Why are guns made to kill?

[volatile]

Now all we need to do is determine responcible. Was the woman who killed a man stealing beer responcible? As that was found to be a non criminal action it would seem so.

She had a legally-owned weapon, so I guess she must be.

 

[Ranb]

That's not what I've been told. I've bought three guns from the same dealer (right across the street from our state law enforcement headquarters so he's very above board). They do the background check, they retain the records for three days, then they're deleted. While it seems to me there's some sort of paper trail just by doing the check, he hands nothing over and wouldn't have to if he were to ever close......D

When you buy any firearms from a licensed dealer in the USA, you fill out the yellow 4473 form. Remember that? This form is retained by the dealer for as long as the dealer license is held. It is to be produced on demand by the ATF whenever the dealer is inspected; typically every 6 months to four years. Any firearm that is brought into or out of the dealer inventory is logged into or out of their bound book. This record book is also required to be shown upon demand to the ATF. When the dealer goes out of business, the records are sent to the ATF for storage. I was a licensed firearms dealer (FFL) from 1990 to 1994. The paperwork requirements have not been reduced since then. The background checks are better and faster now though.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

But there is no compulsion to register a gun you sell second hand, correct? If you sell your gun, or you buy one at a gun show, there is no corresponding paperwork or compulsion to register, correct?

There are no federal laws requiring any unlicensed person in the USA to keep records or do background checks when selling or buying a weapon unless it is a machine gun, silencer, short barreled rifle/shotgun or gadget gun (AOW). These types (NFA) I listed are always controlled by the Feds whenever transferred.

Some states such as California require that all gun sales go through a licensed dealer and have a background check, thus prohibiting non-dealer sales.

Licensed dealers are always required to keep records and perform background checks whenever selling a gun. The only places they are legally allowed to sell guns are at their licensed place of business or at a gun show. The rules do not change for them at gun shows.

The federal government and most states do not required unlicensed persons selling personally owned (non-NFA) guns to keep records or do background checks.

Some gun shows (such as Washington Arms Collectors) only allow members who are subject to background checks to sell or buy guns at gun shows.

Ranb

 

[volatile]

There are no federal laws requiring any unlicensed person in the USA to keep records or do background checks when selling or buying a weapon unless it is a machine gun, silencer, short barreled rifle/shotgun or gadget gun (AOW). These types (NFA) I listed are always controlled by the Feds whenever transferred.

As I suspected. Once you've bought a gun, you are essentially free to sell it to anyone you want, unless you live in a particularly restrictive state. After first sale, the gun market is more or less unregulated.

Some states such as California require that all gun sales go through a licensed dealer and have a background check, thus prohibiting non-dealer sales.

What is the NRA's position on this type of law?

More generally: do these "background checks" include a corresponding, permanent register of who owns which gun? In other words - can a gun be matched to its owner?

This happens with cars in my country. The government has a record of who owns every car in the country, and it is an offence to fail to inform the DVLA when you sell or scrap your car, whatever the circumstances.

Gun ownership in the US is less regulated than car ownership in the UK. That is very, very scary.

 

[Furcifer]

3bodyproblem, this thread is a gun control discussion. Please try and keep your posts within the gist of the topic. Common sense and self evident facts should be avoided ...

Sorry, the double entendre was too hard to resist. And, I'm usually pretty good at avoiding common sense.

Some firearms are indeed manufactured to kill people. The posession of these weapons for purposes other than a directed military effort is ludicrous. The problem is, given human ingenuity, any firearm manufactured can be made to kill. It seems like an all or nothing problem.

 

[Autolite]

So you are for shooting people who are commiting crimes even if they are just property crimes?

As far as the morality aspect of the issue goes, I don't have a problem with the threat of the use of deadly force to protect property although I personally would not shoot an unarmed robber (Canadian law makes the use of deadly force, or the threat of the use of deadly force, soley for the protection of property illegal anyway*). OTOH, where deadly force is permitted for the protection of property I would have no sympathy if the person carrying out the crime was shot ... (I am talking about major crime here like a home invasion, not someone shoplifting DVDs at the WalMart).

*Whether you are a private citizen, an armed security officer or police, under our laws the use of deadly force for the protection of property is illegal. In the case of an armed security guard for example, the guards are armed for the protection of life.

Lets say that I intend to rob an armoured car while they are unloading the cash. If I am unarmed, the deterrent would be that I would likely be subdued and caught even though the guards themselves would not be permitted to use deadly force.

