Outsider view on US gun problems

Group think can be misleading, however if all but one are going one way, the one is likely to be incorrect. Out of the wealthy developed nations only the US has easy civilian access to guns. What you call draconian gun laws, everyone else calls lax.
Would tighter gun laws suddenly fix the high firearm death rate, particularl between gangs? No. However it would be one step in the decades long process. Other steps include economic reform, better trained police, better education, and reduced racism.
When news articles are written here mentioning the 2nd amendment core principle of having guns so as to be able to overthrough a government that you disagree with, most readers flatly don't believe them. As people point out, proposing armed insurrection is a criminal offence for us.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:
In a very real sense, you and the other shit brained liberals are my enemy. Your mismanagement of most big city police departments and pandering to the one demographic that commits over half the nation's homicides and nearly two-thirds of gun homicides has resulted in cities such as Chicago, Baltimore and Washington DC with mind boggling homicide rates. You then demonize guns, gun owners and the NRA as scapegoats to absolve yourselves of responsibility. Even worse, you exploit the carnage that you created to justify draconian gun control laws and enforcement regimes that are lethal. We went down this path with President Clinton then again with Obama. It appears that we might soon be repeating the process with Biden. The response from gun owners who are profoundly offended by how you are so eagerly pandering to the rioters while exploiting their rioting to demonize and even justify kill us is going to make your worst nightmares come true.

The mentality behind this post is a bit much for me to get my head around...

But let's start here. I say I am your opponent politically, not your enemy... You come back and contradict me and say that I am your enemy.

Hummmm... Let's try something. TFLY, are you committed to both the spirit and substance of democracy with all that goes with that in its constitutional forms as we know it?

Or are you willing to step away from democratic norms and follow someone authoritarian if that would arrange things more to your liking?

Don

-

TFLYTSNBN wrote:
In a very real sense, you and the other shit brained liberals are my enemy. Your mismanagement of most big city police departments and pandering to the one demographic that commits over half the nation's homicides and nearly two-thirds of gun homicides has resulted in cities such as Chicago, Baltimore and Washington DC with mind boggling homicide rates. You then demonize guns, gun owners and the NRA as scapegoats to absolve yourselves of responsibility. Even worse, you exploit the carnage that you created to justify draconian gun control laws and enforcement regimes that are lethal. We went down this path with President Clinton then again with Obama. It appears that we might soon be repeating the process with Biden. The response from gun owners who are profoundly offended by how you are so eagerly pandering to the rioters while exploiting their rioting to demonize and even justify kill us is going to make your worst nightmares come true.

Fly! Are you just trolling? (I hope you are!) Or are these your real emotions that you give free reign here? (hopfully not!

There is so much rage in this post and practically every line is completely detached from reality and talking about an imaginary world of your own invention - which you seem to think is real. OMG)

Please step back a moment, read your post - and think about what you are posting here. And why you say those things even though they are untrue.

Bruno Behrends wrote:Fly! Are you just trolling? (I hope you are!) Or are these your real emotions that you give free reign here? (hopfully not!

He is both trolling and completely sincere.

There is so much rage in this post and practically every line is completely detached from reality and talking about an imaginary world of your own invention - which you seem to think is real. OMG)

Welcome to TFLY-World, where up is down, forwards is backwards, minorities are majorities and math doesn't work as you'd expect.

Please step back a moment, read your post - and think about what you are posting here. And why you say those things even though they are untrue.

He did think about it. Then he made that post. Asking him to reflect about what that post says is pointless, as he will always come to the same conclusions; there is nothing that can penetrate the mighty shield of ignorance and prejudice he has erected around himself.

Dilandu wrote:The reason is simple - there are no serious attempts to formulate any kind of reasonble middle ground between "A-a-a, ban the guns!" and "O-o-o, glorify the guns". The majority of peoples who are not on opposite sides of personal firearms spectre, seems to be generally indifferent to the whole gun question at all. As a result, there is no intermediate solution with which both sides could be satisfied (or at least equially dissatisfied)

The federal government can't even enforce gun laws we have on the books right now. I'm speaking legally here. A criminal defense lawyer figured out that the definition of "receiver" that the ATF uses for prosecutions didn't fit the elements of the prosecution. See the case of Joseph Roh.

