Trump to take steps to ban bump stocks

[RoosGirl]

Selling a firearm without performing the required background check may not be a "crime",  but it should expose the dealer to civil suit when the gun is used to commit mayhem.   I'd extend the background-check requirement to all private sales, with strict civil liability.    And, yeah, I do so with the intent that such a rule would effectively stop private sales.  Let folks who want to dispose of their guns do so by means of brokers, who can be appropriately licensed and insured and be responsible to conduct the background check.

I say all of the foregoing recognizing your point that a background check is worthless if the government doesn't follow up on the information.   But that's a separate question.  Too many guns change hands privately without the check being performed.  Hell, roamer brags about doing it.  This seems to be an easy area where a change in the law can help reduce gun violence by bad guys.

Yeah, if only the Florida shooter hadn't been able to buy his guns from a private seller he never would have killed all those kids.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Yeah, if only the Florida shooter hadn't been able to buy his guns from a private seller he never would have killed all those kids.   

Sure is good at talking dorm-room bullshit sessions, isn't he?

[RoosGirl]

Sure is good at talking dorm-room bullshit sessions, isn't he?

Oh hell, when even the playground jackass sees the holes in the logic, things are in pretty rough shape.

[NavyCanDo]

And make it harder for them to access the instrumentalities of murder.

Despite  what the media tells you we do not have an epidemic of school shootings. In 2017 there were 5 students killed, and a year earlier only 3.   And the instruments of murder you speak of.  In 1978 51% of homes reported having a firearm. Today it is down to 36%. A huge drop. So stop with blaiming a gun epidemic that doesnt exist.

These numbers from the Michael Merced show discussing the topic.

[roamer_1]

Yeah, if only the Florida shooter hadn't been able to buy his guns from a private seller he never would have killed all those kids.   

You know all this bullshit is coming from folks that don't know one end of a rifle from the other, and cannot comprehend why anyone would need one...

[TomSea]

Allegedly, some school shootings have been prevented.
http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/stunning-list-cops-stop-dozens-of-school-attacks-before-they-happen/
Some of the incidences are not much in my view, someone brought a gun to school but that is not definite intent.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
One can not underestimate the horror and terror of a school shooting but one sees, even with mass shootings, so far in 2018, 34 have died in mass shootings, 2117 and counting total gun deaths.

But this is the hot-button issue where a lot of people go bonkers. I would never want to be cynical to those who have lost loved ones.  The media has their day, a crisis does not go to waste.

[TomSea]

I read this yesterday and will post to the world news per "knife attacks" in England and Wales, pretty high numbers. Excerpt and that total population I will guess is 75 million, in that ballpark:

Sixteen people have been stabbed to death in London since the start of 2018. Five of those were teenagers.

Read more at: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43138554

It seems like quite a lot of these crimes.

[Smokin Joe]

Never fear,  my NoDak badrock friend, I can firmly attest that wherever you are, you never really left the holler.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Despite  what the media tells you we do not have an epidemic of school shootings. In 2017 there were 5 students killed, and a year earlier only 3.   And the instruments of murder you speak of.  In 1978 51% of homes reported having a firearm. Today it is down to 36%. A huge drop. So stop with blaiming a gun epidemic that doesnt exist.

These numbers from the Michael Merced show discussing the topic.

I would note that fewer people trust anyone with an affirmative answer when queried as to whether or not they have firearms in the home. I think that is more a question of decreasing trust in TPTB and desire to remain private than a decline in firearm ownership. Depending on the level of evasion in answering the question, the main thing measured might be how much people trust whomever is taking the poll and where the information is going rather than an actual decline in firearms ownership.

This article offers a different perspective on the sales of guns (new ones) which might indicate that people were not exactly forthcoming on the surveys: https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/08/23/what-the-left-wont-tell-you-about-the-boom-in-u-s-gun-sales/#218b38254df4

As for the AR-15, this has become the all-American Sport-utility rifle in the past decade, with millions being sold. While in the past the allure was more narrowly based, the Stoner variant semiautomatic rifle has gained far greater popularity among the civilian population than enjoyed in the past, and East Bloc (semi-automatic AK/SKS/Dragunov) versions have their own following as well, only dampened by import bans.

Considering that increase in new firearm sales, (recall Obama being named "Gun Salesman of the Year" for multiple years), I question the stats. 

[LauraTXNM]

Here's why:

http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/08/4-reasons-universal-background-checks-ar


Bottom line it's a feel good measure that accomplishes absolutely nothing in reality.

Thanks for giving me this info!  I'm sorry I'm late in answering, but I have a couple of follow-up questions, if you don't mind.

