Poll: Do you think more guns means less crime?
Yes
No
I did until I saw these data
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-04-2015, 12:54 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 12:53 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 12:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, but they criminalize selling a firearm to someone who is not legally able to possess it.

How do you track the individual's who have illegally purchased it when there is no record of the private transaction?

Or to put it another way, this is how legally purchased guns lead to the masses of illegal guns we have in the system.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 12:55 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 12:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 12:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  It's not a loophole. That is also a mischaracterization.

It bypasses background checks in states where there are no restrictions on private sales of guns.

I'd call that a loophole.

I'd call it intentional, therefore not a loophole.

The NICS checks are a recent thing that are mandated federally and apply to federally licensed dealers.

If you are in the business of selling firearms, you need to have an FFL - federal firearms license. This has been true since 1968.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 12:56 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 12:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 12:48 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It bypasses background checks in states where there are no restrictions on private sales of guns.

I'd call that a loophole.

I'd call it intentional, therefore not a loophole.

The NICS checks are a recent thing and are mandated federally and apply to federally licensed dealers.

So, if someone intentionally takes advantage of a workaround, you disqualify it as a loophole?

In your mind, it is only a loophole if it is accidentally used?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 12:58 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 12:53 PM)Losty Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 12:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Sure. And?

Who here is endorsing that?

No one is endorsing it, silly. Some people are just pretending like it isn't true.

Yabut, it's not true everywhere. And all of the specifics in the last round of discussion were about the law in Massachusetts, one of the places it happens not to be...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 12:59 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 12:48 PM)Losty Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 12:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, it is. It is unlawful to sell a firearm to anyone not legally able to possess it.

Private sales of guns are not legally restricted in 33 states Chas. In 33 states I can legally purchase a firearm from a person I met on Craigslist who can legally sell it to me. Once in possession of the firearm I would be committing a crime but the sale and purchase would not be illegal as private sales are not legally restricted in any way.

The sale is illegal if you cannot legally possess the firearm. You would be charged with at least two crimes: buying and possessing.
And possibly others, like transporting.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 01:02 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 12:49 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 12:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, it is. It is unlawful to sell a firearm to anyone not legally able to possess it.

But if you are not required to check their background, how do you know you have sold it illegally?

I would say the onus is on the seller to insure it is legal. Selling to someone who can't legally buy it is also a crime.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 01:03 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Did you know:

A person who has at least one firearm is more likely to shoot someone than a person who doesn't own a gun.

An animal with a mouth is more likely to bite, than an animal without a mouth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WeAreTheCosmos's post
14-04-2015, 01:03 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 12:49 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 12:48 PM)Losty Wrote:  Private sales of guns are not legally restricted in 33 states Chas. In 33 states I can legally purchase a firearm from a person I met on Craigslist who can legally sell it to me. Once in possession of the firearm I would be committing a crime but the sale and purchase would not be illegal as private sales are not legally restricted in any way.

Factor the internet into this and you can see how much of a clusterfuck this can become.

Not really. Shipping firearms across state lines is federally regulated. It must go to a licensed dealer in the buyer's state.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 01:04 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 01:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 12:49 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But if you are not required to check their background, how do you know you have sold it illegally?

I would say the onus is on the seller to insure it is legal. Selling to someone who can't legally buy it is also a crime.

And with no requirements in most states that they actually do a background check to see if that person can legally own it, it kind of makes that hard to do.

And then add on top of that whether or not someone even has the training or understanding of guns in an appropriate sense who is buying it.

The current system is just a clusterfuck of loopholes where private citizens (most of which are not that bright) are considered the first line of defense. It is enough to make me cringe.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 01:05 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 01:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 12:49 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Factor the internet into this and you can see how much of a clusterfuck this can become.

Not really. Shipping firearms across state lines is federally regulated. It must go to a licensed dealer in the buyer's state.

Because if I buy in a state where the private seller doesn't have to check my licensure, this is feasible to track and convict with?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: