Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,287 Year: 5,544/9,624 Month: 569/323 Week: 66/143 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can we regulate guns ... ?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 341 of 955 (687171)
01-08-2013 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by AZPaul3
01-08-2013 7:58 AM


Re: Gun show loop hole
Guns cannot be sold at gun shows unless either the seller does a background check or the buyer has a "Background has been checked" document.
Wait! I remember this. Weren't there supposed to be royalties attached?
If, as you say, such a check can be so quickly and easily accomplished then this seems reasonable. I approve.
In Illinois, we have the FOID card:
The requirements are not having been convicted of a felony, and not having been incarcerated in a mental institution. Its maintained by the State Police.
But despite it, Chicago still has really high gun crime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by AZPaul3, posted 01-08-2013 7:58 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Panda, posted 01-08-2013 12:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 342 of 955 (687172)
01-08-2013 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by petrophysics1
01-07-2013 1:54 PM


Re: Not Understanding the U.S. Constitution
The constitution gives you the right to possess a gun. IT DOES NOT CONTAIN NOR GUARANTEE ANY RIGHT TO SELL
True as far as that goes federally, in Wyoming the state guarantees me this right.
Google "Firearms Freedom Act" or look at the acts passed in Alaska, Ariz.,Utah,Idaho, Wyoming, Mont., N.Dak, S.Dak. and Tenn.
And gun crime rates in those states have remained relatively low...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by petrophysics1, posted 01-07-2013 1:54 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 346 of 955 (687206)
01-08-2013 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by Panda
01-08-2013 12:51 PM


Re: Gun show loop hole
I wonder if Chicago has ever had any organised crime issues...?
I think the FOID card was in response to high gun crime rates in the Chicago area.
But Illinois has the 4th lowest gun assault rates in America.
And the 2nd lowest fire-arms robberies rates.
That's because most people don't live in Chicago and aren't criminals. But Chicago still remains high in gun crime despite the law that was a response to it. The law failed to do its job.
And I think it sucks that the whole rest of the state has to put up with this stupid card because of all the criminals in one city.
More importantly - from your link:
quote:
Cards issued on or after June 1, 2008 are valid for ten years
I don't think that's right. I got mine in 2009 and it expires this year, i.e. it is valid for 5 years.
Which is not ideal - since gun sellers still have to phone up and check that the FOID card is valid.
They might as well just phone up regardless.
I guess. I was just providing an example of a ""Background has been checked" document."
And if you don't have state border guards, then there's nothing stopping people bringing in guns from out of state.
If our country's guarded borders can't keep drugs out, then why should I expect they'd keep guns out?
Gun legislation needs to be national else it is too easy for people to by-pass.
How would this being national make it too difficult for people to by-pass? Keep in mind we're already knee-deep in guns here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Panda, posted 01-08-2013 12:51 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Panda, posted 01-08-2013 1:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 350 of 955 (687217)
01-08-2013 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Panda
01-08-2013 1:43 PM


Re: Gun show loop hole
Have you abandoned the idea that a background check document like the FOID card would be too difficult to by-pass if its done at the national level?
Then why is anyone buying/selling guns if you are already knee deep in them?
Heh, the biggest reason people I know are buying guns is in response to a perceived increase in gun control legislation; 'Get 'em while you can'.
The gun I'm saving up to buy is going to be for recreational use. Why do you ask?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Panda, posted 01-08-2013 1:43 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by xongsmith, posted 01-08-2013 3:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 353 by Panda, posted 01-08-2013 4:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 351 of 955 (687221)
01-08-2013 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by RAZD
01-08-2013 2:29 PM


How about mandating a living wage for workers so they can live more productive lives?
That's not gun regulation...
Gun regulation simply does not provide a solution to the problem.
But we can discuss it anyways:
quote:
Regulation Proposal #1 owner licenses
Pass a federal regulation that all gun owners must be licensed by each state, with photo ID, fingerprints and a DNA sample, and documentation that they have been trained in proper gun use, with separate training document for every gun owned.
Records to be kept by the FBI and would searchable with their other data bases to track criminals.
Fees for the licenses to be sufficient to cover the costs of issuing and recording the licenses.
I don't think we should entrust the federal govenment with all that personal infomation. With the kind of shit they pull on us, like the Patriot Act, we just can't trust them with it.
quote:
Regulation Proposal #2 -- gun registration
Pass a federal regulation that all guns must be registered in every state, referenced to the owners gun license.
What about all the guns that people lie about having, or simply do not disclose the existence of?
quote:
Regulation proposal #4 -- gun transfers
Pass a federal regulation that a guns cannot change hands until the gun registration and new owner gun licenses are updated.
I don't see how you can police that. I bought my dad a gun for his birthday. I just handed to him. The serial number still points to me because we never bothered to write the transfer paperwork up.
quote:
Regulation proposal #5 -- 1 gun at a time
Pass a federal regulation that no more than 1 operational gun may be carried at any time and that no more than 5 bullets for that gun may be carried at any time.
I don't really have a problem with that in principle but I do think 5 bullets is a little low.
But then, the guy who wants to go murder a bunch of people isn't being persuaded by the law in the first place, so I don't see how this will accomplish much of anything.
Insurance and ammo tracking don't seem like bad ideas in principle.
Honestly though, I think the best option is to increase the punishment for gun crimes. Eventually the criminal behavior could be weeded out.
And if you're looking for increasing legislation, I have an idea:
Make it a crime if your gun is used in a crime even if it wasn't you using it (even if its stolen).
That should make the law-abiding people keep better tabs on their guns. It could also make them want to reduce the number of them they have, keep them locked up better, stuff like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2013 2:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2013 5:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 354 of 955 (687227)
01-08-2013 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by xongsmith
01-08-2013 3:58 PM