There are also basically no consequences for prohibited persons who try and buy guns, completely the 4473, and fail the NICS check. Off the top of my head, 1 in 1000 of those cases gets prosecuted.

Also, in the United States, any gun control legislation that requires registration is not going to apply to people prohibited from having guns.

There's also this:


I'm reasonably sure that in the configuration that she has that firearm, it's an 'Any Other Weapon' according to the National Firearms Act. Assuming that she does not have a valid tax stamp, I think that's a federal felony and a ten year prison sentence. Either she's made an Any Other Weapon or a short-barrel rifle. Depending on the mood of the ATF, if she shouldered the buffer tube, that could be a "redesign" of the buffer tube and a violation of federal law. The same goes for any of the #oneless people that chop the barrels off of their AR-15s.(I'm looking at Karen Mallard here.) Strangely enough, when you mention Karen Mallard to people who support gun control they don't seem to think she should be arrested, charged, and prosecuted.

Of course she could have a Form 4 AOW stamp, a Form 1 AOW stamp, or a Form 1 SBR stamp. Given that she's using a buffer tube without an arm brace or stock on it, I'm going to say she doesn't have any of those, though.

On a local level, there are reasons to not take people in support of gun control and the politicians they elect seriously, either. If you've been following any of the news about CHAZ/CHOP/murderville in Seattle, you've probably seen stories about people handing out AR-15s there. That action is in violation of I-594 (wherever it's codified in the RCW) which forbids the "transfer" of a firearm without a background check. As far as I know, the police haven't arrested anyone for that. Another example from Seattle. They passed a "gun violence tax" and were supposed to make $500,000 a year from it. I don't think they've made that in five years. In Washington, the state requires pistol (and semi-automatic assault rifle, IIRC) registration. In 2019, the DOL was backlogged and needed to enter 550,000 applications into the database.

In the case of Karen Mallard, I know that she got reported to the ATF for making an NFA item without a tax stamp. The ATF maintains a database of all of the people in the United States with tax stamps. I'm pretty sure it's a matter of typing "Karen Mallard" into the appropriate field and getting negative search results. As far as I know, she has never been arrested or charged. So, if someone can record herself violating what is probably the oldest federal gun control law on the books in the United States, and face no consequences, what's the point of having that law on the books?

It's not just the US where gun control fails. In the guise of gun control, PM Blackface of Canada banned the import of coffee. In New Zealand, the police didn't follow proper procedure and allowed the Christchurch shooter to get a gun.

Panzer wrote:

Dilandu wrote:The reason is simple - there are no serious attempts to formulate any kind of reasonble middle ground between "A-a-a, ban the guns!" and "O-o-o, glorify the guns". The majority of peoples who are not on opposite sides of personal firearms spectre, seems to be generally indifferent to the whole gun question at all. As a result, there is no intermediate solution with which both sides could be satisfied (or at least equially dissatisfied)

The federal government can't even enforce gun laws we have on the books right now. I'm speaking legally here. A criminal defense lawyer figured out that the definition of "receiver" that the ATF uses for prosecutions didn't fit the elements of the prosecution. See the case of Joseph Roh.

There are also basically no consequences for prohibited persons who try and buy guns, completely the 4473, and fail the NICS check. Off the top of my head, 1 in 1000 of those cases gets prosecuted.

Also, in the United States, any gun control legislation that requires registration is not going to apply to people prohibited from having guns.