From the article:
3. Expanding the background check requirement, especially if it is coupled with "improved" databases, compounds the injustice of disarming millions of people who pose no threat to others but are nevertheless forbidden to own guns because they use illegal drugs, overstay a visa, were once subjected to court-ordered psychiatric treatment, or have felony records, even if they have never committed a violent crime.

Why should people in the US illegally (visa overstays) be allowed to buy guns?  Or felons -- I thought that was pretty well accepted?  Or crack-heads (yeah, the changing attitudes about marijuana complicate this)?  Mental illness and medication is currently up for discussion, I thought. 

4. Expanding the background check requirement is not the same as actually compelling people to perform background checks for private gun transfers. Many gun owners will balk at the inconvenience and expense of finding and paying a licensed dealer who is willing to faciliate a transaction....The federal government has no such registry either, so how can it possibly hope to track transfers and make sure background checks are performed? Even with hefty criminal penalties, widespread noncompliance is a certainty.

I know people don't want to have to go through a broker to sell their guns; but I really don't see that as an excuse -- especially if we don't want felons, visa overstays, crazy people, drug addicts to own guns.  Why would anyone be okay with selling a gun to an illegal alien?  Or someone who just got out of prison for beating up his neighbor and now wants revenge?  John Hinckley Jr. is now out of stir; would it be okay to sell a gun to him?  Why isn't that irresponsible?

As I just read on another thread, aren't the serial number-owner records kept by gun dealers effectively a national registry that can only be accessed by the ATF?  If private sales go through a dealer/broker, the records would be updated.
Consider:

[LauraTXNM]

Teach them about God, morality, family, responsibility and duty.

Crazy people don't relate to morality and religion the way sane people do.

[roamer_1]

I know people don't want to have to go through a broker to sell their guns; but I really don't see that as an excuse

Correction: Not that people don't want to. People won't - Simple as that. Proven as fact in Washington state. Again, if otherwise law abiding citizens will not comply, what on earth makes you think that the criminal element will?

You are beating a dead horse, thinking magical laws will change reality.
 

As I just read on another thread, aren't the serial number-owner records kept by gun dealers effectively a national registry that can only be accessed by the ATF?  If private sales go through a dealer/broker, the records would be updated.[/b]

Except that people will not go through dealers or brokers. If for no other reason than the monetary hit.  The dealer will take a very substantial nick out of the profit.

Why do that when a simple private transaction will do, and no one the wiser?

[INVAR]

You are beating a dead horse, thinking magical laws will change reality.

A people that want a government to keep them safe and provide security for them, are a people already willingly sold into slavery and despotism.

They are not free, they are subjects.

And such is the natural state man always wants to return to: to be ruled by men.

[roamer_1]

A people that want a government to keep them safe and provide security for them, are a people already willingly sold into slavery and despotism.

They are not free, they are subjects.

And such is the natural state man always wants to return to: to be ruled by men.

Exactly right - and counter to liberty. Opposite of liberty. As they will find out, soon enough.

[verga]

Thanks for giving me this info!  I'm sorry I'm late in answering, but I have a couple of follow-up questions, if you don't mind.

From the article:
3. Expanding the background check requirement, especially if it is coupled with "improved" databases, compounds the injustice of disarming millions of people who pose no threat to others but are nevertheless forbidden to own guns because they use illegal drugs, overstay a visa, were once subjected to court-ordered psychiatric treatment, or have felony records, even if they have never committed a violent crime.

Why should people in the US illegally (visa overstays) be allowed to buy guns?  Or felons -- I thought that was pretty well accepted?  Or crack-heads (yeah, the changing attitudes about marijuana complicate this)?  Mental illness and medication is currently up for discussion, I thought. 

4. Expanding the background check requirement is not the same as actually compelling people to perform background checks for private gun transfers. Many gun owners will balk at the inconvenience and expense of finding and paying a licensed dealer who is willing to faciliate a transaction....The federal government has no such registry either, so how can it possibly hope to track transfers and make sure background checks are performed? Even with hefty criminal penalties, widespread noncompliance is a certainty.

I know people don't want to have to go through a broker to sell their guns; but I really don't see that as an excuse -- especially if we don't want felons, visa overstays, crazy people, drug addicts to own guns.  Why would anyone be okay with selling a gun to an illegal alien?  Or someone who just got out of prison for beating up his neighbor and now wants revenge?  John Hinckley Jr. is now out of stir; would it be okay to sell a gun to him?  Why isn't that irresponsible?