If I am a determined thief, I might want to consider arming myself (because I want to demonstrate that I am willing to employ deadly force to acquire the cash), particularly if I knew that the guards were going to be unarmed (as is apparently the case in the U.K.). This scenario would provide the best chances for a successful robbery.

OTOH if I arm myself knowing that the security guards would be armed, then I am now aware that my willingness to employ deadly force can legally be countered by the guards' option to employ deadly force (for the protection of life).

I suspect that the purpose of arming security guards is to discourage all but the most determined criminal...

 

[Drudgewire]

Now all we need to do is determine responcible. Was the woman who killed a man stealing beer responcible? As that was found to be a non criminal action it would seem so.

Works for me. I mean I wouldn't have killed someone over that, but then again I wouldn't have stolen someone's beer so I'll save my sympathies for someone who deserves them.

 

[Ranb]

As I suspected. Once you've bought a gun, you are essentially free to sell it to anyone you want, unless you live in a particularly restrictive state. After first sale, the gun market is more or less unregulated.

What is the NRA's position on this type of law?

More generally: do these "background checks" include a corresponding, permanent register of who owns which gun? In other words - can a gun be matched to its owner?

This happens with cars in my country. The government has a record of who owns every car in the country, and it is an offence to fail to inform the DVLA when you sell or scrap your car, whatever the circumstances.

Gun ownership in the US is less regulated than car ownership in the UK. That is very, very scary.

Only title ii firearms controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (machine guns, silencers, SBS, SBR, DD, AOW) have a registry that identifies past and current owners. All other (title i) firearms are not controlled as much unless the states do it.

I am not an NRA member anymore. I know little about their stance on some state laws.

The background checks do little more than determine if the buyer is allowed to make the purchase.

Are there any countries (those not at war) in which cars/drivers who not kill more people than guns? Is it the lack of regulation that scares you or the number of deaths? I do not think that people murder just because they own a gun, they murder because they are twisted nuts.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

.....*Whether you are a private citizen, an armed security officer or police, under our laws the use of deadly force for the protection of property is illegal. In the case of an armed security guard for example, the guards are armed for the protection of life....

Let's I am visiting Canada, and a pickpocket takes my wallet. I decide to resist and grab the wallet back. The thief pulls a knife and attacks me with the end result being (if I'm lucky) the thief getting carted away to the hospital.

Will this be interpreted by the police as defending property or defending my life? Thanks.

Ranb

 

[ponderingturtle]

As far as the morality aspect of the issue goes, I don't have a problem with the threat of the use of deadly force to protect property although I personally would not shoot an unarmed robber

So, in your views, it should be illegal to shoot them but not illegal to threaten them? And is then being threatened with such force can they use that as an arguement for self defense?

OTOH, where deadly force is permitted for the protection of property I would have no sympathy if the person carrying out the crime was shot ... (I am talking about major crime here like a home invasion, not someone shoplifting DVDs at the WalMart).

So you support the woman who shot the guy stealing beer and the man who killed those two men breaking into his neibors house.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Are there any countries (those not at war) in which cars/drivers who not kill more people than guns? Is it the lack of regulation that scares you or the number of deaths? I do not think that people murder just because they own a gun, they murder because they are twisted nuts.

So you shouldn't worry about having a murder rate several time higher than other developed nations, as long at the death rate from automodiles is higher?

And until recently guns where the number 2 killer in this country

 

[Autolite]

Now all we need to do is determine responcible.

Well, in Canada, there are provincial firearm officers (Chief Firearms Officers) who will determine who can or can't own a gun. This is done of course by checking an individual's criminal records and it is based on past behaviour. Also, in order to get a gun licence (Possession/Acquisition Licence) Canadians must pass written and practical examinations to demonstrate that they have a comprehensive understanding of firearms themselves as well as the applicable storage, transport and usage laws. (There is even a separate set of exams for those wanting a hunting licence).

If married or common law, the applicant must have the approval of the spouse in order to obtain the gun permit. As a matter of fact, even an ex-spouse or boy/girlfriend (within a certain number of years) can veto a firearms acquisition. (That's always been a favourite rule of many gun owners).

So there are a complete series of checks, double checks (as in the case of a "restricted" firearms acquisition) and examinations to determine an individuals responsibility with respect to firearms ownership.

Admittedly, there is no guarantee that someone might not "snap" and break the law, however I am not aware of any laws made based on what an individual might do (without a prior history to indicate likelihood). If that were the case, then no-one should possess a driver's licence because there might be the possibility that the individual could drive impaired, cause an accident or even kill somebody. Would you want laws based on this rationale???

