ON guns. Intresting link/survey included

[Gato_Solo]

Since all legally owned firearms are registered, it's as simple as running down the numbers whenever a gun used in a crime appears. If the weapon was reported stolen, it's just one more charge to be added. If it 's not reported stolen, then the legal owner is in deep doo-doo...

 

[AnomalousEntity]

Since all legally owned firearms are registered, it's as simple as running down the numbers whenever a gun used in a crime appears. If the weapon was reported stolen, it's just one more charge to be added. If it 's not reported stolen, then the legal owner is in deep doo-doo...

Gato, where do you live.

Firearms registration is not required in many/most states. The only record linking the firearm to an owner is the original sales reciept.

Owners of guns are free to trade and sale their weapons as they please.

In order to prevent illegal profitering of this, many areas have a limit..ex South Carolina is 1 gun in 30 days. This prevents it from being profitable to a "back market dealer" to sale to illegals.

In Randolph co. NC, however, there is no such limit.

If a convicted felon is caught with a weapon it is a parole violation for which he can go back to prision for AND THIS IS the primary safe-catch for these types. (Immediate ticket to jail is a good deterrent).

It is not the responsibility of the person selling a privately owned fire arm to do a back ground check or report the sale.

(by the way...THIS IS WHATS REFERRED TO AS THE "GUN SHOW LOOP HOLE" It has NOTHING to do with the DEALERS MAKING SALES AT THE SHOW as they DO THE BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ALL SALES....the fact that its the gun show itself and the dealers is a myth propogated by gun control idiots that is usually swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the average anti-gun moron).

Of course if you are going to trade, its best to go to a dealer, as all of those transactions are reported and logged.

Im a little concerned about the discretion between how I see it and how you see it.

Are these regional differences or is one of us just plain wrong???

 

[Gato_Solo]

Gato, where do you live.

Firearms registration is not required in many/most states. The only record linking the firearm to an owner is the original sales reciept.

Owners of guns are free to trade and sale their weapons as they please.

In order to prevent illegal profitering of this, many areas have a limit..ex South Carolina is 1 gun in 30 days. This prevents it from being profitable to a "back market dealer" to sale to illegals.

In Randolph co. NC, however, there is no such limit.

If a convicted felon is caught with a weapon it is a parole violation for which he can go back to prision for AND THIS IS the primary safe-catch for these types. (Immediate ticket to jail is a good deterrent).

It is not the responsibility of the person selling a privately owned fire arm to to a back ground check or report the sale.

Of course if you are going to trade, its best to go to a dealer, as all of those transactions are reported and logged.

Im a little concerned about the discretion between how I see it and how you see it.

Are these regional differences or is one of us just plain wrong???

Since I don't own a firearm, I was just reporting on what my next-door neighbor had to go through. Once his gun was sold,he had to report the sale to the North Charleston PD. The private seller is not required to do a background check, but is required to report the sale.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

Since I don't own a firearm, I was just reporting on what my next-door neighbor had to go through. Once his gun was sold,he had to report the sale to the North Charleston PD. The private seller is not required to do a background check, but is required to report the sale.

Ill check into it. All my traded guns have gone to a dealer except 1 that went to my father, and two that my x-wife got legally in the divorce settlement (one of which went to her father).

I had one stolen but I reported that immediately.

I think Im covered, because I would never sale somthing as dangerous as a gun in an add in the paper or somthing like that....

 

[AnomalousEntity]

Update,

I went by a liscensed dealer yesterday.

A private seller is under no obligation to report the sale or document the sale to other private individuals.

It is "recommended" that you get a notarized bill of sale that includes the serial number (and a photo copy of a Drivers liscense wouldnt hurt), but you can IN NO WAY get in trouble for not following this recommendation!!

 

[chcr]

A private seller is under no obligation to report the sale or document the sale to other private individuals.

Yep, I can go to the gun and knife show every month at the fairgrounds, buy an Uzi with the automatic feature disabled at one spot, then usually get the stuff to make it full auto at another table at the same show. No one is likely to ask me for ID (although I hear they will sometimes if you're black, Gato, but they aren't profiling).