Re: Gun show loop hole
CS writes:
The gun I'm saving up to buy is going to be for recreational use. Why do you ask?
Is this TMI? Do you, CS, ever wonder whether you are nuts? I mean, do you ever consider that what you are doing might belie a deeper problem in your mentality? Probably not. Rhetorical question, I guess. It just seems like this is something most men would have grown out of by the age of 18. Carry on.
There's 9 firearm events in the Summer Olympics. Its a legitamate recreation. And its incrediby fun.
There's no good reason to label it childish, and even if it was, that's not good reason to ridicule someone for liking it.
I still like playing video games, skateboarding, and building with Lego's. Are you gonna make fun of me for liking those things too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by xongsmith, posted 01-08-2013 3:58 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 355 of 955 (687231)
01-08-2013 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Panda
01-08-2013 4:03 PM


Let's try a different approach...
Let's not. Just make your point and support it with evidence or link to where this has already been done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Panda, posted 01-08-2013 4:03 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Panda, posted 01-08-2013 6:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 361 of 955 (687251)
01-08-2013 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Panda
01-08-2013 6:17 PM


CS writes:
Let's not. Just make your point and support it with evidence or link to where this has already been done.
I made my point - you responded.
I responded with a question and you've refused to answer it.
All I have done is ask you to explain your response.
The fact you refuse to implies that you realise your point was bollocks.
Its not that hard to follow. Your response to my point that your "Background has been checked" document failed to reduce gun crime in Chicago included this:
quote:
And if you don't have state border guards, then there's nothing stopping people bringing in guns from out of state.
Gun legislation needs to be national else it is too easy for people to by-pass.
To which I replied asking how this document being national would prevent it from being by-passed.
You avoided the question and focused on your failure to understand that guns-being-brought-in is a non-issue when there's already too many guns there to begin with.
I accept your tacit withdrawal of your argument.
The fact that you're more interested in scoring points than reaching an understanding implies that your misunderstanding is intentional, but I'm not going to presume that it is.
That people are still buying or selling them is irrelevant. Just answer the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Panda, posted 01-08-2013 6:17 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Panda, posted 01-08-2013 9:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 365 of 955 (687266)
01-08-2013 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Panda
01-08-2013 9:02 PM


I see you are still unable to explain your statement.
Apparently your vision is faulty. We're not explaining my statement, you are avoiding my question.
If you actually knew what you meant then your continued refusal to explain it seems ridiculous - considering how much effort you are putting in to NOT explaining it.
I know exactly what I meant and I've actually explained it multiple times now. You're maintaining your avoidance of answering the following question:
How would a background-check-document like the FOID card be too difficult to by-pass if its done at the national level?
What effect does being already knee deep in guns have?
Why do I need to keep it in mind?
Answered:
quote:
...guns-being-brought-in is a non-issue when there's already too many guns there to begin with.
.
Which is ironic since I am simply asking you to explain what you mean.
Its been explained. What are you having trouble with?
Here's the question you're avoiding yet again:
How would a background-check-document like the FOID card be too difficult to by-pass if its done at the national level?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Panda, posted 01-08-2013 9:02 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Panda, posted 01-09-2013 9:07 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 368 of 955 (687292)
01-09-2013 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by Panda
01-09-2013 9:07 AM


I am having trouble with you now pretending that you haven't spent several posts refusing to explain what you mean.
I think I will give up trying to get you to explain your statements - it is blatantly obvious that you don't know.
If you are ever able to explain what you mean, then I will reply.
I simply do not understand which statement I have not explained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Panda, posted 01-09-2013 9:07 AM Panda has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 453 of 955 (687486)
01-11-2013 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by RAZD
01-09-2013 5:50 PM