There's also this:


I'm reasonably sure that in the configuration that she has that firearm, it's an 'Any Other Weapon' according to the National Firearms Act. Assuming that she does not have a valid tax stamp, I think that's a federal felony and a ten year prison sentence. Either she's made an Any Other Weapon or a short-barrel rifle. Depending on the mood of the ATF, if she shouldered the buffer tube, that could be a "redesign" of the buffer tube and a violation of federal law. The same goes for any of the #oneless people that chop the barrels off of their AR-15s.(I'm looking at Karen Mallard here.) Strangely enough, when you mention Karen Mallard to people who support gun control they don't seem to think she should be arrested, charged, and prosecuted.

Of course she could have a Form 4 AOW stamp, a Form 1 AOW stamp, or a Form 1 SBR stamp. Given that she's using a buffer tube without an arm brace or stock on it, I'm going to say she doesn't have any of those, though.

On a local level, there are reasons to not take people in support of gun control and the politicians they elect seriously, either. If you've been following any of the news about CHAZ/CHOP/murderville in Seattle, you've probably seen stories about people handing out AR-15s there. That action is in violation of I-594 (wherever it's codified in the RCW) which forbids the "transfer" of a firearm without a background check. As far as I know, the police haven't arrested anyone for that. Another example from Seattle. They passed a "gun violence tax" and were supposed to make $500,000 a year from it. I don't think they've made that in five years. In Washington, the state requires pistol (and semi-automatic assault rifle, IIRC) registration. In 2019, the DOL was backlogged and needed to enter 550,000 applications into the database.

In the case of Karen Mallard, I know that she got reported to the ATF for making an NFA item without a tax stamp. The ATF maintains a database of all of the people in the United States with tax stamps. I'm pretty sure it's a matter of typing "Karen Mallard" into the appropriate field and getting negative search results. As far as I know, she has never been arrested or charged. So, if someone can record herself violating what is probably the oldest federal gun control law on the books in the United States, and face no consequences, what's the point of having that law on the books?

It's not just the US where gun control fails. In the guise of gun control, PM Blackface of Canada banned the import of coffee. In New Zealand, the police didn't follow proper procedure and allowed the Christchurch shooter to get a gun.

You are right about how unenforceable current gun control laws are. I think that is primarily due to the fact that the law is such a crazy patchwork of chaos that can change as you cross state lines. The current system is really designed to fail.

My thought would be a universal system that would

1. Honor the right of law abiding citizens to own firearms.
2. Get guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

To that end we

1. Close the gun show loophole by requiring background checks and the registration of all firearms.
2. Create a national gun registry enabling law enforcement to trace the ownership of firearms used in crimes.

Would this be perfect? No. Would it be completely enforceable? Probably not.

But would it be an improvement on what we have now? Yes. There is no such thing as a system that does not fail at least occasionally. But what I have suggested here would at least be consistent.

Short rant: the gun owners like to talk about their second amendment rights. But there is no such thing as an absolute right. In fact there is no right at all that does not carry with it a corresponding responsibility, something that seems to get overlooked in these discussions.

I drive a car down the road that could careen out of control and wipe out a bunch of kids on a street corner. With that in mind, it's scarcely unreasonable for me to have to get a licence affirming that I know how to operate the thing or do not habitually do so when drunk.

Nor is it unreasonable to ask gun owners to fill out a form and submit to a background check demonstrating that they are indeed law abiding citizens qualified to own the weapon they wish to purchase. Going a bit further it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask them to demonstrate that they are capable of safely handling the firearm.

Don

-

I think I've mentioned it before, and I think it's still the case.

To go duck hunting down here you need to do a course and pass a duck recognition course. Basically, to learn what ducks you are, and are not, allowed to hunt.

The test is administered by the government, but the course is taught by the Sporting Shooters association.

In a similar vein Americans should have to do a gun safety and handling course before they can own a gun.
The NRA already runs such courses, but they should be mandatory.

Annachie wrote:I think I've mentioned it before, and I think it's still the case.

To go duck hunting down here you need to do a course and pass a duck recognition course. Basically, to learn what ducks you are, and are not, allowed to hunt.

The test is administered by the government, but the course is taught by the Sporting Shooters association.