Not, mind you, that I ever have, but I saw this with my own eyes. I do have guns, but I think they need to enforce the current gun control laws much more rigorously before they start writng knee jerk new ones.

Edit: BTW, the right to bear arms refers to three shots a minute if your very good, not 300 or more. But then full automatics are illegal, aren't they?

 

[AnomalousEntity]

but I think they need to enforce the current gun control laws much more rigorously before they start writng knee jerk new ones.

Many of the current gun laws are also completely bogus and need to be repealed ASAP.

But you do have a good point, many of the "good laws" on the books are not enforced.

OUr justice system has gotten in the habbit of releasing known felons, and repeat offenders back out on the street with almost no follow up by the probation officers.

We have largely good ol Bill Clinton to thank for that and its going to take some doing to fix.

I believe this is our "cultural problem" for why we have so much crime.....

 

[chcr]

We have largely good ol Bill Clinton to thank for that and its going to take some doing to fix.

Sorry, maybe it's because I'm older, but a lot of this stuff predates Billy the Blown by quite a stretch.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

Sorry, maybe it's because I'm older, but a lot of this stuff predates Billy the Blown by quite a stretch.

From my understanding, the stastics indicate a dramatic increase in early release, poor f/u on probation officers, an increase in plea barganing to lesser sentenses, and shorter prision sentences during the clinton administration.

Also an dramatic decrease in the "get tough on crime" laws and sentences being handed out during that time (war on drugs being an exception).

Also from various stastics Ive seen from the gun lobby who supposedly pull their numbers directly from law enforcement data bases.

Im remember from things I heard on regular news and things like Larry King etc...so I wont stake my rep on it..but thats what I recall.

Relying on personal recall may not be indicative of the truth.

But that applies to your assessment above as it does to mine.

 

[chcr]

I'm in the same boat re statistics, I just remember hearing people complain just as much about it in the seventies.

 

[freako104]

stats can be manipulated. please keep that in mind. i think chcr is right this was happening for many years. i think it may predate Reagan. who came before slick willie

 

[Gato_Solo]

One more time...

In the US, you have a right to legally own a gun, provided you haven't done anything stupid in your past. It's in our Constitution, listed in the bill of rights. It means, simply, that owning a firearm is the same as being able to speak your mind (free speech), attend the church of your choice (freedom of religion), and print/broadcast the news (freedom of the press). How come free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press are all expressed as individual freedoms, but, lately, whenever the right to bear arms comes up, you have to be in a modern definition of militia? If what is being bandied about here is actually true, then doesn't that make all freedoms and rights listed in the constitution liable to change whenever someone is offended?

If you don't like guns, don't buy one...but don't complain if your neighbor has one. Your neighbor chose to exercise his right, and you didn't. Freedom of choice.

If you feel that the constitution is wrong, then, by all means, start another constitutional congress. If you can get 2/3 of the states in the US to agree on your views and principals, then you can make the rules. Until then, just deal with it, or move someplace else. That is your right, also.

 

[chcr]

If you don't like guns, don't buy one...but don't complain if your neighbor has one. Your neighbor chose to exercise his right, and you didn't. Freedom of choice.

If everyone were qualified to own a gun, I would agree with that 100% Gato. What about the moron who leaves a loaded gun where a child can reach it? or where a criminal could steal it? You do see that it's more than a difference in degree? I mean, if you use words stupidly, you offend someone (I occasionally do this on purpose), if you use a gun stupidly, you injure or kill them. I just feel it should be as hard to get a gun as a drivers license (and it needs to be a lot harder to get a drivers license). On the other hand, I own some guns, not hand guns though. I don't mind a responsible person owning them though, I just don't know how you tell until it's too late. In other words, I have mixed feelings.

As far as a constitutional congress, all you really need is to get an amendment introduced and get two-thirds of the states to ratify it. I do feel that if the framers of the constitution had had an idea of how firepower would increase and proliferate, they might have worded it more carefully.

 

[AnomalousEntity]

I dont have a problem with making gun ownership comparable to a drivers liscense...

IE. A written examination followed by practical demonstration of gun saftey and firing techniques.

