2 more school (college) shootings right now. Texas and Arizona.

[MikeK]

Gun restriction only effects law abiding citizens. It never effects criminals, because criminals by definition don't follow the law.

Then why have any laws at all?

 

[Armoured]

Ask yourself this: There are laws in place that prevent felons and the mentally ill to purchase firearms, yet felons still get their hands on guns, the mentally ill still get their hands on guns, our own federal government has in the past sold guns to criminals, so how are those laws working?

So if we make more laws, what make you and mike think that those laws are going to work any better than the ones we have on the books work?

By this logic, why have laws at all? Only the law abiders will abide by them.

 

[Erose]

Actually, they love breaking into your homes to steal your guns and then going out to commit crimes with those guns. I guess it's called the 'black market' and another symptom of gun culture gone wild.

There is a loophole here in Arizona, however. Anyone can buy a gun from a private dealer at one of our 'gun shows' and bypass the usual requisite background checks, any competency test, IQ test, or mental stability test.

Given the gun loving community's failure to be self 'well regulated', I think all four should be mandatory for any weapons purchase and re administered every three years.

If Arizona has this, that is on your state. When I bought a gun at a gun show, I had to fill out the same forms, the gun dealer called the FBI right in front of me, and gave them my information, there was silence on the other end while they put my info into their system, and shortly they came back saying that I'm good. During the buying of that gun, the dealer filled out another form, that included the serial number of that gun, and then he called a number, who was again FBI and gave them my information including the serial number,

The only difference between buying a gun at a gun show and at a dealership is that the buying process is accelerated. That's it. If I have to guess it is the same in Arizona.

 

[Erose]

By this logic, why have laws at all? Only the law abiders will abide by them.

If no laws how would you know who are the law-abiders and law breakers? A law breaker by definition is someone who is going to ignore the law.

Until the Government gets its act together and enforces the laws already on the books, making other laws that are suppose to do the same thing, is just a waste of time.

 

[Erose]

Then why have any laws at all?

If the government isn't able to enforce the existing laws, then yes why have a law that you cannot enforce?

 

[MikeK]

If Arizona has this, that is on your state. When I bought a gun at a gun show, I had to fill out the same forms, the gun dealer called the FBI right in front of me, and gave them my information, there was silence on the other end while they put my info into their system, and shortly they came back saying that I'm good. During the buying of that gun, the dealer filled out another form, that included the serial number of that gun, and then he called a number, who was again FBI and gave them my information including the serial number,

The only difference between buying a gun at a gun show and at a dealership is that the buying process is accelerated. That's it. If I have to guess it is the same in Arizona.

What you are speaking about is buying from a licensed dealer at a gunshow. Had you bought from a private individual (I have had several tables at shows and bought or sold probably 100 or so firearms at gun shows) there is no background check required at all, it is cash and carry. People can freely search for exactly such private sellers on websites like armslist.com

 

[MikeK]

If the government isn't able to enforce the existing laws, then yes why have a law that you cannot enforce?

The government cannot enforce existing laws because today it is virtually impossible to do so. Withourt universal registration and background checks "I bought it from some guy" is a legitimate defence when in posession of a stolen gun. "I sold it to some guy" is a legitimate defence when a gun that you once owned ends up in criminal hands. Prosecutors of people who illegally traffic firearms cannot effectively make a case beyond a shadow of a doubt with our lax laws and most of these cases end up getting dropped.

We should all advocate for laws that are enforceable. I will never be accused and tried for possession of a stolen automobile because registration is so straight forward. I cannot say for certain if I have sold guns to insane people or felons, and I cannot say with certainty that none of my guns were previously stolen. Our current legislation is insufficient. I agree with our Bishops.

 

[tadoflamb]

Here's a gun lover who makes some sense:

 

[tadoflamb]

A responsible gun owner makes an appeal to responsible gun owners:

 

[Erose]

What you are speaking about is buying from a licensed dealer at a gunshow. Had you bought from a private individual (I have had several tables at shows and bought or sold probably 100 or so firearms at gun shows) there is no background check required at all, it is cash and carry. People can freely search for exactly such private sellers on websites like armslist.com

Ok.

 

[Erose]

The government cannot enforce existing laws because today it is virtually impossible to do so. Withourt universal registration and background checks "I bought it from some guy" is a legitimate defence when in posession of a stolen gun. "I sold it to some guy" is a legitimate defence when a gun that you once owned ends up in criminal hands. Prosecutors of people who illegally traffic firearms cannot effectively make a case beyond a shadow of a doubt with our lax laws and most of these cases end up getting dropped.

We should all advocate for laws that are enforceable. I will never be accused and tried for possession of a stolen automobile because registration is so straight forward. I cannot say for certain if I have sold guns to insane people or felons, and I cannot say with certainty that none of my guns were previously stolen. Our current legislation is insufficient. I agree with our Bishops.

Ok. So how do you enforce it? If we cannot enforce the laws on the books, how then do you enforce a new law?

