Short answers and a fun experiment
What Gun Control Law Would Have Prevented This?
None, really. The fact is that gun control proposals only affect the law-abiding.
What exactly is enough control.
Depends who you ask. For the anti-gun groups, total control is what is needed. For me, just some.
So, here’s a fun game for you pro-gun folks: Due to some bizarre set of circumstances, congress decides that all federal gun laws need to be re-written and revised. You are elected/selected/appointed as the negotiator for pro-gun folks. And there will be one negotiator for the anti-gun folks. All federal laws will be wiped clean and you two will negotiate what the new gun laws will be. There will have to be compromise on both sides. So, what will you concede? And what is nonnegotiable?
Whoever says that their position will merely consist of shall not be infringed, step to the front of the bus and exit please. Because that won’t work. We will have gun laws. As much as I admire your consistency, it’s not feasible. Deal with it.
While we’re at it, let’s hear from the anti-gunners too.
Yeah, I know, not a likely scenario but this national conversation is coming. Post your answers in comments or at your website.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Well, obviously none of us want criminals or terrorists to be able to buy guns. I think most would agree that instant background checks are a good thing. It’s not a perfect system by any means.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Some guy somewhere once posited he’d meet the anti-gunners halfway. He said “While I don’t like it, I’ll accept scrapping exactly half of the gun laws”. Apparently, compromise doesn’t mean the anti-gunners losing anything, only is pro gun people.
I’ll post a real response on my blog and track back here.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:20 am
This is a good discussion to have. I’ll blog my answer shortly.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:51 am
I think the only controls should be:
-keep the background check system as a public service and keep the record keeping requirement for people who sell guns. Allow anyone to sell firearms as long as they retain a record of the sale for 5 years and do a background check.
-allow anyone to make guns and order stuff through the mail as if they were FFL07/SOT2’s. That is, no permission. The only requirement is that someone mark any gun with their personal or corporate identity and place a serial number on the gun.
-change paperwork retention requirements from 20 years to 5. Pretty much any gun that hasnt been involved in a crime more than 2 years after it was last sold is probably not going to be worth tracing. 5 years is generous.
-change prohibited persons law so that only forcible felonies and insanity ajudication are disqualifiers. The time of disqualification should be time served + probation after the completion of sentence. Someone who does a year plus 5 of probation for robbery should lose their firearms rights for an additional 6 years after they complete probation. 12 years is a fairly long time. Anyone who isnt reformed by the end of that time period will likely have reoffended by then anyway, earning additional prohibition time.
-order the ATF to destroy all paperwork that it currently has retained from out of business FFLs
-repeal the NFA. Explosives based weapons (currently explosive DDs) should be regulated as ordinary explosives are. This is actually a very tight regulation and would be more than adequate for preventing most harm. Criminals currently arent stealing high explosvies from construction sites so I dont see why they would start stealing RPGs from people’s gun safes.
Note that this system is an ENHANCEMENT of the current system because it requires private parties to retain sales records. This is a small burden for most people (who rarely sell guns) but it would provide far greater utility for police when they uncover a murder weapon with an intact serial.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Done. My trackbacks don’t always work so consider this one “manual”.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:21 am
[...] asks us what gun controls we’re willing to tolerate: So, here’s a fun game for you pro-gun folks: Due to some bizarre set of circumstances, congress [...]
April 18th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Uncle asks an interesting question over there. The question is if you and one anti-gunner were given the opportunity to sit down and re-write all of the nations gun laws, where you would compromise? In what areas would you be willing to give a little to get a little?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I could live with that, Jim W.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Exiting the bus.
Hope you enjoy your little “game”. It’s sad that playing their game has, once AGAIN, killed so many.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
“here” should be “hear”
Good topic for discussion.
I agree a bunch with Jim W.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I’ll take national open and concealed carry. No bans on CCW in schools. Complete deregulation of sound suppressors. No magazine limits, no bans on any semi-auto weapons.
They can regulate machine guns, bazookas and the like. They can ban criminals and mental patients.
Finally, firearm safety should be a required part of every child’s school curriculum.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
First of all, Uncle, as much as we did battle yesterday, I wanted to tell you— I like this line of conversation.
I’ll make no secret of it— If there was some way to guarantee we could get them all, my ideal solution would be melting down every gun and making playground equipment out of the metal.
But I know that’s not a realistic possibility. So all I ask for is reasonable gun control.
1. Permanent record of weapons transfers. When I bought my car, not only was the VIN number permanently recorded, but I can’t legally take it out of the driveway without a tag on the back identifying me. If I behave irresponsibly with that car, it makes me easy to track down. There is no reason that there should be less diligence shown over a weapon.
2. Close the gun show/ private transfer loophole. If you’re selling a weapons, you should have to show the same diligence in keeping it out of dangerous hands that a licensed dealer would have to show.
3. Ballistics records. Surely a gun does not leave the manufacturer without a test fire, right? Record the results.
4. 50 caliber. You wouldn’t use it to protect your home. You wouldn’t use it for hunting. Why should it be legal for civilian use?
I’ll blog more later.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
But you’re not giving up anything.
As to your points:
1 Okay, this pen is a gun. The paper I’m holding is my license and the paper you’re holding is the registration. Using only these two pieces of paper, explain to me just how you are going to keep me from shooting someone?
2 There is no loophole. Private party transfers are legal. If you wish to regulate those, then say so otherwise you’re using, what was that you said, talking points.
3 Doesn’t work. Too many factors, including changing barrels and, over time, barrels change rendering initial ballistics useless. And any nefarious minded person would just run a file down the barrel.
4 Why shouldn’t it be legal for civilian use? No instances of crime committed with them that I can think of. After all, criminals don’t usually use $8,000 rifles in crimes.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
If you want to make owning a gun as easy and accessible as driving a car, then I agree. My Florida license is valid in all 50 states. I don’t need permission to own a high horsepower vehicle, so long as I’m responsible with it. I can drive my car on campus, near a preschool, it church, and to a court.
You should also not sell booze to someone who has had a DUI, matches to pyromaniacs or vehicles without flotation devices to Ted Kennedy. Should we do background checks for those? And how, pray tell, would Joe Citizen know John Doe was a criminal or not? Open everything to everyone? No chance of that getting abused, is there?
Doesn’t work. I’ve already switched out the barrel and firing pin on two of my handguns. Took seconds. Those items are not serialized and would alter the ‘fingerprint’ 100%. Great way to waste money though.
It has never been used in a crime and you want to ban it? Would you be ok with 12.7mm? Are you banning just the .50 or would .477 at 570 grain also be banned? What if (since I reload my own ammunition) I put 3/7000ths of a pound less powder to lower the velocity, would that work?
You wouldn’t drive to work at 180mph, so why should we allow people to have 300hp engines? More people die each year from driving stupid than get killed with any caliber handgun. Hell, more people die each year from shark attacks than getting shot with a .50 cal. So why the worry?
Do you not realize how expensive a .50 is? That each round costs dollars? That if you wanted to kill someone, a 30.06 is easier and cheaper to purchase (including ammo). That if you shoot a .50, people in the next county will know it?
No, I think you just suck up the lies of the Brady campaign and parrot their ignorance. You probably wouldn’t know a .50 AE from a .357 magnum
April 18th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
(sorry hit submit too soon)
You probably wouldn’t know a .50 AE from a .357 magnum much less a 50 BMG from AE, so what makes you confident you could ban the ‘right’ round?
I could own a .577 Tyrannosaur fully loaded and you have nothing to worry about from me. A .22 or 9mm in the hands of a killer, as you have seen, are more lethal.
Do you still think we should ban the .50? Why?
April 18th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
First, Even if you could get them all, you couldn’t keep more from being made. Supposedly, (I can’t see it from work) http://www.thehomegunsmith.com has plans to build a fully automatic grease gun from standard British plumbing parts.
1) You don’t have a constitutional right to drive a car on a public road. (You can drive it on private property without tags or a license)
2) Impractical. There is no way for every individual to have the means/resources to carry out the same kind of background investigation that Wal-Mart can.
3) Useless, Ballistic fingerprints change over time as the barrel wears and can easily be altered simply running sandpaper through the barrel.
4) So would a .49 Caliber be OK? Besides, there are two basic reasons for the 2A: Defense from the individual and defense from tyrranical gov’t (foreign or domestic). Hunting is not relevant. The .50 falls under the defense from gov’t.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
1 Okay, this pen is a gun. The paper I’m holding is my license and the paper you’re holding is the registration. Using only these two pieces of paper, explain to me just how you are going to keep me from shooting someone?
Didn’t say it was going to, but nice try. There should be a record of weapons transfers. Period. What are you trying to hide?
2 There is no loophole. Private party transfers are legal. If you wish to regulate those, then say so otherwise you’re using, what was that you said, talking points.
Call it what you like. You can call it sticking your thumb up your backside and whistling “Dixie” for all I care. But there should be a background check. They’re not hard to get, and they keep weapons out of the hands of felons. Is it your contention that this is somehow a bad idea? Is that the side of the issue you want to come down on? Felons’ gun rights advocate?
3 Doesn’t work. Too many factors, including changing barrels and, over time, barrels change rendering initial ballistics useless. And any nefarious minded person would just run a file down the barrel.
Over a span of years, the characteristics of a gun barrel can change— That is certainly true. It could take a 100% match down to a 75% match and help convict someone that’s committed a murder. And your point about changing barrels and even filing is certainly true— But the average killer isn’t a gunsmith. It wouldn’t make criminal convictions in a gun homicide a certainty, but it certainly helps. And law abiding people have nothing to fear from it. Don’t want your ballistics to match a bullet found in a dead body? Don’t shoot anyone.
