- Meanwhile, there is another loophole in federal law (backed by the NRA) that has been exploited some 15,000 times over the last five years, according to the Everytown for Gun Safety advocacy group — and that allowed Dylann Roof, the alleged Charleston gunman, to buy his weapons.
My main concern with barring sales until the background check is complete is that it will create a way for the federal government to bar sales. Why does it take more than 3 business days to tell someone yes or no as to whether or not there is a criminal history? If instead of placing more burdens on law-abiding citizens the FBI were ordered to improve their response time then I would be much more interested in that approach. As for the private sales I agree that the loophole should be closed. I would like to see some more creative approaches than currently stand though. When you look at how you would verify that there was a background check made for the transfer of a fire arm you have to know who owns what gun, and when that changed. That's not something I'm okay with. Gun registration is the first step in gun collection. That's a biased article from the NRA, but the Huffington post argument against it was just as bad. You'll have to ignore most of the nonsense and get down to the meat which is: "New York City has experience in this arena. In the mid-1960s, street crime was rising rapidly there as in most of the rest of the nation. The people who were perpetrating muggings in Central Park and robbing liquor stores in Queens were not the decent, law-abiding gun owners of New York City. Nevertheless, the New York City Council and anti-gun Mayor John Lindsay enacted long gun registration. The per-gun fee was just a few dollars. The politicians promised that gun registration could help solve crimes and, even if it didn’t, registration was harmless. After all, it was just registering guns, not confiscating them. As registration did nothing to solve crime or stop criminal use of guns, crime continued to get worse in the city. So in 1991, with the city becoming increasingly unlivable, Mayor David Dinkins attempted to make himself think he was tough on crime, this time by pressuring the City Council to enact a ban on so-called “assault weapons” (such as the M1 carbine). After that, the New York state police used registration lists to conduct home inspections of every individual whose registered gun had been outlawed. The police were ensuring that the registered guns had been moved out of the city or already surrendered to the government. Gun confiscation is much easier if guns have first been registered. Pete Shields, past president of the Brady Campaign, explained in 1977, “The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition—except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors—totally illegal.” (Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, p. 58.) (At the time, Shields’ group was called the National Council to Control Handguns. It later changed its name to Handgun Control, Inc., then later changed it again to the Brady Campaign.) Shields was right to identify registration as a first step toward confiscation. In Great Britain, registration lists were used for the confiscation of every handgun and every semi-automatic long gun." I want to prevent crime but I am not convinced that it is best handled in the ways presented.
Howdy j4d3! I hope your night has been going well. Do you mind if I throw some advice your way? It seems like the subject of gun control is a very important issue for you and even though you and I are on separate pages here, I really want you to feel encouraged to explore the subject. It's an important issue that affects a lot of people, I think not only here in The States, but worldwide. So if you could give this an honest read, I'd much appreciate it. One of the crazy things about guns and discussing them is that everyone has an opinion on the subject and those opinions vary wildly. There are people out there who believe that the world would be a much better place if we beat all of our swords into plowshares, while there are others who want to hold steadfastly on their rights to purchase, own, and enjoy firearms with little to no interference. Then there are people in the middle ground, like me, who believe that guns have their place, but that temperance and well thought out laws in regards to guns also have their place. So here's where it gets crazy. When it comes to talking about guns, no matter what position you take, if you want to talk about them seriously, you really need to know your facts. There's tons of them out there, and whether you're pro gun or pro gun control, there's someone that can out debate you on the subject if you're looking to fight about the matter. I want to preface this by addressing your response to yellowoftops insightful post. It's awesome that you understand where your viewpoints are and where they might clash with others when it comes to terms of opinions. When you understand what your own personal biases are and why they are what they are, you can use that knowledge to help reduce the kneejerk reactions you have when it comes to discussing issues you care deeply about. That said, as yellowoftops has pointed out, this particular crime was committed with a handgun and not an assault rifle. That's a very important distinction to make, as the types of firearms people can purchase do vary based upon factors such as state and federal laws, as well as the age of the purchaser. I'm kind of getting the idea that you think our government is loosey goosey with creating laws when it comes down to guns. The fact is, you couldn't be further from the truth. Guns here in The States are tightly regulated, some states (California for instance) being much tighter than others (Wisconsin). However, even the "less regulated" states have tons of laws that say what you can and can't do with guns. If