How Gun Makers Can Help Us

[Hughnon]

I've quoted Sir Robert Peel, here, several times, because of his (apparently outmoded, according to modern Brits) thoughts on what the police force actually is (...that the police are the public and the public are the police...).

Do modern Britons think these principles are outmoded?

 

[Ocelot]

Perhaps Gun Makers could influence their channel partners in enforcing higher standards of accountability when shops deliberately circumvent gun control measures, rather than rewarding them with bonuses for high sales.

 

[Drudgewire]

Perhaps Gun Makers could influence their channel partners in enforcing higher standards of accountability when shops deliberately circumvent gun control measures, rather than rewarding them with bonuses for high sales.

Gun manufactureres sell to licensed dealers. Background checks are required for anyone buying a gun from a licensed dealer (including gun shows, despite the reputation they have from people who have never been to one). A store owner isn't going to lose his license by saying "well, the gummit says I can't sell this to you, but you have an honest face." Even Internet sales require the gun only be shipped to someone with their Federal Firearms License, and THEY have to run the same background check before the weapon is ever shipped.

So ummm... who's circumventing these laws to begin with?

 

[Ocelot]

Gun manufactureres sell to licensed dealers. Background checks are required for anyone buying a gun from a licensed dealer (including gun shows, despite the reputation they have from people who have never been to one). A store owner isn't going to lose his license by saying "well, the gummit says I can't sell this to you, but you have an honest face." Even Internet sales require the gun only be shipped to someone with their Federal Firearms License, and THEY have to run the same background check before the weapon is ever shipped.

So ummm... who's circumventing these laws to begin with?

Well of course the store owners license isn't a magically enchanted piece of paper which evapourates as soon as it detects any hint of wrong doing. The system is human and falliable.

Now to be fair I could be missremembering this entirely but this comes from a show on Radio 4, probably the Today programme. The report covered a campaign in america regarding irresponsible gun traders.

Lets say you've got your gun traders license and you've got guns. I've got a felony and no guns but want one. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to circumvent this law. My criminal buddy, despite being a long standing violent thug has never been caught, never been in trouble with the law and has every right to buy a gun. In some states I understand, he also has every right to sell it on in a private sale, without background checks. In other states might be breaking the law but hello? criminal?

You don't have nationwide compulsory firearm registration yet do you? I think that might make this simple loophole policable.

So you're a gun store owner an in comes my criminal buddy. Once again not a convicted fellon, maybe one day but for today he's one step ahead of the law. So, you'd be within you legal rights to sell him a handgun. Thing is, this guy doesn't look excessively wealthy but in the last few months has spent over $10,000 on various firearms in your shop. All for personal use? I suspect not. What do you do.

Well you're a responsible firearms dealer so you red flag the purchases get him checked out and lose the business. You may lose the commission on tens of thousands of dollars of business but if that the price of saving a life then so be it.

So lets say I have another criminal buddy just the same happy to pick up the business and a fraction smarter. He spreads his purchases around. As he does so he speaks to other people in the same line of work. What's the gossip about? Today it's about who just got red flagged. Yet another one at your shop. We're givng that shop a wied berth they clearly don't want our sort of business.

Shop across town though. No-one ever got into trouble buying there. Is it just a coincidence that they're a little more sloppy with their paperwork. Perhaps they have a political objection to gun regulation or maybe they're just greedy but their selling truckloads of guns and much of it is repeat business, if you know what I mean.

The campaign had identified a number of such stores alerted the authorities and alterted the dealers' suppliers. They were complaining at the lack of any sort of response.

Like I said I may have missremebered some the details, the report may have been hugely biased and misleading though I do tend to trust Auntie Beeb for the most part.

 

[Drudgewire]

You're referring to straw purchases, and because of the uproar a lot of the loopholes have been closed. There was a funny article a couple of years back about some anti-gun activist who went to a gun show and tried to make said straw purchase and found it's a hell of a lot harder than he thought it was. And the penalties for selling a gun to a felon is a lot of years in jail, whether you're a dealer or you're a guy who bought one at a store and turned around and sold it to a criminal.

But whether you're talking about registration or limiting sales, those are both governmental issues and have nothing to do with the manufactureres themselves. They make a legal product, they send it to a legally-registered purchaser. There's no way to make them responsible for anything any further than that unless it involves their product blowing up in someone's hand. It's like blaming cigar manufacturers if someone rolls a blunt with their wrapper and kills someone driving.

But as such, criminals who want guns will always be able to get guns and their value on the black market has little to do with what they cost in a store. These acts do nothing more than either force more regulations or raise the prices of them for people who are buying them legally, and place what amounts to a moral vice tax on a product which has no business paying one.

