policy Center

[qupte] If you take my guns you have made no one safer and put everyone around me in greater danger.[/quote]No, if we take your guns we will REDUCE the danger both to you and those around you. Not least becuase you also say:

quote:

---

Responsible gun owners already keep their guns locked up.

---

... while having argued vehemently earlier that truly responsible gun owners do not need to lock their guns up becuase they are so responsible.It seems to me your "responsible gun owner" is a moving target tnat by definition can do no wrong. It's just unfortunate that this Ideal applies to no actual gun owners.