I went into every last bit of detail and went and pulled up sources for everything, we'd be here all night. Suffice to say, there are laws that regulate the purchasing, selling, shipping and transportation of guns, modifying guns, and on and on and on. Most of those laws are federal, though individual states have a lot of say in the matter as well where they feel it is prudent. Speaking of State laws, some states have even stricter laws than the federal laws. Then there are things like state reciprocity laws in regards to concealed carry, that is if you live in Wisconsin and have a concealed carry license, that license may be considered valid in some states and not valid in others. For the people who own firearms and have a respect for the law, there is a lot to know and take in, and while a lot of people might gripe saying that some laws are too ridiculous, for the most part they'll follow them because the consequences of neglecting to do so can be quite severe. If you want, what I'm going to do is stop here, because I don't want you to feel like I'm lecturing you. I am however going to throw a few links your way for you to peruse if you so wish, and I do hope you do because I think it's great to be well informed on the issue of guns. I will tell you though, that I'm no expert, so if you want to get deeper and more detailed information, you might want to find yourself someone a bit more qualified. I promise you though, they're a dime a dozen so you wouldn't have too hard of a time doing so. The federal agency that oversees the sales of firearms is the ATF. Some people would argue, though I wouldn't know myself, that out of all the federal agencies the ATF is full of the most strict and hard assed agents. Form 4473 is the standard "Background Check" form that every person has to fill out every time they purchase a firearm through a licensed gun shop. It goes into the basics like name, address, etc. and then it gets into some finer details, such as criminal history. While it's a felony to lie on this form, some people get around it through "Loopholes" such as purchasing a gun from a private seller or having someone purchase a gun in their name on your behalf, also known as a "Straw Purchase." The Second Amendment Foundation is a foundation that is concerned about protecting the rights of gun owners. What the EFF is to technology, they are to guns. The NRA started out as a sportsman group but it eventually became the biggest gun lobbyist group in The States. I feel it can honestly be argued that at this point, they're more concerned with the rights and interests of gun manufacturers than they are concerned with the rights of individual gun owners, but the waters on this issue are a bit murky, as they're closely tied together. Here's a breakdown on Concealed Carry and here's a breakdown on Open Carry. To the very right of the Open Carry link is a list of a ton of articles about the various Gun Laws that have been passed in The States over the years. It's definitely worth checking out if you have a free Sunday afternoon. I really feel like I'm bombarding you with a wall of text here, so I'll leave things as they are. However, I want to encourage you to keep on talking about this issue in hopes that not only will you be able to sharpen your own debate skills on this particular subject, but can also come to a better understanding about guns, the rights of gun owners, and laws in general. I hope you're having a great night man and I hope you keep doing what you're doing, cause let's face it, you're kind of awesome.If you think Dylann Roof should have been able to buy an assault weapon, I'm not sure we're going to find common ground.
The assault rifle thing was based on yellowoftops' comment, wherein he suggested that limits on quote-unquote assault rifles shouldn't exist, and that if a background check doesn't go through in three days, that person should get a gun. Ipso hence-o, Dylann Roof should have an assault rifle. I'm not reading much past that part of your comment, as it's dinner time, and I'm not interested in arguing about this with people who suggest that I don't know what guns even are. My dad killed himself with a gun. I "grew up with guns". I know what they are.
Ah. Gotcha. I didn't catch that part. You do what you need to, you be you. I'm really sorry for your loss. I can't stress that enough. Though in my defense, I didn't say I think you don't know what guns are. I'm just trying to help you get a better base understanding of some of the laws, issues, and concepts around gun control as you seemed to have struggled formulating strong arguments in the last gun thread you posted. The links will stay up there for you to use if you want to check them out, if you don't though, I understand. Here's hoping you have a great night though and that you enjoy your dinner. I bet it's both delicious and filling.The assault rifle thing was based on yellowoftops' comment, wherein he suggested that limits on quote-unquote assault rifles shouldn't exist, and that if a background check doesn't go through in three days, that person should get a gun. Ipso hence-o, Dylann Roof should have an assault rifle.
I'm not interested in arguing about this with people who suggest that I don't know what guns even are. My dad killed himself with a gun. I "grew up with guns". I know what they are.
I can't get used to the main concern being the loss of guns, rather than the loss of life. Where I'm from, guns are regulated. They're also used for sport, and hunting. We respected guns enough to know when enough was enough. We valued people's lives more.
Well, to be honest tla, it's not just about the concern of the loss of guns. It's also a concern about what a lot of people view as a general erosion of personal rights. When you combine that with an inherent, culturally ingrained distrust of the government, things start to get real sticky real quick.