Really want to get pissed off? In my state, the way it works when I buy a gun is the criminal background check is run, then the paperwork is held in the office for 72 hours and thrown away. The only time they have to report my purchase to any federal governing body is if I buy three firearms in a one week period.

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

So a firearm manufacturer would be financially penalised every time a peace officer or private citizen lawfully uses deadly force? That's stupid.

 

[WildCat]

This is initially intended for law enforcement; as a percentage of police shootings involve their own weapons.

Yep, a veteran Chicago police officer was killed with his own gun this week by a female suspect right outside the police station.

 

[dudalb]

So a firearm manufacturer would be financially penalised every time a peace officer or private citizen lawfully uses deadly force? That's stupid.

Not if your purpose is to bankrupt the gun industry and get a total ban on private ownership of guns that way. Which I really think is the goal of this rubbish idea.
And the guy who thinks this is a great idea on this forum is a Naderite. Justs confirms my opinion that a great many Nader supporters are a bunch of do gooders who want total control over other people's lives so they can "do good".

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Not if your purpose is to bankrupt the gun industry and get a total ban on private ownership of guns that way. Which I really think is the goal of this rubbish idea.
And the guy who thinks this is a great idea on this forum is a Naderite. Justs confirms my opinion that a great many Nader supporters are a bunch of do gooders who want total control over other people's lives so they can "do good".

I have said it before: most gun control legislation is feel-good nonsense that does nothing to make anyone safer (it can even make things more dangerous for some). It's a way for politicians to look like they're "doing something" about crime, without actually doing anything about the underlying societal issues that can lead to crime.


Not long ago, someone was accidentally shot by some gang members who were trying to kill each other. There was a huge outcry for the government to ban handguns, which are already very tightly controlled here in Canada. Obviously, none of those calling for a ban on handguns ever considered that the gangsters will get their guns whether they are legal or not. The only person disadvantaged by this would be the law-abiding target shooter. How does taking away my safely stored pistol stop gang violence in Toronto?


Yes, many folks think they know what's best for others. After all, it's "for your own good".

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Obviously, none of those calling for a ban on handguns ever considered that the gangsters will get their guns whether they are legal or not. The only person disadvantaged by this would be the law-abiding target shooter. How does taking away my safely stored pistol stop gang violence in Toronto?


Yes, many folks think they know what's best for others. After all, it's "for your own good".

Well, I guess we shouldn't outlaw drunk driving, either, since that disadvantages the people who can drive responsibly even though they're drunk.

Should I be allowed to purchase sub-machineguns, also? I only want one for self defense. After all, if some gangster attacks me with an Uzi, I'll be at a disadvantage if I don't have an Uzi of my own. You think I'd be able to defend myself with a puny pistol?

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Well, I guess we shouldn't outlaw drunk driving, either, since that disadvantages the people who can drive responsibly even though they're drunk.

So: All diving is the same as drunk driving, just as all gun ownership is criminal gun ownership? I'm good with that. Lets outlaw the cars first, though, to see how it goes.

...or have you discovered a reasonably safe and useful means of driving while intoxicated?

Driving is drunk because of the danger it poses to others on the road. The firearms in my bedroom pose no hazard to anyone that manages to keep themselves out of my bedroom. They pose no hazard to the little fingers in the house because if they aren't in my possession... in my hand, in the holster on my belt, or under my butt in bed... they're locked up.

Also: The State of Indiana thinks that I pose little enough threat to the population at large, based on my scrupulous past obedience to laws about not doing harm to others, they THEY allow me to carry my firearm out in public.

I am licensed, just as I'm licensed to drive in public.

I don't drive drunk. I don't go around shooting people. About 75 million Americans fit that profile.

There are people who drive drunk. There are people who go around shooting others.

Those are the people you want to stop, and saying that I can't have a gun because someone else is a jackass is just plain dumb.

Should I be allowed to purchase sub-machineguns, also? I only want one for self defense.

Yes, in fact, and you can, in most states in the U.S., already.

After all, if some gangster attacks me with an Uzi, I'll be at a disadvantage if I don't have an Uzi of my own. You think I'd be able to defend myself with a puny pistol?

Depends on the pistol and the gangster.

Thing is: With a firearm, you have... pretty much... no chance of defending yourself against an armed aggressor.

Without a firearm, there's no, "pretty much," about it.

My chances are none, or dead slim. Guess which one I choose.

 

[Drudgewire]

Should I be allowed to purchase sub-machineguns, also? I only want one for self defense.

Man are you ever preaching to the choir.

 

[dudalb]

Notice how whenever somebody wants to take away individual freedom it is always for a good, noble,reason?