4 Why shouldn’t it be legal for civilian use? No instances of crime committed with them that I can think of. After all, criminals don’t usually use $8,000 rifles in crimes.
Can you answer the question or not? What is their use? Is your house so big that you need to fire a bullet 2000 meters to protect it?
It’s not an anti-personnel weapon. It’s designed to bring down vehicles. You know, like planes… Motorcades. Over a distance. And even assuming the extraordinarily highball price you ploaced on it, the amount al Qaeda used to finance 9/11 could have bough 25 of them. With the prices I found on the basic 50 cal models, it’s substantially more (Armalite AR-50 at about $2700). I found a gun shop in Indiana where the loony owner rents them out. I posted a YouTube of his commercial talking about it. $10 and a drivers license.
So… Again. What is the legitimate civilian use? What situation can you imagine where that kind of firepower comes in handy?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
“50 Caliber” — Which .50 caliber are you talking about? There’s blackpowder .50 caliber. There are handguns in .50 caliber. And then there’s .50 caliber BMG. Which one(s) do you want banned? The performance of each one varies greatly.
Additionally, there are rifles above .50 caliber that are perfectly legal for civilians to own (.600, .700 Nitro Express). Should these, too, be banned?
Either a bullet kills, or it doesn’t*. Whether you get hit by a .50 BMG, .338 Lapua, .30-06, or a shot gun slug** doesn’t matter. You’ll still be dead or at least likely to die. The major difference is the range and training required to master them.
On top of this, the .50 BMG is used for long-range, big game hunting.
*Assuming proper round placement.
**Shotgun slugs are larger than .50 caliber.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
If you want to make owning a gun as easy and accessible as driving a car, then I agree.
The only difference in access is that felons can buy cars.
And how, pray tell, would Joe Citizen know John Doe was a criminal or not?
By paying $35 for a background check, the same as if you were renting an apartment out to someone. It’s not that hard. Get a social security number and take a few minutes to run a check.
Doesn’t work. I’ve already switched out the barrel and firing pin on two of my handguns. Took seconds.
Is it your contention that the average street criminal knows just as much about guns as you? The guy who loses his temper and shoots his wife has time to buy a new barrel and replace it before police get his gun? That isn’t logic— It’s a weak excuse.
Hell, more people die each year from shark attacks than getting shot with a .50 cal. So why the worry?
How many would have to die before you see it as a problem? Just give me a number, and I’ll wait until we hit it to try and get you to think rationally again.
What. Is. Their. Legitimate. Purpose?
They’re designed around taking people out from 2000 meters— Well beyond the range you would need to protect your home. They can fire through an engine block— Something that I’m sure would be useful if you were attacked by a rabid engine block.
It’s used more as an anti-vehicle weapon than an anti-personnel weapon. Feel the need to shoot many vehicles, do you?
You probably wouldn’t know a .50 AE from a .357 magnum much less a 50 BMG from AE, so what makes you confident you could ban the ‘right’ round?
If it ever came to pass, I would definitely consult with people that know more about weapons than I do. No one in a position to change things does so without consulting advisers. I don’t think an encyclopedic knowledge of weapons is required to know that there are weapons that could be legitimately used for personal protection and sport, and there are weapons that have no place in either. Do I need to be a filmmaker to know that a movie sucks? Do I have to be a mechanic to know that a Yugo is a piece of junk?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Again, why do you need a 300+ horsepower engine?
You need to learn a little more about firearms before you try making laws about them. My Glock 29 is a 10mm, compact framed handgun. The hexagonal rifling in the barrel makes shooting lead bullets a no no. I can, for less than $200, get a new barrel that will accept lead bullets. That’s not a 75% match, it’s 0%. Ballistics DO NOT WORK. Maybe if you wished a little harder….
On another gun, I had to replace the firing pin so, case matching won’t work either. Besides, that one is a revolver, so the cases don’t get extracted after firing. Kind of sucks the fun out of trying to fingerprint them when they’re not available, eh?
Background checks ARE hard and expensive to get if it’s not something you do on a day to day basis. You don’t have to run a check when you sell your car, and more people die from cars. Why aren’t you bitching about that?
Speaking of facts you are not in possession of, the 50 cal was designed for long range target shooting, not military / bringing down airliners. The military marveled at it’s power and accuracy and decided to use it. To ban it would be like banning Wüsthof knives because somebody killed someone with a hollowed edge santuko.
If you want to bring down an airliner, use a SAM. They’re cheaper and you have a much better chance of actually hitting the thing. Trying to hit a target moving at 500 mph a half mile away with a 1/2″ piece of metal moving at 3000fps is….ummm… pretty much impossible.
So, knowing what you know now, why would you ban something that has never, ever, ever been used in a crime and wouldn’t make sense to do so anyway?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Then what’s the point?
Not hiding anything. right to privacy, and all that.
I’m indifferent on the issue. By and large, criminals don’t get guns from gun shows. And there’s not any way to enforce background checks on private transfers.
Because someone wants one. To shoot at paper with. Good enough answer for me. Name a plane shot down with one. Name a motorcade stopped with one. Name a violent crime committed with one. BTW, 50s are only effective at hitting stationary vehicles.
For someone awful quick to point out that I don’t answer questions, you do it pretty quickly too.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Whoops, I was a little slow on responding before everyone else…
April 18th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
First, Even if you could get them all, you couldn’t keep more from being made. Supposedly, (I can’t see it from work) http://www.thehomegunsmith.com has plans to build a fully automatic grease gun from standard British plumbing parts.
Right. Did you miss the part where I said we can’t stuff the genie back into the bottle? I’ve acknowledged that.
1) You don’t have a constitutional right to drive a car on a public road. (You can drive it on private property without tags or a license)
Following that logic, I don’t have the constitutional right to text message my girlfriend, as the cell phone was even further away from being created at the time of the constitution’s framing than the car was. At the time of the framing, guns were so cumbersome to fire that you easily spent a couple of minutes reloading and powdering between rounds. So do you really want to take the conversation in that direction?
2) Impractical. There is no way for every individual to have the means/resources to carry out the same kind of background investigation that Wal-Mart can.
There is a way. It’s very easy. Anyone who rents property has done it. So has anyone who runs personnel at a business. A guy I know built a massive business out of it. Nothing impractical about it. Factor the cost of the background check into the price of the gun.
3) Useless, Ballistic fingerprints change over time as the barrel wears and can easily be altered simply running sandpaper through the barrel.
Covered. See above. A diminished match is still a match, no matter how many times Law & Order’s fictional attorneys make an 80% match sound weak. It’s not.
4) So would a .49 Caliber be OK? Besides, there are two basic reasons for the 2A: Defense from the individual and defense from tyrranical gov’t (foreign or domestic). Hunting is not relevant. The .50 falls under the defense from gov’t.
Yeah, because everyone knows the government sends tanks to your house for shits and giggles.
I’m no fan of the current White House, but I don’t want them outgunned when they show up to serve a warrant.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Careful, your ignorance is showing. A Glock can be field stripped by a paraplegic taking a nap. The barrel pops out by pulling down on a single switch, taking off the slide, removing the spring and viola! barrel! Or, if I’m lazy, I take 60 grit sandpaper, ram it down the barrel, and viola! 0% match. Or, after shooting lead bullets, I get a decent case of leading and voila! 0% match.
A number? Ok, when more kids die from them than swimming pools, then I will join you. Because, swimming pools, really. What. Is. Their. Legitimate. Purpose? Recreation? You’re willing to send THOUSANDS of kids to their death each year simply because you want to cool off in the summer?
Or, you could arrest the person who did the killing, put them in jail for a long time, and then go swimming with your kids. That’s the best solution, but it has an unfortunate side effect of removing voters who would agree with you.
No you wouldn’t. You would consult with people who would agree with you. I’m very familiar with guns and you’re arguing with me. You cannot produce a single instance of a crime being committed with a 50.
And knowing the difference between 50BMG and 50AE is critical because they are both called 50 cal. You, not knowing the difference, want to ban them both not realizing one is a handgun round. Although {bleep}ing powerful, they have less velocity than the BMG because (a) the case is 1/4 the length and (b) the barrel is in inches, not feet.
No, you don’t need to be a movie director to know a movie sucks. But you do need to be familiar with the movie making process before you start spouting off about what mm film should be banned.
Putz.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Sorry Saysuncle, but I’m not playing. Anything that does not lead to pre 1934 regulation is not good enough.
Oh, and “Freedonian”:
You don’t use a .50 BMG rifle to take on tanks. You use it for shooting at very long distances.
When the feds show up to turn the screws, a smart guerrilla will see to it that they raid an empty house.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Again, why do you need a 300+ horsepower engine?
Did I say somewhere that I did? Now, the 300+ horsepower engine has a legitimate, peaceful purpose for existing— The transport of people and objects from one place to another. What is the legitimate, peaceful use for a 50 cal?
Background checks ARE hard and expensive to get if it’s not something you do on a day to day basis.
Hard and expensive, huh? I know a guy that ran them for $35. I checked around and found a place that does them for $20. Took me about fifteen seconds to find it. Use another excuse. It requires no special knowledge whatsoever. If you can’t manage to run a criminal background check as easy as it is these days, you have no business holding a fiearm, much less trying to sell one.
Speaking of facts you are not in possession of, the 50 cal was designed for long range target shooting, not military / bringing down airliners. The military marveled at it’s power and accuracy and decided to use it. To ban it would be like banning Wüsthof knives because somebody killed someone with a hollowed edge santuko.