By the way,....this is very similiar to what is already being done for Concealed Carry Permits...along with a back ground check and a few hours on the use of lethal force.

Edit:

I dont even have a problem with having to "renew" this every few years.

One exception could be elderly folk when their vision may not be what it used to and their ability to read may never have been that good.


....of course..these folks are a HELL OF ALOT MORE DANGEROUS on the road then with a weapon..but we still let them drive for some God forsaken reason.


Then again, I think they need a new college curriculum for politics. I think it should be very strict and include lots of political science theory, law, foreing affairs, economics, military strategy, technology and security, just to name a few. It should be a post graduate degree like law or med school, and it should include a 2 year practicum with rotations through various government jobs with long hours, difficult assignments, very strict grading, high pressure, and low pay.

I dont think anyone without such training should be allowed above city level elections.

With the current state of affairs for Chief Financial Officers and Journalists etc....I think they need to crack waay down on these courses to. An MBA doesnt mean near what it used to.....except that their is a %50 chance your more while collar criminal than buisnesman.

 

[MrBishop]

But you cant just pick and choose WHAT DANGEROUS items people like this can have and cant have.

Yes you can...it's called gun-control.

If they are as you described, you cant say they only cant have guns! That doesnt protect you from "these idiots".

I think that we can come up with a list of items and update it every once in a while. I'd say...guns, atomic weapons, flamethrowers, mines...hmmm...lemme think about it. Things designed specifically to kill.

"These idiots" would still be a danger, with a car, a knife, an axe, hell,a rock! So taking away the "gun" does absolutely nothing for you!

Wrong...it takes away the gun. One less weapon.

What could protect you from "these idiots"...the right to carry a weapon yourself!

No...that'd mean that there'd be one more person with a gun and the 'right' to use it.

 

[MrBishop]

Dont you think that should be a personal decisions up to the rights of intelligent, self-aware, human beings, rather than somthing that gets legislated in government by a bunch of yes men who probably have given the issue a hell of a lot less consideration than you have?

Shouldnt it be a personal choice?

One point AE...being self-aware and intelligent doesn't stop people from also being fearful, unthinking and basically violent individuals. I may trust you with a gun...mostly because you're so verbose about gun-safety that I can almost believe that all of your guns are safely stored. Your high emotions when you talk about self-defence and the use of guns for that purpose also tends to scare the crap out of me. Sorry...but that's the truth. I can see you shooting someone. I can see you getting shot. If you don't mind...I'll close my eyes now.

 

[MrBishop]

Then explain that hole in the floor, and the burn mark on my jacket. Oh, and the burnt hair.

You're still alive and well. I wasn't asked to carry a casket about 7 years ago. If you'd had a gun...that might not have been the case. Don't prove me wrong...don't prove me right. I've known you for over 25 years now, and I neither want to attend your funeral, nor have to appear at a trial as a character witness to protect you from murder charges.

I'd do both, mind you...but I wouldn't enjoy either.

 

[Gonz]

I just feel it should be as hard to get a gun as a drivers license

I dont have a problem with making gun ownership comparable to a drivers liscense...

IE. A written examination followed by practical demonstration of gun saftey and firing techniques.

It's not an add-in right. It was second. On purpose. We the people have an undeniable right to own guns. The constitution does not include trained or background checked. It assumes that people will have enough sense to teach their children & train themselves & if not, well, accidents are a natural process. In the overall case, they are very few & far between.

I think the argument is not so much about guns as whether or not we have become such a nation (world) of morons that personal responsibility has gone by the wayside. It's easier to have the government permit or disallow than to take the time, energy & effort to do the right thing ourselves. People were shot & killed in 1775, same as 2003. Nothing has changed but our outlook. Don't buy a gun if you don't like them. Don't blame someone else for your discomfort. Don't interfere with my rights & I won't interfere with yours.

 

[freako104]

though its a bit watered down here is what the second amendment says


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



that said it is a right as gonz said.

 

[chcr]

It's easier to have the government permit or disallow than to take the time, energy & effort to do the right thing ourselves.

Good job defining the problem, Gonz. Do you have a solution to offer?