But it would help reduce crime, yes? Including gun crime, yes? So if the intent is to reduce gun crime, the social issues that cause crime should be addressed as well as the availability of guns, yes?
Duh. And in that case, fuck gun regulation. Social issues are a way better challenge to focus on. All this gun-focus is misguided.
They already have it.
Fingerprints and DNA? Those I doubt.
What about all the guns that people lie about having, or simply do not disclose the existence of?
They would be breaking the law, and could be charged if the gun was used in a crime.
Couldn't that make the results negligible?
So if the gun is used in a crime the police come looking for you, and you could be charged with failing to properly control the gun you purchased.
Assuming the police know which gun was used in the crime...
Insurance, ammo tracking and limiting the flow of ammunition would slow the process down.
How long do you think it'd take? 100 years?
Honestly though, I think the best option is to increase the punishment for gun crimes. Eventually the criminal behavior could be weeded out.
Which is why we have the highest incarceration ration in the world now, from the "war" on drugs ... which has impacted the drug trade --not.
But you can't bust people for "using drugs" like you can for "using guns", given that the goal of the gun-reduction necessitates somebody dying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2013 5:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by Taq, posted 01-11-2013 2:43 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 483 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2013 11:30 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 455 of 955 (687498)
01-11-2013 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by Taq
01-11-2013 2:43 AM


Not only misguided, but ineffective.
I agree.
As far as the US is concerned, there is a glut of weapons already out there and we can not get rid of them very easily.
Would you try explaining to Panda why that matters?
What we do see is a strong correlation between firearm deaths and poverty.
According to this UNICEF report (1.7 MB pdf) on child poverty, the United States is 2nd amoung developed countries. See the chart on page 5. The US has 23.1% of children "living in households with equivalent income lower than 50% of national median".
If we can improve the lives of the most unfortunate in our culture we will make massive gains on violent crime in this country.
Yup. I think your upbringing is really important to how you'll behave as an adult, so the child poverty thing is important, imho.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Taq, posted 01-11-2013 2:43 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by Panda, posted 01-11-2013 11:14 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 457 of 955 (687501)
01-11-2013 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 456 by Panda
01-11-2013 11:14 AM


Oh look! You've "suddenly" figured out which statement you have not explained!
No, I've known which statement you've been talking about, I just don't see where I've failed to explain it.
You replied to the message I explained it in and totally avoided the explanation to instead focus on continuing to try to score points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by Panda, posted 01-11-2013 11:14 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by Panda, posted 01-11-2013 12:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 465 of 955 (687516)
01-11-2013 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by Admin
01-11-2013 1:06 PM


We're talking about something like a national FOID card, or as Panda phrased it: "Background has been checked" document
Panda replied to my Message 341, where I said that the FOID card didn't work in Chicago, by him saying that guns could just have been brought in and it had to be on a national level to work. I replied asking how it being on a national level would make it work (he's never answered) and later explained that the fact that there are already lots of guns means that them being brought in didn't really matter anymore. He has since avoided anything but chopping up my posts to make it look like he's scoring debate points.
I've alrady explained this all in Message 361. He replied to that message by repeating his charge as if I explained nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Admin, posted 01-11-2013 1:06 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by xongsmith, posted 01-11-2013 3:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 472 of 955 (687525)
01-11-2013 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by xongsmith
01-11-2013 3:00 PM


If it was on a national level, then a person would not be able to simply step over the state line and by-pass the FOID.
Like how drugs being illegal prevents them from coming in across our boarder?
Panda just wanted to know why you thought it didn't matter. He lives across the pond and maybe this wasn't easy to connect the dots.
His tone exposes his intentions.
I think your reply covered up something that he didn't quite see you saying - knee-deep in guns meaning that a criminal can easily get a gun regardless of how thorough & strict any national FOID process could be. In inner city Chicago gang members can easily get a gun because there are already so many there. They do not have to go out of state as it is now, with the Illinois FOID. They just get one downtown. They already by-pass the FOID right where they are today.
I explicitly stated that guns-being-brought-in is a non-issue when there's already too many guns there to begin with.
He said it wasn't an explanation. I don't see how its hard to understand.
Of course, if there were an impenetrable wall keeping guns out of Illinois at the state line (allowing people to move in & out, so it would be more of a semipermeable membrane) and an effective prohibition of building any more inside Illinois, the knee-deep pile of guns in the inner city would slowly dry up by virtue of being thrown into Lake Michigan to destroy evidence or just plain wear & tear leading to inoperability & or even exporting them out of state to friends & relatives & collectors. There might some buy-back programs here & there to speed the attrition. It would take a long time, but eventually there would be some real value in Illinois to a national FOID. Every long journey begins with a first step.
But that's not what was proposed. He was offering a "Background has been checked" document to be requiredd for gun sales, not eliminating guns. That's essentially what a FOID card is, and it doesn't really work for the reasons you've explianed.
It has never been explained how it could work. My question remains unanswered: How would it being national make it too difficult for people to by-pass?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by xongsmith, posted 01-11-2013 3:00 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024