It's okay to disagree about gun ownership, but that's actually kind of an unfair statement to make. As I was explaining to j4d3, here in The States law abiding gun owners have a ton of responsibilities because of both State and Federal regulations. We're not as willy nilly about guns as a lot of people, Americans included, think. When you couple that with the fact that there are a multitude of factors that preclude a person from being allowed to legally purchase a gun, it really isn't a black and white issue at all.
Well, the 2nd Amendment reads as . . . So the "well regulated" part isn't about regulating the right to bear arms, but maintaining a strong militia. Where people get upset about gun regulation is the part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Many people see any laws that dictate what we can and can't do with firearms as exactly that, infringing. The whole issue is very difficult as you can no doubt guess. The brevity of the amendment has left it up for a hot, contentious debate for pretty much the whole history of the nation. Wikipedia actually has a great breakdown on the issue.A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The concept of a militia is so archaic at this point that we don't even have well regulated militias anymore. We have a standing army. And a standing navy. A standing air force . . . the marines. Hell, we even have the Coast Guard, so isn't that like 2 navies? At any point, unfortunately a lack of guns doesn't necessarily mean there won't be tragedies involving schools and other large public places. People who want to be brutally awful will find a way.
War and I both discovered, in the last gun thread that j4d3 posted, that the potential effects of Gun legislation can be ambiguous at best. Australia seems to be a decent case study, though I have to admit that's the only one we really looked in depth into. I think maybe tomorrow, if I have some free time, I'll read up on how gun laws have affected various nations.
Well, as I said in the other thread, I'm all for closing both the Gunshow and the Private Sale loophole. I think both of those are perfectly sound, logical steps. The whole background check completion act also seems like a good idea. Though the concerns that many have, as illustrated by yellowoftops, are indeed valid and shouldn't just be brushed aside. We've seen lately just how little the government really cares about the rights of individuals when it comes to things like privacy (NSA) and jurisprudence (Civil Asset Forfeiture) among other issues. We have a right to be wary.
I don't think he should have been able to buy an assault weapon. He didn't in the first place, he bought a pistol. But I don't think he should have bought that either. I think the FBI should have done their duty in the background check within the allotted time and stopped him right there.
Ideally, wouldn't the Privacy Act of 1974 prevent that from happening? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but not everyone has to wait 3 days? And in the situations where there is a 3 day wait, it's often touted that as a bonus because it allows the purchaser to cool off in case they're thinking of buying a firearm to do something rash. Edit: Ah. It looks like waiting periods are one of those State by State things. Some states have them, others don't.
I was surprised to find waiting periods were a State thing. I'm from the great state of Missouri where the only thing that stops me from buying a handgun on my lunch break is my wife's cold stare of disappointment that I would waste money like that. However when I lived in Florida, I bought a pistol on the internet and it was delivered to an FFL in the area. It took the gun a week to arrive which I expected, but it was incredibly stupid that I then had to wait an additional three days to buy the gun from the FFL. I get what they're trying to do, to prevent crimes of passion, but come on! I ordered it on the internet. That three days figure originally mentioned is the length of time that the FBI has before an FFL can legally sell someone a gun without a fully complete background check. So if you buy a pistol and the run the check, but the FBI doesn't give a yes or no, you don't have to continue to wait forever. They can sell you the pistol after three days.
You know, I wonder if that policy is in place so that the FBI and ATF can't keep people's status in limbo through lack of action. Bureaucratic systems are the absolute pros when it comes to stall tactics. So if you buy a pistol and the run the check, but the FBI doesn't give a yes or no, you don't have to continue to wait forever. They can sell you the pistol after three days.
That's exactly what it is. Which is why a lot of small gun shops don't resist selling to an incomplete background check, but Wal-Mart will resist it. Wal-Mart isn't making a statement by selling guns, but pursuing profits. The gun shop does not exist simply to sell firearms, but to make a statement of support for firearms. They host safety classes, concealed carry classes, etc., and they participate in lobbying groups where Wal-Mart wouldn't. That's why for me changing the background check period to 30 days like in California is a mistake. It's an undue burden on the buyer and is a cost at his or her expense which simply keeps the state from improving their response time to requests.
I think if this was 50-100 years ago, a 30 day period would seem somewhat reasonable. However, in this day and age, with the speed of communication and the amount of readily accessible information the government has, 30 days might as well be a year.That's why for me changing the background check period to 30 days like in California is a mistake. It's an undue burden on the buyer and is a cost at his or her expense which simply keeps the state from improving their response time to requests.