Santuko— You’ve got to get within 2000 meters to kill with one of those, right? I don’t recall any cutlery longer than 200 meters, and I can’t imagine what it would be like to try and swing it.
So, knowing what you know now, why would you ban something that has never, ever, ever been used in a crime and wouldn’t make sense to do so anyway?
It makes more sense than trying to protect your home or hunt with it, doesn’t it? Is your house so big that you need that kind of distance?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Freedonian…. learn a bit more about the capabilities and limitations of firearms from someone who understands them before spewing Brady talking points on the matter. There are things you’re saying the 50 caliber is capable of that many standard hunting rounds are quite capable of as well. There’s something particularly special about .50BMG other than it scares people who know nothing about guns. As others have pointed out, there are dozens of other rounds with similar capabilities. The 50BMG just happens to be the one the Brady’s think they have a chance of banning because some of the rifles that fire it look scary.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Why not? Personally, I want the gooberment scared sh!tless to raid my house.
Keeps ‘em honest. Won’t do it unless they’ve got a damned good reason to.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
err.. previously something=nothing
April 18th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
By paying $35 for a background check, the same as if you were renting an apartment out to someone. It’s not that hard. Get a social security number and take a few minutes to run a check.
Because this type of thinking implies others get to decide what I can do with my private property. Besides, since you appear to lack basic research skills, let me enlighten you.
One, according to DOJ statstics, less than 1% of felons stated they got their guns at gun shows. Most used straw purchases or weapons that were stolen.
Two, private party sales are regulated under the law. Most states require that transfers can only occur between private parties that reside in the same state and both parties are legally bound to state that the receiver is eligible to possess the arm under all Federal, State and local laws. If I sell a gun privately to a criminal, I can be held liable.
From a larger standpoint, the private transfers serve another purpose: It keeps the Government guessing. By not knowing who has what, it makes it a lot harder to find it should said Government ever decide to attempt a confiscation.
And frankly, what I choose to do with my property is none of your business provided I am not breaking the law. “But they’re Guns!” you may cry. And? I can sell you a set of 24 steak knives without a background check that have blades a molecule thick and cut like a scalpel. Pointy things are weapons too.
Is it your contention that the average street criminal knows just as much about guns as you? The guy who loses his temper and shoots his wife has time to buy a new barrel and replace it before police get his gun? That isn’t logic— It’s a weak excuse.
No, it is because ballistic fingerprinting doesn’t work. You contend that a 90% match would be good enough in court (I’ve read your blog). Wrong. That would leave 10% of the same type of arms as possible matches and that doesn’t meet an evidentary standard in most places.
And just with the existing equipment with no swaps, marks change over time. This is not “fingerprinting” in the sense you are perceiving it. The marks do change, unlike human fingerprints. At best, ballistic fingerprinting can be used to narrow a range. It cannot be used like fingerprints or DNA to provide conclusive proof. Even here in Maryland, they’ve admitted their lavish fingerprinting system has been a multi-million dollar waste of money.
It does not work.
How many would have to die before you see it as a problem? Just give me a number, and I’ll wait until we hit it to try and get you to think rationally again.
What. Is. Their. Legitimate. Purpose?
They’re designed around taking people out from 2000 meters— Well beyond the range you would need to protect your home. They can fire through an engine block— Something that I’m sure would be useful if you were attacked by a rabid engine block.
It’s used more as an anti-vehicle weapon than an anti-personnel weapon. Feel the need to shoot many vehicles, do you?
We are thinking rationally. NO ONE has died as the result of a .50 caliber rifle.
As to their purpose, as it has been pointed out, the .50s touted so much today started out as a CIVILIAN long range target rifle! Only later did the military become interested in them.
I got news for you, I can kill you at a range of 2000 meters with lesser rounds. It all depends on the round, the weapon and the shooter. You can’t magically state that no one needs a round that goes that far and create one that is good for 200 meters and then suddenly falls to the ground or stops being lethal.
Do I need a .50? Why do you get to decide ‘need’? If I am not harming anyone, what do you care? If I want to spend $2000 for a CHEAP .50 caliber rifle, spend $2-3 per shot and compete in long range marksmanship competition, so what? You may not see the need but that shouldn’t be your decision to make.
And NOWHERE in the Bills of Rights is there any mention about NEED.
If it ever came to pass, I would definitely consult with people that know more about weapons than I do. No one in a position to change things does so without consulting advisers. I don’t think an encyclopedic knowledge of weapons is required to know that there are weapons that could be legitimately used for personal protection and sport, and there are weapons that have no place in either. Do I need to be a filmmaker to know that a movie sucks? Do I have to be a mechanic to know that a Yugo is a piece of junk?
Why don’t you actually try some research then? The .50 is used for sport, that should satisfy you. The Glock 19 used by the VA Tech shooter is an ok self-defense weapon.
Again, we come back to NEED. The 2nd doesn’t discuss NEED. It is not about hunting or sport. We can have a very involved discussion about all of this and still not get anywhere.
First things first, you need to learn about arms and what you are talking about. Go to a gun show and witness the process first hand! You will be very surprised about how regulated it really is. Go shooting with someone. Learn. Experience. Research. Then make a judgement.
But don’t spout off the things you believe to be true when they are not. That simply shows you are ignorant (which is not a crime) but you are unwilling to fix that by becoming educated. Then you can defend your views accurately. I may disagree with you but at least you won’t come off sounding like a broken record or a tool of the Brady Campaign.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Why not? Personally, I want the gooberment scared to raid my house.
Keeps ‘em honest. Won’t do it unless they’ve got a d@mned good reason to.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Then what’s the point?
Well, when investigating a shooting, it would be helpful for police to be able to cross reference a list of suspects with a list of people that have that caliber of weapon, don’t you think? I believe in making a murder investigation as simple for authorities as possible— Let’s get killers off of the streets.
Not hiding anything. right to privacy, and all that.
If I mow someone down with my car, I’m easy to track down. And when it comes to intentional use as weapons, guns outpace cars by a ratio of 10 to 1 in an average year. Why make it harder with a gun?
I’m indifferent on the issue. By and large, criminals don’t get guns from gun shows. And there’s not any way to enforce background checks on private transfers.
Oh, but there is. If you refuse to do a background check and sell a gun to a felon, you should be charged with a felony. I’m a little disappointed to see that the crowd that preaches “personal responsibility” on weapons is so unwilling to assume any of that responsibility when it comes to keeping the streets safe.
Here’s a chart that breaks down the sources of weapons used in crimes. It’s true that only 2% come from gun shows. Of course, that shakes out to roughly 202 murders in 2005. That’s already more than were killed by explosives, fire, poison, and narcotics combined. Another 2% at flea markets. 6% at “other”, which could reasonably be inferred as private transfers, since all other means were accounted for by another statistic. We’re already accounting for 10% of gun homicide— A thousand deaths a year. How many is too many?
Because someone wants one. To shoot at paper with. Good enough answer for me.
Not for me. My objective is a safer America. In private hands, a 50 caliber does nothing to make America safer and makes it less safe in terms of the damage that can be done in the wrong hands. I’m not trying to take the .357 out of your house here. I want to go after only weapons that have no legitimate defensive purpose.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
and
So, were you lying then or are you lying now?
Fortunately, it’s not your decision and the law agrees with me.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Well, when investigating a shooting, it would be helpful for police to be able to cross reference a list of suspects with a list of people that have that caliber of weapon, don’t you think? I believe in making a murder investigation as simple for authorities as possible— Let’s get killers off of the streets.
Ok, so how do you get probable cause for the weapons that do match? You just can’t say “We have 1200 people that own a 9mm pistol in this area, lets go talk to them.”. Because that is exactly what happens with ballistic fingerprinting. Lots of different models of guns fire the same round.
Even if you can narrow it down to a specific twist rate, direction of twist and caliber (ala Law and Order), that still can be a pretty decent number of potential local weapons.
Oh, and by the way, where are you going to get your list of potential suspects? The creation of a gun registry is specifically forbidden at the Federal level and most records are not held by various Police departments. And even if you had a registry, you come back to probable cause. Just because I own a gun that might match doesn’t give you the right to knock on my door and ask to see it.
If I mow someone down with my car, I’m easy to track down. And when it comes to intentional use as weapons, guns outpace cars by a ratio of 10 to 1 in an average year. Why make it harder with a gun?
Ok, what if you steal my car and go mow people down? And take the tags off beforehand? And then drive off? It is going to be hard to trace the car then, isn’t it?
Oh, but there is. If you refuse to do a background check and sell a gun to a felon, you should be charged with a felony. I’m a little disappointed to see that the crowd that preaches “personal responsibility” on weapons is so unwilling to assume any of that responsibility when it comes to keeping the streets safe.
I AM responsible for who I sell a weapon to in a private sale. See my previous post.
Not for me. My objective is a safer America. In private hands, a 50 caliber does nothing to make America safer and makes it less safe in terms of the damage that can be done in the wrong hands. I’m not trying to take the .357 out of your house here. I want to go after only weapons that have no legitimate defensive purpose.
Hopefully you will never be allowed to make that choice in a position of power.
So, the .50BMG is out. I guess I can keep my Smith and Wesson .500 revolver or my .50AR Desert Eagle semi-auto?
Oh, and I can have my Barrett .416? Better ballistics than the Barrett .50 out to 1000 meters and just as hard-hitting and with similar range. And smaller than a .45ACP too. You should be pleased.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I posted prior to reading your post, but it’s close to your meme…well, in the sense that liberals have a chance to bed down with Karl Rove, now, if they want to…
April 18th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
One, according to DOJ statstics, less than 1% of felons stated they got their guns at gun shows. Most used straw purchases or weapons that were stolen.