Is it not illegal for a felon to own a firearm? But don't some still get their hands on them? Is it not illegal for a mentally ill person to own a firearm? Yet obviously from these mass murders that isn't working either. So how do you enforce your law?

Seriously what good is a law that is unenforceable?

 

[tadoflamb]

The guy in the videos describes how crazy unregulated gun sales are.

He confirmed my suspicion that legal gun owners are responsible for selling guns to people who shouldn't have them.

 

[MikeK]

Ok. So how do you enforce it? If we cannot enforce the laws on the books, how then do you enforce a new law?

Is it not illegal for a felon to own a firearm? But don't some still get their hands on them? Is it not illegal for a mentally ill person to own a firearm? Yet obviously from these mass murders that isn't working either. So how do you enforce your law?

Seriously what good is a law that is unenforceable?

Laws that are unenforceable are no good, you're right. One law that has proven itself quite effective is the National Firearms Act of 1934. Prior to the act, Gangs were buying then-unregulated military-type weapons - especially Thompson submachineguns. The Act made it a requirement to register these weapons, and they have never been used very often in crimes since. A similar registry and recording of transfers for other firearms might be similarly effective. We cannot end all gun crime, but we can slow it through legislation while still respecting law-abiding people's right to own guns.

 

[Erose]

Laws that are unenforceable are no good, you're right. One law that has proven itself quite effective is the National Firearms Act of 1934. Prior to the act, Gangs were buying then-unregulated military-type weapons - especially Thompson submachineguns. The Act made it a requirement to register these weapons, and they have never been used very often in crimes since. A similar registry and recording of transfers for other firearms might be similarly effective. We cannot end all gun crime, but we can slow it through legislation while still respecting law-abiding people's right to own guns.

The first place you start is enforce the laws on the books. If you can't enforce those all you doing is spitting in the wind making a new law. A law in which I see no way would keep criminals from getting firearms. And at the same time violating citizens' rights.

 

[MikeK]

The first place you start is enforce the laws on the books. If you can't enforce those all you doing is spitting in the wind making a new law. A law in which I see no way would keep criminals from getting firearms. And at the same time violating citizens' rights.

The NFA is a law that is on the books that we enforce very well. Why not expand it to cover the weapons that are used in crimes today, just as it did at its inception? Which rights of citizens would such a law violate? It was tested eons ago and found to be wholly writhin the bounds of the 2nd Ammendment.

 

[SolomonVII]

It does seem strange that these things happen with such frequency now. Is the media producing copycats?

Yes.
We live in an age where people crave fame above all else. The media provides this to this crime, which is assured coverage in every media outlet and in every social media discussion.

 

[Erose]

The NFA is a law that is on the books that we enforce very well. Why not expand it to cover the weapons that are used in crimes today, just as it did at its inception? Which rights of citizens would such a law violate? It was tested eons ago and found to be wholly writhin the bounds of the 2nd Ammendment.

The reason why that law works is that it made it impossible for normal law abiding citizens access to those types of weapons, because you can't just go and buy a machine gun. Thus the NFA is a firearm ban.

Concerning the types of guns used in crimes today,...well that would be pretty much every single gun that has been on the market for any length of time, so yes what you are proposing is gun restriction, thus violating people's rights to own firearms. Pistols are probably the most used firearm in crimes, so are you saying that pistols should be banned?

 

[MikeK]

The reason why that law works is that it made it impossible for normal law abiding citizens access to those types of weapons, because you can't just go and buy a machine gun. Thus the NFA is a firearm ban.

Concerning the types of guns used in crimes today,...well that would be pretty much every single gun that has been on the market for any length of time, so yes what you are proposing is gun restriction, thus violating people's rights to own firearms. Pistols are probably the most used firearm in crimes, so are you saying that pistols should be banned?

The NFA did not do what you say it did, President Reagan's signing of the 1986 ban on new civilian class 3s did. Prior to that, machineguns were readily available for only a slight additional fee. It was maybe President's pen that put those guns out of the reach of the common man, and the USSC has ruled that such an order would not be Constitutional on more sundry arms.

 

[Erose]

The NFA did not do what you say it did, President Reagan's signing of the 1986 ban on new civilian class 3s did. Prior to that, machineguns were readily available for only a slight additional fee. It was maybe President's pen that put those guns out of the reach of the common man, and the USSC has ruled that such an order would not be Constitutional on more sundry arms.

So you are saying that I can buy a fully automatic machine gun, just like I can buy a Glock pistol?

 

[Armoured]

So you are saying that I can buy a fully automatic machine gun, just like I can buy a Glock pistol?

"The NFA did not do what you say it did, President Reagan's signing of the 1986 ban on new civilian class 3s did. Prior to that, machineguns were readily available for only a slight additional fee. It was maybe President's pen that put those guns out of the reach of the common man, and the USSC has ruled that such an order would not be Constitutional on more sundry arms."