In a similar vein Americans should have to do a gun safety and handling course before they can own a gun.
The NRA already runs such courses, but they should be mandatory.

I had a gun safety course when I was a kid. I forget who sponsored it. It might have been the NRA.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:You are right about how unenforceable current gun control laws are. I think that is primarily due to the fact that the law is such a crazy patchwork of chaos that can change as you cross state lines. The current system is really designed to fail.

Why should the people in California care what gun laws the people in Montana choose to pass and vice versa? If the State of California wants to ban all power produced with fossil fuels, who cares except the people in California?

My thought would be a universal system that would


1. Close the gun show loophole by requiring background checks and the registration of all firearms.

...and that runs smack dab into the 5th Amendment. Requiring the registration of all firearms runs smack dab into the self-incrimination issue of firearms in possession of people who are not legally allowed to own firearms.

2. Create a national gun registry enabling law enforcement to trace the ownership of firearms used in crimes.

Would this be perfect? No. Would it be completely enforceable? Probably not.

It probably wouldn't be enforceable at all. What do you with with firearms that were manufactured and sold before 1968 and were passed down or transferred without entering interstate commerce, and thus don't have a serial number?

What's to keep /pol/ or /k/ posters from taking all of those guns and engraving them with the serial number 420YOLOSWAGLOLZ? How effective and useable would a database be if your serial number search returned 500 guns with that serial number that were made by SUMDOOD?

But would it be an improvement on what we have now? Yes. There is no such thing as a system that does not fail at least occasionally. But what I have suggested here would at least be consistent.

Frankly, your idea isn't even legally workable, let alone practically workable. It's not even legally

I drive a car down the road that could careen out of control and wipe out a bunch of kids on a street corner. With that in mind, it's scarcely unreasonable for me to have to get a licence affirming that I know how to operate the thing or do not habitually do so when drunk.

And, what perchance if you choose to operate an unregistered car on private property? You're not on a road so you don't need a license or a registration.

Nor is it unreasonable to ask gun owners to fill out a form and submit to a background check demonstrating that they are indeed law abiding citizens qualified to own the weapon they wish to purchase. Going a bit further it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask them to demonstrate that they are capable of safely handling the firearm.

That sounds remarkably like putting a frog in a pot of cold water and turning on the stove to me.

While we're at it, we should have a literacy test in order to exercise your First Amendment rights. After all, if you're responsible for what you say, you should have to know what you're saying, right? While we're at it, why don't we have a "cooling off period" for speech. People need to be careful what they say because it can hurt other people. Also, we need to register every computer, printer, copy machine, or other device for reproducing printed text and imagery because people can use them to create fraudulent documents or fake money.

Hi Panzer. Rather than put up a wall of text I will reply without it.
Our experience in Australia does have some resonance. Similarities include - English speaking democracy, rural pioneer history, a Constitution, citizens who own firearms (me), and a free press (ours is controlled by Murdock like yours).
Difference include - we don't worship our Constitution (or have much of any religion for that matter), and regard the concept of citizens having firearms with the express intention of being able to overthrow a democratically elected government as treasonous.
With those in mind, we did have a gun buy back a couple of decades ago, banning semi auto guns for private citizens. Hand guns were already heavily controlled.
I handed in two semi auto AK47 type clones, and registered all my other guns. Last year I was inspected by our state police. All very polite, giving two day's notice, checked the serial numbers and my secure storage, tick of approval, all good.
I did regret losing my toys, but have since realised that it is much less likely that a nutter or a disaffected 18 year old living nearby will have access to similar, so I and mine are safer.
Looking at the US from afar it seems that gun control is a lost cause there, as, even if most people wanted it, there would be many millions who didn't cooperate. Never give an order that you know will be disobeyed.
Given that your death from firearms is so many times higher than ours, it would be good if you could rein it in, but I agree it wouldn't work.
One comment you made that I can see a flaw in is the issue of different rules for different states. When people can drive across a dozen states without any customs or searches it is obvious that the rules should be nation wide.