Actually, if you’ll check the stats I provided in my last response, you’ll find that the number is 9% on stolen weapons 9% more purchased black market. Ostensibly totalling up to 33% if you assume that guns bought from drug dealers are all stolen, although it’s not out of the question for someone to trade a legitimately owned one away for a fix.
35% said “friend or family”. Another 15% bought it retail. 2% at gun shows. 4% at pawn shops, which typically try to avoid trading in stolen weapons. I really don’t know if they background check or not, but they should. Another 2% at flea markets. So we’ve got over half of weapons tied to crimes with perfectly legal origins.
Gun advocates all seem to make this very basic mistake— Assuming that crime is something that just happens on the streets. It happens in homes. A marital dispute can end in gunshots. A family argument. Friends bickering over a poker game. Do you realize how many murder victims are shot with their own guns?
Two, private party sales are regulated under the law. Most states require that transfers can only occur between private parties that reside in the same state and both parties are legally bound to state that the receiver is eligible to possess the arm under all Federal, State and local laws. If I sell a gun privately to a criminal, I can be held liable.
Then you should really save the link I gave you about the $20 background checks. Factor $20 extra into the cost of the gun, and you’re covered. It’s not so hard, is it?
From a larger standpoint, the private transfers serve another purpose: It keeps the Government guessing. By not knowing who has what, it makes it a lot harder to find it should said Government ever decide to attempt a confiscation.
See, the anti-government paranoia worries me as much as crackheads with illegal weapons do. Crackheads don’t organize well, and I can’t remember the last crackhead to blow up a courthouse just to make a point. I can remember someone from the “Wah! They don’t want me to have automatic weapons!” crowd doing it.
The government is not confiscating your weapons. Every NRA member could vanish from the earth tomorrow and it’s still not happening. Even in the nineties when a handful of semiautos were banned, no one did anything to confiscate the ones already out there. So please get over your paranoia, come back to earth, and have a real discussion.
And frankly, what I choose to do with my property is none of your business provided I am not breaking the law. “But they’re Guns!” you may cry. And? I can sell you a set of 24 steak knives without a background check that have blades a molecule thick and cut like a scalpel. Pointy things are weapons too.
How close do you have to get to use the pointy things? If you miss your target with a pointy thing, does a child across the street get his face blown off?
No matter what ludicrous examples you come up with to try and compare guns to something else, there is simply nothing else to compare them to. Nothing sold legally, anyway. I’m sure you could make a case that C-4 has the potential to kill quite a few people, but I can’t drive two miles and pick that up at a hock shop.
By the way— 2005. 10,100 killed with guns. A little over 1900 killed by pointy things.
Do I need a .50? Why do you get to decide ‘need’? If I am not harming anyone, what do you care?
Look, I’m not some mustachio-twirling bad guy that wakes up in the morning thinking “What can I take away from these guys today?” I’m not interested in illegalizing anything that makes sense as a weapon that could be used for self-protection or hunting. I’m interested in keeping the strets from getting any more dangerous rthan they already are. If you (And I’m assuming that you’re a peaceful, law abiding citizen) can get your hands on it, what keeps it out of anyone else’s hands? A third of all gun crimes are committed by stolen guns. How long before a 50 caliber with more distance and power than anyone legitimately needs ends up in the wrong hands?
And NOWHERE in the Bills of Rights is there any mention about NEED.
Well then, if you want to read the bill of rights strictly, then drop and give me twenty before your five mile run, you well regulated militia member, you. Don’t dawdle too long or you’re on KP duty.
First things first, you need to learn about arms and what you are talking about. Go to a gun show and witness the process first hand!
Believe me, I will! And you better damn well hope I don’t spot any violations— My digital voice recorder is never outside of easy reaching distance.
Go shooting with someone.
No thanks. I don’t like guns. I don’t want them. My only firsthand experience with guns was some coward trying to take me out from 100 feet away. His three shots missed— All going into the apartment behind me. Thank god no one was hurt. And when I caught him without his gun, I beat his ass within an inch of his life. The transgression for which this legitimate gun owner thought I deserved to lose my life was dating his ex-girlfriend.
He was a perfectly legitimate gun owner with a CCW permit. He broke no laws until he committed an act of craven cowardice and tried to take my life from a long distance.
And there are plenty more out there. Over half of gun crimes are committed with legit weapons. Even before that night, I was disturbed by how ridiculously easy they are to obtain. Getting shot at didn’t change my mind.
So go on pretending that I’m stepping on the rights of law abiding citizens by wanting legislation in place that makes it easier to track them down after they’ve committed a crime. I’m sick of hearing from you guys that the only rights the rest of us have are ducking and mopping up blood.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
If there was some way to guarantee we could get them all, my ideal solution would be melting down every gun and making playground equipment out of the metal.
For a guy who decried my reading skills yesterday, you certainly don’t have much of your own. I guess it would have been too tough to look at the paragraph IMMEDIATELY BELOW THAT and see “But I know that’s not a realistic possibility. So all I ask for is reasonable gun control.”
April 18th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
But you would if you could right? Your subsequent paragraph does not negate your desire to do so.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Uncle, my comments don’t seem to be getting through. I had some rebuttals to Freedonian that got marked as spam. Can you check those out?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
And while we’re talking about insufficient reading skills…
Ok, so how do you get probable cause for the weapons that do match? You just can’t say “We have 1200 people that own a 9mm pistol in this area, lets go talk to them.”
Of course, it was in response to “Well, when investigating a shooting, it would be helpful for police to be able to cross reference a list of suspects with a list of people that have that caliber of weapon, don’t you think? ”
Apparently, the “don’t you think” part has been answered.
Oh, and by the way, where are you going to get your list of potential suspects?
Um… The same way you would in any other investigation. Youvknow, figure out if victim knew killer (The answer to that is almost overwhelmingly yes). Figure out why someone would kill this person. If the victim was killed with a .45, it’s a good idea to find out who owns a .45 at that point. If they say “sold it”, that would be a good time to bring out the meticulously kept records, would it not?
In other words… Police work.
Ok, what if you steal my car and go mow people down? And take the tags off beforehand? And then drive off? It is going to be hard to trace the car then, isn’t it?
Kind of reaching there, are you not?
I AM responsible for who I sell a weapon to in a private sale. See my previous post.
I don’t know what state you’re writing from, but many do not require any kind of check when the sale is a private transfer. And there’s no way you can be held legally responsible for failing to do a backgrond check that is not required.
Hopefully you will never be allowed to make that choice in a position of power.
If I am, I’ll seek guidance on it. That’s what people in positions of power do. With the possible exception of this White House, most in a position of responsibility seek out people who know something about the subject and get advice from them.
I also don’t make mechanical decisions on my car. I let a guy trained in that field make those decisions for me. He tells me I need an alternator? Let’s get an alternator then. See how easy it is?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
But you would if you could right? Your subsequent paragraph does not negate your desire to do so.
Yes it does, considering that I acknowledged that it can’t happen. So I set a more realistic, attainable goal and told you what I wanted to do.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Any more straw men you need me to take a match to, Unc?
April 18th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Robb, that’s happened to me on some sites too. Usually happens if there are five or more links. Might that be it? If so, just drop them in here as plain text— I can copy and paste.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
the can’t does not negate the want.
You referenced a desire for reasonable gun controls. You’ve not listed any. So far, I see pipe dreams and the latest brady talking points, and they’ve each been pretty thoroughly debunked. And you’ve expressed your desire for a total confiscation. Keep tilting at the windmill.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
the can’t does not negate the want.
By that logic, I’m on a fast rack to have a three way in a hot tub with Ashley Judd and Scarlet Johansen. I *want* it, so despite my acknowledging it will likely never happen, it must be an impending possibility.
You referenced a desire for reasonable gun controls. You’ve not listed any.
Yes, mean old Freedonian wants people selling guns to make sure they’re not selling them to felons. How awful! How can these self-proclaimed law abiding gun owners ever hope to prove their worth with a shooting iron if the rest of us try to keep guns out of criminal hands?
April 18th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I have yet to see a strawman argument here. I’ve also yet to see you successfully debunk any argument here. And, like yesterday, you tend to ignore the points that are inconvenient. Conversely, you’re much better behaved and less idiotic today.
That said, the cross-referencing thing didn’t work in MD when the cops (who had the info) went door to door looking for .223 caliber rifles in the wake of the beltway sniper nonsense.
Also, MD’s fingerprinting program has yet to solve one crime. I don’t really care about ballistic fingerprinting from a gun rights perspective one way or the other. My issue is that it doesn’t work.
You are either lying or ignorant. It is a federal crime to knowingly sell a gun to a criminal, even in a private party transaction.
Felons don’t buy guns from gun dealers.
You’ve also made reference to the average killer not being a gunsmith. Disassembly of a weapon is usually found in the instructions. Removal of a barrel on a handgun is part of that process. Again, you show your ignorance.
Your record of transfer scheme will only be followed by the law-abiding.
the simple fact is that none of your proposals will prevent a gun crime. Nor will they solve any with any acceptable degree of accuracy. They are, what most gun control proposals are, merely one more hurdle for the law-abiding to follow. Criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
So, as desirable as that might be (and get pics), do you really want me to point out what is wrong with that ridiculous paragraph?
April 18th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
The most important part of my idea of what gun laws we should have is that they be part of a Constitutional Amendment, which would look something like this:
AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Article 1
The Second Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed. (Let’s start with a clean slate.)
Article 2
The sale and possession of firearms shall be regulated in the following manner: …………………………………………………………..
(This, of course, is the really hard part. I will cop out by leaving this part to others for now.)
Article 3
Except as specified in Article 2 of this Amendment, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in any manner by any entity.