As I just read on another thread, aren't the serial number-owner records kept by gun dealers effectively a national registry that can only be accessed by the ATF?  If private sales go through a dealer/broker, the records would be updated.
Consider:

Laura, criminals have zero trouble getting a weapon. Any city with a population over 2,500 has a criminal underground that can get you anything you want. People think registration is the answer, well if they are criminals what makes anyone think they would follow this law.

[LauraTXNM]

Laura, criminals have zero trouble getting a weapon. Any city with a population over 2,500 has a criminal underground that can get you anything you want. People think registration is the answer, well if they are criminals what makes anyone think they would follow this law.

I'm still focused on the mentally ill mass shooters.  They seem to acquire their weapons legally.  If it's so easy to buy guns on the black market, avoid the background checks and waiting periods, why don't they do that already?  Why do they expend the time and effort to go the legal route if they don't have to? 

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm still focused on the mentally ill mass shooters.  They seem to acquire their weapons legally.  If it's so easy to buy guns on the black market, avoid the background checks and waiting periods, why don't they do that already?  Why do they expend the time and effort to go the legal route if they don't have to?

I imagine there's a price premium to be paid for hush-hush transactions.  And there's a risk of getting caught involved.

[Jazzhead]

Laura, criminals have zero trouble getting a weapon. Any city with a population over 2,500 has a criminal underground that can get you anything you want. People think registration is the answer, well if they are criminals what makes anyone think they would follow this law.

If that's the case, why bother having laws at all?

The purpose of registration is to identify and assign a person with legal responsibility for a particular gun.   That's hardly an unconstitutional objective, and certainly not an "infringement" on the RKBA.   A registered gun will remain the legal responsibility of the registrant unless and until the thing is lawfully transferred, disposed of, or reported to the police as stolen.   

[driftdiver]

If that's the case, why bother having laws at all?

The purpose of registration is to identify and assign a person with legal responsibility for a particular gun.   That's hardly an unconstitutional goal.   A registered gun will remain the legal responsibility of the registrant unless and until the thing is lawfully transferred, disposed of, or reported to the police as stolen.   

@Jazzhead
Current law does not indicate a gun or any crimes the gun may be used in are the legal responsibility of the gun owner if that gun is not in his possession.

[driftdiver]

I imagine there's a price premium to be paid for hush-hush transactions.  And there's a risk of getting caught involved.

depends, not really, usually there is a discount since most states have increased mandatory sentencing for any crime involving a firearm.

My house was broken into a few years ago.  They went through our dresser, took $20 in cash sitting in the drawer but didn't touch the $900 gun sitting beside it.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
Current law does not indicate a gun or any crimes the gun may be used in are the legal responsibility of the gun owner if that gun is not in his possession.

Well, then that law needs to be changed.   What is so unacceptable about this notion of taking responsibility?   If it's your killing device, secure it and keep unauthorized persons from using it.  Sheesh. 

[driftdiver]

Well, then that law needs to be changed.   What is so unacceptable about this notion of taking responsibility?   If it's your killing device, secure it and keep unauthorized persons from using it.  Sheesh.

@Jazzhead
What is so unacceptable about making victims of one crime responsible for the crimes committed by other people?

Is that really your question counselor?

[LauraTXNM]

I imagine there's a price premium to be paid for hush-hush transactions.  And there's a risk of getting caught involved.

That seems sensible.  So would they try to get a gun on the black market if they couldn't buy it at a dealer?  Possibly, but I'd guess it would at least be more difficult and a deterrent in some measure. 

[Frank Cannon]

That seems sensible.  So would they try to get a gun on the black market if they couldn't buy it at a dealer?  Possibly, but I'd guess it would at least be more difficult and a deterrent in some measure.

Hey lady. Wake up. You can build a gun in the comfort of your own home with a cheap 3D printer. There is no deterrence for people who want a gun.

! No longer available

[LauraTXNM]

Laura, criminals have zero trouble getting a weapon. Any city with a population over 2,500 has a criminal underground that can get you anything you want. People think registration is the answer, well if they are criminals what makes anyone think they would follow this law.

P.S. Regarding criminals and illegal aliens, they will use the black market; that's a big part of homeowners having weapons for protection at home and on the road, etc.  But criminals and illegal aliens can also go through private sales.  That I find the height of irresponsibility.  Would you be comfortable selling a weapon to a stranger?  Knowing that person might be someone who was prohibited from having a gun because he was violent?  I recall one of the individuals who privately sold weapons or ammo to the Las Vegas shooter -- this guy said he felt terrible that his materiel was used to kill the concert goers.  Does he feel bad enough not to sell any more weapons to people he can't confirm are safe?