I am not against some restrictions on gun ownership. I am particularly in favor of more stringent controls aganist people with a criminal background or severe mental health problems being able to purchase guns,and support closing some of the loopholes that allow this to happen. (A one week delay on purchase for background checks is perfectly reasonable).
But this who idea of banning individual gun ownership is wack...no matter how they dress it up.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Notice how whenever somebody wants to take away individual freedom it is always for a good, noble,reason?

What does that even mean?
What gives you the "freedom" to own a particular dangerous weapon?

I am not against some restrictions on gun ownership. ...
But this who idea of banning individual gun ownership is wack...no matter how they dress it up.

OK, so the argument is really over which guns should be banned, and which should be allowed to be bought and sold by ordinary citizens.
How many of you are going to argue we should allow anyone to possess RPGs, rocket launchers, etc.?

My argument is that the only guns that should be allowed are flintlocks.

 

[Drudgewire]

What gives you the "freedom" to own a particular dangerous weapon?

Hmmmm, I think it's written down somewhere. Can't quite place it. Give me a minute.

My argument is that the only guns that should be allowed are flintlocks.

laffo!

 

[Ziggurat]

My argument is that the only guns that should be allowed are flintlocks.

Just as with the voting age thread, you reveal that you have no consistency. The supposed concept behind the proposed laws in the original thread was that by placing incentives on gun makers, we could reduce gun violence while still allowing gun ownership. That's a deeply problematic position for various reasons already discussed, but now you demonstrate that you weren't even honest about the idea. You do, in fact, want exactly what I suggested this law is secretly trying to achieve: a drastic reduction in the ability of people to buy and own guns.

 

[Drudgewire]

Just as with the voting age thread, you reveal that you have no consistency. The supposed concept behind the proposed laws in the original thread was that by placing incentives on gun makers, we could reduce gun violence while still allowing gun ownership. That's a deeply problematic position for various reasons already discussed, but now you demonstrate that you weren't even honest about the idea. You do, in fact, want exactly what I suggested this law is secretly trying to achieve: a drastic reduction in the ability of people to buy and own guns.

Suddenly the whole "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment makes sense. It's like they knew someday there'd be jerks trying to say "oh well as long as we keep paper-clip guns legal, the people are still bearing arms even though we've made it illegal for them to have real guns."

But since you can't have a militia without real guns it makes that hypothetical (at the time anyway) a moot point.

Thanks Jefferson. You da MAN!

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Just as with the voting age thread, you reveal that you have no consistency. The supposed concept behind the proposed laws in the original thread was that by placing incentives on gun makers, we could reduce gun violence while still allowing gun ownership. That's a deeply problematic position for various reasons already discussed, but now you demonstrate that you weren't even honest about the idea. You do, in fact, want exactly what I suggested this law is secretly trying to achieve: a drastic reduction in the ability of people to buy and own guns.

Huh. I believe if you look at my posts in this thread, I did not indicate anywhere that I agreed with the posted article. I was just throwing it out there for discussion. I think it's an interesting idea, and is worthy of looking into.

However, after reading all the replies, I'm leaning more in the "against" direction. It may be viable, but it looks problematic, to say the least.

I haven't completely made up my mind on gun ownership in general. It's one of the few issues I'm "on the fence" about. I am moving towards the "against" position, though, mainly because of the illogical reactions I get from pro-gun people when I talk to them about it. It strikes me that, usually, pro-gun people are more likely to make emotional arguments than rational ones, while anti-gun people are the opposite.

Mainly, though, I recognize that there IS a problem with gun ownership in the US, and something needs to be done, although I have no idea what that "something" should be: a scheme like that suggested in the article I posted, limits to types of guns you can own, or something else entirely.

Do you think there should be any limits on gun ownership, as far as type?
If so, what do you think they should be, and why?

 

[volatile]

I keep one magazine loaded with them. As this body gelatin shows, it will turn a bad guy's insides to soup.

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/hornadaygel.jpg

What happens if it's shot at a good guy?

 

[Drudgewire]

I haven't completely made up my mind on gun ownership in general. It's one of the few issues I'm "on the fence" about. I am moving towards the "against" position, though,

Then don't buy a gun. Easy enough. Everyone's happy.

mainly because of the illogical reactions I get from pro-gun people when I talk to them about it. It strikes me that, usually, pro-gun people are more likely to make emotional arguments than rational ones, while anti-gun people are the opposite.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!! That's cute. "For God's sake won't someone think of the children" is no longer an argument from emotion.

What happens if it's shot at a good guy?

Then I go to jail for a very long time. Last time I looked, it wasn't legal nor a right granted in the Constitution.