The results of such an amendment are interesting:
The Brady group and every other gun control organization now has nothing further that they could do; they might as well lock the door and turn off the lights. The same goes for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action; the NRA will go back to the safety and marksmanship training that they were founded to do.
If there is a multiple shooting, many elected officials and newspaper editorials often say: “This is terrible. We must pass more gun control.” If there is a multiple shooting after this amendment, elected officials and newspaper editorials will have to say: “This is terrible. We must (something other than more gun control).”
I believe that this is the only way you could get most gun owners to agree to much gun control, since it is the only way that guarantees that “reasonable” gun control will not be followed by harsher gun control as has happened almost everywhere else.
For some strange reason (LOL) I cannot seem to get many gun control advocates to agree with my idea.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Freedie, Speaking of strawmen, do you recall all the arguments you were debunking yesterday that weren’t made?
April 18th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Sorry, folks, but you’re arguing with a guy (Freedonian) who hasn’t the foggiest idea of the subject. Went to his blog (clicked on his name) and found the following:
End gun manufacturer immunity. If my car blows up because of a known manufacturing defect, Ford owes me damages. If a faulty firing pin leads to a tragic accident in any of the states that have given gun makers immunity, nothing happens.
Faulty firing pins don’t lead to a tragic accident. Either firing pins work when you pull the trigger or they don’t and nothing happens. Faulty sears and other parts might lead to an accident but not firing pins, at least not in any gun I ever had.
Force weapons manufacturers to improve the firing pin design on semiautomatic weapons so that they cannot be modified to fully automatic weapons.
Firing pins can not be modified to create a fully automatic weapon. Other parts of the lock are modified to make the weapon fully automatic.
Try pissing into the wind, you will get better results than arguing with someone with no understanding of the subject.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
35% said “friend or family”. Another 15% bought it retail. 2% at gun shows. 4% at pawn shops, which typically try to avoid trading in stolen weapons. I really don’t know if they background check or not, but they should. Another 2% at flea markets. So we’ve got over half of weapons tied to crimes with perfectly legal origins.
And how many of those “friend or family” or “pawn shop” and “retail” purchases are straw purchases? Digging deeping into these statistics, you’ll find the violent felons who got their guns through legal channels did NOT do so themselves; they had others help them.
This is a felony. Why aren’t we prosecuting these girlfriends, wives, friends or family? That is the question you should be asking. We should be doing it. We don’t because it isn’t sexy or look like we’re combatting crime on the 5 o’clock news.
Then you should really save the link I gave you about the $20 background checks. Factor $20 extra into the cost of the gun, and you’re covered. It’s not so hard, is it?
I’m not disputing its difficulty. I am disputing whether it is legimate to regulate the transfer of private property between individuals. The law says I can sell a gun privately as long as I follow the rules and be responsible for the transaction. I’ve outlined the rules to you.
The government is not confiscating your weapons. Every NRA member could vanish from the earth tomorrow and it’s still not happening. Even in the nineties when a handful of semiautos were banned, no one did anything to confiscate the ones already out there. So please get over your paranoia, come back to earth, and have a real discussion.
So if the government never has any intention to confiscate my legally owned property because of shifting winds of political popularity, then they’ll never need to create a registry to begin with. Otherwise, don’t expect compliance.
Fine, call me paranoid. I respect the ideal that there are LIMITS to the power of the Government. They don’t get to create limits (alas, they do it well) but they do need to be reminded they can only go so far/
The reason they didn’t suggest a registry or confiscation of banned weapons from 1994-2004 because it would have been political suicide. Not to mention there would have been a low rate of compliance.
A registry serves no purpose in crimefighting. So we are in agreement.
Well then, if you want to read the bill of rights strictly, then drop and give me twenty before your five mile run, you well regulated militia member, you. Don’t dawdle too long or you’re on KP duty.
Believe it or not, Freedonian, I do consider myself a member of the unorganized militia. USC Title 10 Section 311 defines me as such and if I was asked to serve in some capacity, I would do so with my own equipment and arms.
Just because states choose not to maintain citizen militias much doesn’t make the grounds for civilian possession of arms any less valuable. The core purpose remains even if the militia system is in disrepair.
The purpose of arms is to maintain freedom. An armed populace can not be enslaved easily. With all the power reaching of the Government (as the Left often sees it and not unoften true), I figure you would be agreement with this idea.
When our voices are no longer heard, when the politicians choose to not stand for re-election or stand down, when the Court can no longer enforce its decrees and get those charged with upholding the law to do so and when the People are being silenced or unheeded, arms are all we have left to effect change.
In a just and ideal world, this should never come to pass. I pray it never does.
Believe me, I will! And you better damn well hope I don’t spot any violations— My digital voice recorder is never outside of easy reaching distance.
If you hope to bear witness to some shady backroom deal, I predict you will be sorely disappointed. For help, look for the rifles being carried over people’s shoulders with little flag-like signs sticking out of them. Those are the guns being sold privately. Get back to me afterwards and we can discuss your impressions then.
No thanks. I don’t like guns. I don’t want them. My only firsthand experience with guns was some coward trying to take me out from 100 feet away. His three shots missed— All going into the apartment behind me. Thank god no one was hurt. And when I caught him without his gun, I beat his ass within an inch of his life. The transgression for which this legitimate gun owner thought I deserved to lose my life was dating his ex-girlfriend.
Thanks for being honest. But your dislike and experiences should not serve as a justification to impose even more draconian restrictions than those that already exist.
Plus, all the things that you propose may not have prevented your encounter. Ever think about that? A legimate gun owner could have still taken pot shots at you.
You prosecute the criminal, not his weapon. You don’t send the gun (or knife or bat or…) to jail. You send off the scumbag.
Would you stop at your “reasonable gun control”? If you got all the controls you wanted and a crime of gun violence still occurred without reason, would you throw up your hands and say “We’ve done all we can! No more laws or restrictions can change this! We have to live with the system we have.”. Because if you do, you will be a rare breed of gun controller.
Because they never stop. You’ve already stated you’d like to see them melted down. Do you have the integrity to declare that once this balance point of yours is reach, you will stand by it and not try to cross it?
Um… The same way you would in any other investigation. Youvknow, figure out if victim knew killer (The answer to that is almost overwhelmingly yes). Figure out why someone would kill this person. If the victim was killed with a .45, it’s a good idea to find out who owns a .45 at that point. If they say “sold it”, that would be a good time to bring out the meticulously kept records, would it not?
In other words… Police work.
It still does not remove the issue of probable cause. Who has the records (hint: it isn’t the government)? How do the police get access to them? How does a knock on my door just because I have a .45 along with 50 other people not violate my rights to unreasonable search and seizure?
Do you not see how easily this type of action you propose can be abused? To chip away a little more at the sanctity of your person, home and freedom?
If you support this type of police work, if there was a rapist in your area, would you volunteer your DNA to help narrow down the list of suspects? Or require every male in a 2 mile radius to submit samples in order to narrow dow the list of suspects?
If you think I’m reaching, I’m not. Such things have been attempted in other countries and you can believe there are those who would try such things here in the name of “public safety” and “fighting crime”. Only our Bill of Rights stops them.
I don’t know what state you’re writing from, but many do not require any kind of check when the sale is a private transfer. And there’s no way you can be held legally responsible for failing to do a backgrond check that is not required.
I am in Maryland and I lived in Virginia. And your wrong. I CAN AND WILL be held legally responsible if I sell a weapon to someone I suspect is not eligible to possess it and fail in my duty to validate that they are a resident of the same state as I. Different states have different rules for different types of guns. Here in Maryland, only non-regulated long guns can be transferred privately. Handguns and “assault weapons” require a background check. Virginia permits private sales of all types of arms.
You know, this country existed for a very, very long time with unrestricted sales of firearms without issues. The background check you are so enamored with is a very recent invention. And it was put in place as a gun control measure to PREVENT GUN CRIME.
So, how well did that work out for Virginia Tech? The shooter followed the letter of the law across the board. How did a background check help you here?
You’re reaching in th wrong direction on this. We can agree to disagree on private firearms sales. For the record, I have done several. I am speaking from more than just theory here.
If I am, I’ll seek guidance on it. That’s what people in positions of power do. With the possible exception of this White House, most in a position of responsibility seek out people who know something about the subject and get advice from them.
Would you be honest and fair in that process or would you surround yourself with the people who are giving you the information you are using at the moment?
I’m not bearing you malice. I’m trying to educate you. But if you are going to allow your bias against guns to blind you to the fact that others hold viewpoints different than your own and try to force your views on me because you feel it is right, what does that say about your objectivity?
I too am arguing from my own set of biases and views. But you bear the burden of proof that doing more than what we are now will have a genuine impact on safety and crime that far outweighs the personal cost that the law-abiding citizens will suffer as a result.
If you ban .50 caliber firearms (all types), for example, and require them to be turned in since they have no legitimate purpose, how do you propose to get them? Door to door confiscations? Do lawful owners get properly compensated for the loss of their property (meaning actual gun value plus accessories and ammunition)? Or do they get a “Sorry, these are banned now. Thank you.” or at best, a $200 gift card? How will it be paid for? Do you honestly expect me to submit especially given you have no record that I possess a banned arm in the first place?
How you view the private ownership of guns tells a lot about your views on the world. Yours frighten me more than a little.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I’m a little disappointed to see that the crowd that preaches “personal responsibility” on weapons is so unwilling to assume any of that responsibility when it comes to keeping the streets safe.