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yep look at all the responcible gun owners on the forum

Only if witnesses recognize you did that - it's a skill.
I used to - before Florida law changed - train people how to maneuver into a corner so the perp would be blocking your way to escape.

I am sure that offends you/bothers you. I might feel bad about it myself if the law actually worked, the police always responded fast, criminals did not carry weapons, etc. Not our current world and I don't plan to be the one who dies. (Not an NRA fan but: "Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6."

Re: your last para - you are right if the shoplifter is not armed. The other two are fair game since the armed robber could kill.

The goal of course is to determine how you can legaly kill people, not figure out how to be the most safe.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, in Canada, there are provincial firearm officers (Chief Firearms Officers) who will determine who can or can't own a gun. This is done of course by checking an individual's criminal records and it is based on past behaviour. Also, in order to get a gun licence (Possession/Acquisition Licence) Canadians must pass written and practical examinations to demonstrate that they have a comprehensive understanding of firearms themselves as well as the applicable storage, transport and usage laws. (There is even a separate set of exams for those wanting a hunting licence).

If married or common law, the applicant must have the approval of the spouse in order to obtain the gun permit. As a matter of fact, even an ex-spouse or boy/girlfriend (within a certain number of years) can veto a firearms acquisition. (That's always been a favourite rule of many gun owners).

So there are a complete series of checks, double checks (as in the case of a "restricted" firearms acquisition) and examinations to determine an individuals responsibility with respect to firearms ownership.

Admittedly, there is no guarantee that someone might not "snap" and break the law, however I am not aware of any laws made based on what an individual might do (without a prior history to indicate likelihood). If that were the case, then no-one should possess a driver's licence because there might be the possibility that the individual could drive impaired, cause an accident or even kill somebody. Would you want laws based on this rationale???

You still have not made a definition of what is responcible firearms use. It has been argued here that shooting vandals is respocible use of a firearm.

 

[Autolite]

So, in your views, it should be illegal to shoot them but not illegal to threaten them? And is then being threatened with such force can they use that as an arguement for self defense?

I didn't say that it should be illegal to shoot them I said that I personally wouldn't shoot an unarmed robber. Reference your "argument for self defence" query then yes, of course. However, if I where a stranger in some one's house and I shot and killed the homeowner because he/she approached me with a gun I think that I would want the best defence attorney on the frickin' planet to represent me...

So you support the woman who shot the guy stealing beer and the man who killed those two men breaking into his neibors house. (P.T.)

Please reread my post. I am fairly certain that I adequately presented my views on the subject...

 

[Autolite]

Let's I am visiting Canada, and a pickpocket takes my wallet. I decide to resist and grab the wallet back. The thief pulls a knife and attacks me with the end result being (if I'm lucky) the thief getting carted away to the hospital.

Will this be interpreted by the police as defending property or defending my life? Thanks.

Ranb

Well, if I understand the law correctly then I would have to say that you were defending your life. The thief escalated the threat level buy pulling a knife (demonstrated the intention to employ deadly force). However, the method you used to incapacitate the thief might be another issue. Remember that in Canada, it is highly improbable that you would have been permitted to carry a gun...

 

[ponderingturtle]

Please reread my post. I am fairly certain that I adequately presented my views on the subject...

You believe that such killings should be legal. That fits a reasonable definition of support.

 

[Ranb]

So you shouldn't worry about having a murder rate several time higher than other developed nations, as long at the death rate from automodiles is higher?.....

That is not what I meant. Any murder rate above zero is too high. The death rates from automobiles is rather high. It maybe reduced by further restricting who can drive cars (other than >16 yrs with license), but I do not see any national movements to do so. After all, many developed countries do have a car culture.

Ranb

 

[Autolite]

You still have not made a definition of what is responcible firearms use. It has been argued here that shooting vandals is respocible use of a firearm.

FWIU, where shooting vandals is legally justifiable, there are applicable laws that determine when you can and can't shoot. Is this not the case? Wouldn't these laws be used to determine whether or not the shooter was responsible or irresponsible???

 

[ponderingturtle]

That is not what I meant. Any murder rate above zero is too high. The death rates from automobiles is rather high. It maybe reduced by further restricting who can drive cars (other than >16 yrs with license), but I do not see any national movements to do so. After all, many developed countries do have a car culture.

Ranb

You realize you are moving the goal posts. Firearms deaths does not equal murders.