Hey, I do my part to keep the streets safe. But if you like, if I ever come across someone holding a knife to your throat on the streets, I’d be happy to keep walking
Also, this notion that criminals are too stupid to switch or mar the barrel is kind of ridiculous when criminals filing off serial numbers from guns is so commonplace that it, in itself, is a crime in most states. Notice our latest psychopath didn’t have any trouble figuring that one out.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Freedonia, 43,000 plus souls die every year in auto accidents. We can’t even get the Governor of New Jersey to buckle up, and seatbelt laws are universal, now. What further set of laws can we enact to prevent the criminal, psychotic elements from dictating what rights we law-abiding citizens enjoy? Your arguments seem more reactionary than logical.
And, how do you know the person who ’shot’ at you (that’s unbelievable, by the way) had a CCW? Why didn’t you report that incident to the police, and have him arrested? How do you justify taking the law into your own hands, by ‘beating his a$$’ within an inch of his life? You admit you are a lawbreaker; should you be prevented from ever owning a gun? I would say, yes.
And, the ‘Free’ part of your nick, seems somewhat abused…
April 18th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Hey, I do my part to keep the streets safe. But if you like, if I ever come across someone holding a knife to your throat on the streets, I’d be happy to keep walking
Sebastian,
You want to know the sad part? You or I would still be likely to come to his defense as the sheepdog. Provided we didn’t have a picture of him beforehand so we would know who to avoid helping. And even then, we probably still would go to his aid, weapon in hand.
I’d bet he wouldn’t even appreciate it either. At least we would be able to sleep at night knowing we had done the right thing.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
No thanks. I don’t like guns. I don’t want them. My only firsthand experience with guns was some coward trying to take me out from 100 feet away. His three shots missed— All going into the apartment behind me. Thank god no one was hurt. And when I caught him without his gun, I beat his ass within an inch of his life. The transgression for which this legitimate gun owner thought I deserved to lose my life was dating his ex-girlfriend.
He was a perfectly legitimate gun owner with a CCW permit. He broke no laws until he committed an act of craven cowardice and tried to take my life from a long distance.
Freedonian, how much of this is true?
Tell the complete story. Something doesn’t ring true in the above paragraphs.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
I have yet to see a strawman argument here.
You mean like insisting that I was trying to ban all weapons? That’s the definition of straw man. None of my arguments have anything to do with that. I’ve acknowledged the impossibility and made it clear that it’s not my goal.
You are either lying or ignorant. It is a federal crime to knowingly sell a gun to a criminal, even in a private party transaction.
Knowingly. Key word there. In several states, it’s perfectly fine not to bother checking.
*At this point, I stepped away from the PC for a half hour or so, so I’ve not seen anything posted in that time.*
Your record of transfer scheme will only be followed by the law-abiding.
And provide another charge to file against the non-law-abiding. That’s not such a bad thing. I would like to see the “personal resonsibilty” mantra lived up to with a little self-policing from the pro-gun crowd.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Freedonian, how much of this is true?
100%.
Her name was April, and she had a son that was three at the time. His name was Shane.
She lived in a second story apartment. I was spending the night over there. We looked up at 3 AM to find him standing over the bed (He had used the fire escape to climb up to the balcony). I jumped up, ready to brain the son of a bitch. He ran out of the apartment.
I put some pants on. She took a few seconds to try and stop me from going outside. I said “F— that. He isn’t going to bother us anymore.”
Soon as I walked outside the door, I started looking around to try and figure out where he was. I didn’t spot him immediately. Took a few more steps, and the window exploded behind me. I was only a short distance fom the door, but I didn’t know where he was firing from, so I wasn’t really sure which direction to run.
I squatted down and spotted him. He was maybe a hundred feet away, standing behind the open door of his car. I started running back towards the door, and another bullet hit the wall behind me. A third hit the door as I opened it.
He sped away once I got back inside, and I called the police. He was picked up on an ADW charge. It was his first offense, so he got away with time served and probation. A few weeks later, he came into the bar I bounced at (That’s what paid for my first two years of college). He gave me an excuse, and yes, I beat the holy hell out of him. He was a worthless sack of crap that couldn’t get it done without a gun.
Is that enough detail? It was fourteen years ago, so I don’t have the police reports handy.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Hey, I do my part to keep the streets safe. But if you like, if I ever come across someone holding a knife to your throat on the streets, I’d be happy to keep walking .
Fine by me. I can take care of myself. If you’re thinking of shooting at someone close enough to have a knife at my throat, I’d be as worried about your aim, well-meaning though it may be, as his knife.
Also, this notion that criminals are too stupid to switch or mar the barrel is kind of ridiculous when criminals filing off serial numbers from guns is so commonplace that it, in itself, is a crime in most states. Notice our latest psychopath didn’t have any trouble figuring that one out.
Yeah, I suspect that a student at a great university probably is a good bit smarter than your average street criminal.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
What state was this in?
April 18th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Yeah, I suspect that a student at a great university probably is a good bit smarter than your average street criminal.
Dude, have you read his play? I have my doubts about that. Plus, as I mentioned, filing off the serial number is common enough practice among criminals to make it a crime in most states.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Freedonia, 43,000 plus souls die every year in auto accidents.
This is a tired, tired talking point. Come on, guys… Put some effort into this!
Accident. As in, a device not meant to be used as a weapon… accidentally killing someone.
If you want to compare cars being used as weapons, you’ll at least have something valid there. Of course, assuming that every murder classified as “other” in the latest FBI uniform crime report was a vehicular homicide (And I’m being generous there— Surely, there was an electrocution murder or two, right?), then we’re looking at a little over 900. Roughly 9% of the amount of murders that took place with guns and 12% of the murders that were committed with handguns alone.
And, how do you know the person who ’shot’ at you (that’s unbelievable, by the way) had a CCW?
Because the police told me when they arrested him.
How do you justify taking the law into your own hands, by ‘beating his a$$’ within an inch of his life? You admit you are a lawbreaker; should you be prevented from ever owning a gun? I would say, yes.
Actually, I didn’t. He came looking for me at my place of employment, where I worked as a bouncer. Where he tried to fight me, he had no legal recourse. technically, I could have called the police on him again after beating him, but I let it go and told him we wanted to be left alone.
So I committed no crime.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
What state was this in?
Tennessee.
Dude, have you read his play? I have my doubts about that.
He is indeed a shitty writer with the emotional maturity of a ten-year-old. Doesn’t make him stupid. A school that good, you’ve either got to be bright, or you’ve got to know how to play a sport. He didn’t look like a football player to me.
Plus, as I mentioned, filing off the serial number is common enough practice among criminals to make it a crime in most states.
Yeah. But most murders are not like that. They’re not committed by career criminals. It’s a guy shooting his wife or girlfriend. Almost 60% of murder victims know their killers. These are not crimes where someone plans ahead and files the serial numbers down.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
You want to know the sad part? You or I would still be likely to come to his defense as the sheepdog.
And I do appreciate that, Matt. Believe me or not, I do. Just know that if you’re the type to do that, you’re not the people I’m trying to keep guns away from.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
The point was, laws require seat belts. A Governor disrespected a law, and suffered mightily. My question, still, is, what laws do you envision that would properly control miscreants and head cases and not weigh too heavily on my rights as a law-abiding citizen?
And, if your little bit of bravado occured 14 years ago, in a state that had CCW, then that perp can no longer have a permit. At least you took that crook’s rights away.
Remember, many people who need a gun for protection don’t go to the gym and work out with their towel-snapping buddies. You might be perfectly capable of taking care of yourself, but what about that 65-year old woman who’s husband’s died and left her alone in a flat, in a bad neighborhood? You, and your cape, might not be there when she need you.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
[...] Great discussion going on at Say Uncle’s place that many of you might want to get in on: [H]ere’s a fun game for you pro-gun folks: Due to some bizarre set of circumstances, congress decides that all federal gun laws need to be re-written and revised. You are elected/selected/appointed as the negotiator for pro-gun folks. And there will be one negotiator for the anti-gun folks. All federal laws will be wiped clean and you two will negotiate what the new gun laws will be. There will have to be compromise on both sides. So, what will you concede? And what is nonnegotiable? [...]
April 18th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
The standard for know is pretty weak. It doesn’t necessarily mean family. It doesn’t even necessarily mean friend.
About 75% of murderers already have adult criminal records.
Oh, and I have to admit I find it odd that the dude had a CCW when TN didn’t pass shall-issue until 1994, which isn’t quite 14 years ago. But maybe TN was like Delaware and Iowa, and did generally issue. I’ll leave it to the folks here who live there to comment on that.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
No, I asked at which point you were lying based on the premise that you first stated an end and then a means. Not an unreasonable conclusion based on the rest of your comments.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
And how many of those “friend or family” or “pawn shop” and “retail” purchases are straw purchases?
Hard to say. I know of at least one shady dealer that made at least 900 illegal sales in a seven-year period. To hear him tell it, over a quarter of his inventory was “missing”. Gun advocacy groups were so outraged at his irresponsibility that they put him on the NRA 2005 board of directors.
This is a felony. Why aren’t we prosecuting these girlfriends, wives, friends or family?
Far as I’m concerned, we should.
I’m not disputing its difficulty. I am disputing whether it is legimate to regulate the transfer of private property between individuals. The law says I can sell a gun privately as long as I follow the rules and be responsible for the transaction. I’ve outlined the rules to you.
I could not sell my car to you as easily as you can sell a gun to me— Without a background check in many states. What could possibly be right about that?
Fine, call me paranoid.
It is paranoid. Know what happened to the dealer I talked about that had 900 violations in his store? Nothing. When the state tried to shut down his shop, the Bush DOJ filed an amicus brief on his behalf when Maryland took away his license to sell, saying he could continue as a “private seller”.
So how hard do you think the government is going to bust ass trying to round up every .38 snubnose?
Believe it or not, Freedonian, I do consider myself a member of the unorganized militia. USC Title 10 Section 311 defines me as such and if I was asked to serve in some capacity, I would do so with my own equipment and arms.
Unorganized? As in not “well regulated?
If you hope to bear witness to some shady backroom deal, I predict you will be sorely disappointed. For help, look for the rifles being carried over people’s shoulders with little flag-like signs sticking out of them. Those are the guns being sold privately. Get back to me afterwards and we can discuss your impressions then.
Very well. We’ll see.
Thanks for being honest. But your dislike and experiences should not serve as a justification to impose even more draconian restrictions than those that already exist.
I don’t know what restrictions exist that could be termed “Draconian”.
Would you stop at your “reasonable gun control”? If you got all the controls you wanted and a crime of gun violence still occurred without reason, would you throw up your hands and say “We’ve done all we can! No more laws or restrictions can change this! We have to live with the system we have.”. Because if you do, you will be a rare breed of gun controller.
I have never made, nor will I ever make, a secret of my distaste for firearms. But I genuinely have no interest in leaving Americans incapable of protecting themselves, their homes, and their family.
In exchange, I ask for responsibility in dispersing weapons. I ask that they be handled responsibly. I ask that all due diligence be taken to make sure they don’t end up in the wrong hands. And yes, there are some guns that I feel have no legitimate self defense purposes. I think law enforcement should be able to serve a legitimate warrant without having to worry about being outgunned.
But I don’t want anyone’s life to be in jeopardy if an outlaw comes into their homes. Do what you’ve got to do to protect your family. While it’s certainly true that if I could make all guns go away with the wave of my hand, I would do it in a heartbeat— But I know very well that I cannot.
I also have a strong distaste for hunting, but I do not condemn those who enjoy it, nor do I want to take their rifles.
My sole interest is in making the streets safe again. After this week, there have been discussions about making sure students can carry guns on campus. Yes, I’m certain it would have stopped this asshole sometiume before the body count hit 32— Just as I’m certain that there would be enough incidents where one or two are killed after a fight to more than make up for that body count.
It still does not remove the issue of probable cause.
By virtue of having police not chase their tails running down everyone that has a certain caliber of weapon, probable cause would be established well before checking the list. If the victim was killed by a .38, you would start off with a list of suspects and find out who owns a .38. You wouldn’t just run around randomly checking all households in the metro area with a .38. I’m looking to speed up investigations– Not bog them down hopelessly.
Here in Maryland, only non-regulated long guns can be transferred privately. Handguns and “assault weapons” require a background check. Virginia permits private sales of all types of arms.
Which proves my point. Maryland has more responsible gun legislation than Virginia does. Like I said— Some states are more diligent than others.
Would you be honest and fair in that process or would you surround yourself with the people who are giving you the information you are using at the moment?
I’m interested in being fair. I don’t think I’ve suggested anything unreasonable. But if someone I know and trust that has more firearms expertise than me (And I’ve never said it was hard to find someone with more firearms expertise than me), I’m willing to listen.
I will not listen to complete abolitionists, nor will I listen to the “I should be allowed to have a Howitzer in a machine gun nest in my front yard” crowd either. I’m interested in solving problems and preventing unnecessary slaughter.
If you ban .50 caliber firearms (all types), for example, and require them to be turned in since they have no legitimate purpose, how do you propose to get them? Door to door confiscations?
Actually, I probably wouldn’t do a confiscation at all. Dealers would be compensated for existing stock at cost, and further sale would be prohibited. As you guys say— There aren’t just a shitload out there, and none have ben used for nefarious purposes so far. But that doesn’t mean that the continued proliferation wouldn’t be a threat.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
And, if your little bit of bravado occured 14 years ago, in a state that had CCW, then that perp can no longer have a permit. At least you took that crook’s rights away.
Indeed. And the world is safer without a gun in that idiot’s hands.
Remember, many people who need a gun for protection don’t go to the gym and work out with their towel-snapping buddies. You might be perfectly capable of taking care of yourself, but what about that 65-year old woman who’s husband’s died and left her alone in a flat, in a bad neighborhood? You, and your cape, might not be there when she need you.
That’s a bit of a straw man, as I have advocated absolutely nothing that would keep a gun out of her wrinkled hands unless she’s a felon.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
The standard for know is pretty weak. It doesn’t necessarily mean family. It doesn’t even necessarily mean friend.
Actually, it’s pretty specific.
Check out figure 2.4 on this page. Family is 12.8%. “Other known” is 30.1%, further broken down into wife, husband, son, daughter, etc. in the chart below. 12.9% are confirmed as strangers. The rest are “un known”, as in unsolved.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
No, I asked at which point you were lying based on the premise that you first stated an end and then a means. Not an unreasonable conclusion based on the rest of your comments.
No, but nice try. Thankfully, most people can read for themselves, so even if they disagree with me on what measures I want to take, they are at least bright enough to realize you just put up a straw man. For I have stated nothing that comes close to a total ban on firearms.
PS: If Ashley and Scarlett are up for it, I’ll post pictures.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
A few weeks later, he came into the bar I bounced at (That’s what paid for my first two years of college). He gave me an excuse, and yes, I beat the holy hell out of him. He was a worthless sack of crap that couldn’t get it done without a gun.
You did not write that he swung first, that he assaulted you and you defended yourself. You wrote, “He gave me an excuse, and yes, I beat the holy hell out of him”.
Was this man significantly smaller than you? Did he strike you first?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I would permit the anti-gunner to make any laws he wants as long as it has been proven to take guns out of the hands of criminals.
That should be a short enough list to deal with.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Was this man significantly smaller than you? Did he strike you first?
Not significantly smaller. I had, at most, 20 pounds on him. And yes. He just wasn’t that good.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
PS: Technically, he didn’t have to swing first. I was a bouncer. Once he refuses to leave (And he did refuse), I was legally entitled to use appropriate force to make him leave.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
You keep using the term strawman. I do not think it means what you think it means.
So, you’ve come on the Internets and admitted to assaulting someone? No wonder you don’t trust people with guns, you can’t be trusted yourself. I think that sums it up. And, as sebastian said, TN did not pass shall issue CCW until 1994. I don’t think memphis was keen on sheriff approval before that. Another lie?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
And the story changes again?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Ahhh, but there is no answer, yet, to my question: What possible laws do you propose to stifle the criminal and insane elements of society, while not infringing on my rights as a legal, law-abiding citizen to have and hold whatever firearm I can afford?
And, you mentioned, yet again, hunting. The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing, at all, to do with hunting. Hunting is a pastime; the 2nd Amendment is all about an individual’s right to bear arms, for his/her own protection, as well as protection from other sources. Whatever souce might desire to trample rights, in conflict with the laws of the land, which are based on our original documented constitution. It bends, but it won’t break without some resistance.
(I just posted a new target, from Cho’s between-killings photo shoot…that should make for some good hole-punching…)
April 18th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Once he refuses to leave (And he did refuse), I was legally entitled to use appropriate force to make him leave.
It is clear you are not a lawyer. Assault is way beyond “appropriate force” and it is chargeable.
I am having trouble with the 100 feet story. A man who is near the same size and weight as you fires threes shots from 100 feet away from his car with the door open. Why? Why not drive away? There is no way you could have caught him.
The idea that a CCW holder would break into a home is also far fetched. Especially in 1993/1994. From your story he would be one of the first CCW holders.
Why would someone risk their CCW? Why risk going to jail? Why risk a breaking and entering charge?
Something doesn’t add up. Until I see something that does you seem to be the teller of yarns and tall tales.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Fredonian,
We are in agreement on prosecuting those who commit straw purchases and unscrupulous gun dealers.
I will take one minor issue with the Maryland dealer you refer to. He did not get to sell his inventory off as a private seller. That is against the law. Private individuals are limited as to the number of firearms they can sell from their own collections without having to transfer them through a dealer before they are considered by the BATFE as “engaging in the business of selling firearms”. General consensus in those I’ve spoken to on this issue as part of my research indicates 3-4 guns in a year is acceptable. Admittedly, the longer you go on doing such a thing, the far more likely you are going to draw scrutiny. It is not an act you can do privately forever.
I could not sell my car to you as easily as you can sell a gun to me— Without a background check in many states. What could possibly be right about that?
I am not liable under Federal law for anything you do with the car. All you need to do is fill out the title, write a bill of sale and let money exchange hands. That’s it. You don’t need to even have a driver’s license to buy the car. But if I sell a gun to a criminal, I could be held liable for that. The same would not apply in your car scenario.
It isn’t the ease; it’s the responsibility. The rules for a private firearm sale is far more restrictive than a car sale. I think you are just appalled at the idea that two people can exchange guns amongst themselves and the Government doesn’t need to be involved.
If you feel a background check is necessary for all private firearms sales, then work to see the law changed to enable that. I promise that I will fight you on that. I have never bought or sold a firearm privately that wasn’t done in accordance with the law. These were from people I knew, we had valid ID for our states and I had a Virginia CCW. The law says I was qualified and allowed to do so. Why should that bother you?
In exchange, I ask for responsibility in dispersing weapons. I ask that they be handled responsibly. I ask that all due diligence be taken to make sure they don’t end up in the wrong hands. And yes, there are some guns that I feel have no legitimate self defense purposes. I think law enforcement should be able to serve a legitimate warrant without having to worry about being outgunned.
Nothing on your list will be an improvement in that responsibility over what we have today.
I will take issue with two areas, one from your blog and one you list here.
You claim that someone should have to show training in order to get a gun. Who offers the training and who gets to decide what qualifies? Before you answer, consider this carefully: the various programs offered by the NRA are considered the primary standard in this country when it comes to training requirements for States that require it in whatever area they need whether it be for concealed carry or hunting.
I tell you that so you can be aware of where most of the training in this country for purposes of competency already comes from. Will you argue the NRA gun lobby power as a result?
But to my point, by demanding training, you are applying a “poll tax” to the exercise of a right by tying conditions to that right that result in denying that right to those who can’t afford the training. We can’t charge a fee to register a voter because it acts as a restriction and discriminates against the poor. Such actions are considered to be Unconstitutional. (I won’t wade into the arena that our existing 20,000 gun laws essentially serve the same purpose).
The second point is about outgunning police. If I own that hunting rifle, I already outgun them. And do. No pistols or “assault weapons” needed. Unless the police are wearing Class III or higher armor, my hunting round is going to tear right through it. That’s a fact. My lowly 6.5mm hunting rifle is capable of a headshot on a human sized target at 800 meters with an expert level shooter on the trigger. It is easily capable of it at 300 meters with a moderately skilled shooter. Should this hunting rifle be banned too?
My sole interest is in making the streets safe again. After this week, there have been discussions about making sure students can carry guns on campus. Yes, I’m certain it would have stopped this asshole sometiume before the body count hit 32— Just as I’m certain that there would be enough incidents where one or two are killed after a fight to more than make up for that body count.
Then we don’t need your restrictions. You acknowledge the solution was to have allowed legal CCW by students. Your follow-up on incidents elsewhere that would exceed the body count saved do not hold water. You need to study the issue of citizen CCW to understand why.
By virtue of having police not chase their tails running down everyone that has a certain caliber of weapon, probable cause would be established well before checking the list. If the victim was killed by a .38, you would start off with a list of suspects and find out who owns a .38. You wouldn’t just run around randomly checking all households in the metro area with a .38. I’m looking to speed up investigations– Not bog them down hopelessly
This presumes you have a list of suspects. What if you just have a gun? Is that enough for you? It isn’t for me. It also assumes you have a complete registry for guns AND a gun with a usable serial number. If it is filed off, you’re at square one. Without a complete registry, you can still not get anywhere. And the presence of the registry sends the message that gun owners need to be watched and are considered to be guilty of “something” without having done anything. They are guilty for simply owning guns.
Which proves my point. Maryland has more responsible gun legislation than Virginia does. Like I said— Some states are more diligent than others.
And Maryland is still not diligent enough for the gun controllers. They still want more. They will demand more even when they get it. Maryland is the 4th most violent state in the USA. Maryland denies the lawful carry of firearms by the law-abiding, has draconian restrictions on firearms transport and so on. And yet, it does not affect the gun crime here. Virginia has much more lower incidents of gun crime and is much less violent overall. There are correlations here.
Actually, I probably wouldn’t do a confiscation at all. Dealers would be compensated for existing stock at cost, and further sale would be prohibited. As you guys say— There aren’t just a shitload out there, and none have ben used for nefarious purposes so far. But that doesn’t mean that the continued proliferation wouldn’t be a threat.
You didn’t answer the question about civilian possession so I will assume they would be grandfathered in.
Since that is the case and .50s are your target, I am going to assume a .490 caliber weapon with virtually identical performance will be ok with you. If not, then you need to learn a little about ballistics and find out why your arguments are not tenable.
Finally, on the militia item, USC Title 10 Sec 311 uses the term “unorganized militia”. It is not my term. The “well regulated” phrase refers to discipline, not regulation in the layman’s sense. It is assume if I as a member of the unorganized militia were called, the commanders would instill the necessary discipline in order for us to be effective.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Just a few quick ones from a long time lurker here.
Freedonians story stills smells. Sebastians date is right on
Tennessee CCW. Passed in May 1994 and I think first issued in October 1994.
Previous to that time you could carry if the sheriff made you an aux deputy, but it wasn’t a CCW.
ADW???? Where I’m from in Tennessee, shooting at someone would be attempted murder. You didn’t even mention the breaking and entering with an illegal weapon.
Things were a little more lax in the old days, but if you beat the cr@p out of anybody in 1994, even while bouncing, you would have probably been arrested.
I would post more guys, but the group here always has the facts covered and always seem to be better informed than Me.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
My compromise would be simple, if you do not care to keep and bear arms, I will not force you as you are free to exercise or not your second amendment guaranteed rights. What you give up is exactly the same thing.
What could be more fair?
April 18th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
More people die from HIV every year than guns. No argument. When are we going to require licensing and permits for concealed carry and registration of human genitals. Until then, I am not prepared to believe any of you that falsely claim you care about the lives of your fellow man.
I have never defended myself with my penis. I have defended myself with my gun. Neither of them have ever taken a life. But I would have lost mine without the gun, and the other has created a lot of life, with help of course. Alas, it was unregistered and of large caliber.
You register yours first. Then we can talk compromise.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
*exits the bus*
April 18th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
which states in this union demand you run a background check on somebody who wants to buy your car ?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Freedonian, you’re a wealth of misinformation
Abrams didn’t make illegal sales, he failed to keep adequate records. If the BATF had any evidence of him actually selling to people he shouldn’t have, he’d have been in handcuffs quickly.
What actually got him in trouble was poor record keeping; there are forms that you have to keep multiple copies of, and for some firearms there are multiple forms.
Every time BATF finds him missing a copy of a document he’s supposed to have four copies of but only has three…it’s added to the number. Every time he crosses a T when he should have dotted an I…it’s added to the number. To my knowledge he’s never been shown to have sold a firearm to a prohibited person. I’d like to see you demonstrate otherwise.
An anecdote: back in 2003 my Glock broke. I sent it back to Glock USA, while living in VA for a couple months. After a couple months I moved back to MD. In the meantime…Glock finished the repair on my gun and asked where to ship it. I told them to ship it to Abrams’ shop as that’s where I’d originally bought it. When my Glock arrived at his shop, he noticed that the address info for where it was shipped to Glock from was my VA address (not my MD address).
While living in VA, technically I should have gotten a VA drivers license, but didn’t.
Abrams broke my balls about it pretty damn hard. Even though I’d only lived in VA for a couple months…he pointed out that I’d broken the law by not x-ferring my drivers license. My Glock had been shipped to Glock USA from a VA gun dealer…and in the time it took to get fixed (a couple months), it was returned to a MD gun dealer (where, BTW, I had to undergo another 7 day waiting period to get my own property back).
Use your brain, shithead–if he was going to break my balls about my drivers license, what makes you think Abrams actually sold 900 firearms he shouldn’t have?
Gimme a fuckin break.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Was wondering that myself. Freedonian is amazingly brazen in his mendacity.
Uncle–are you tolerating his stupid antics for a reason? I must admit…I’m pretty tolerant of trolls on my site too…but there’s a limit. This guy will probably argue the sky is red in a minute.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:03 am
[...] once asked why this site has no trolls. Well, I’m happy to report we do. See comments here and here. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer. His blog is here, if you want to have a laugh. [...]
April 19th, 2007 at 2:28 am
Freedonian: “Just know that if you’re the type to do that, you’re not the people I’m trying to keep guns away from.”
Excuse me for not trusting you.
It’s just that every other piece of unConstitutional gun-control law, to date, has ONLY affected our “type”, a.k.a. the law abiding.
Criminals continue to find the tools they need to do whatever damage they want. And, because of following all of your past idiotic gun-control laws, now violent criminals are free to attack unarmed civilians. When victims are unarmed it matters little if criminals choose to use a handgun to kill a couple dozen or a box-cutter to kill a couple of thousand.
When laws you support hindered the victims ability to remain armed,
the blood
falls
on
you.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:32 am
In saying that, all NRA members contributed to an organization that helped insure the innocent dead at VT remained unarmed.
You might need to go wash your hands again, and again, and again.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:23 am
[...] are some responses to my little thought experiment that I proposed here. Quite a few folks said Sorry, unc, I ain’t playing because I’m one of those shall not [...]
April 20th, 2007 at 12:00 am
ex-fucking-zactly.
Show me where anything freedomwriter has mentioned will stop the criminally insane or just the average bad guy from plying his craft and I will kiss his ass. I would gladly give up every gun I own, and a hobby I hold dear, if it could be guaranteed to get every one. Since that is a non-starter, it holds that I must use every means at my disposal to protect me and mine and possibly a few others. To do otherwise is foolish.
This whole discussion is a moot point. Any reasonable person understands that only the law abiding follow the laws, hell it is in the name for pete’s sake. Criminals by definition are breaking the law and will continue to do so no matter what freedomwriter does or wants or thinks or whatever. His reasoning that it will add another charge is an exercise in futility since if we prosecuted the existing laws even partially, prison terms would be in decades not single years. So there must first be a sea-change in the prosecutorial system of this country and then, and only then, will gun laws be of any deterrent.
Until then, I will continue to protect those I hold dear with whatever the best means available to me up to and including a 50 caliber rifle if I so choose. I will also silently protect those around me on a daily basis. Even those who would deprive me of that very right.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:41 am
[...] response to my question here on what gun controls pro-gunners could live with, Armed Canuck has a lengthy (as in grab a drink) [...]
April 30th, 2007 at 8:42 am
[...] at West, by God comes another response to my little thought experiment on gun laws (see my post here for background). A taste: Take away BATFE’s ability to capriciously write policy. Or, heck, [...]
October 18th, 2007 at 9:03 am
[...] six months ago, I asked: Due to some bizarre set of circumstances, congress decides that all federal gun laws need to be [...]