Gun control poll--please read OP for assumptions.

[gdnp]

Please. The owner would have reported the left of the firearm and its serial number. If the thief were ever caught with the stolen goods, it would be obvious the weapon didn't belong to them once the police checked the hot sheet. At that point, I imagine he would be considered an 'outlaw" whether or not the firearm was registered in some fashion you have never explained.

If the owner happened to know the serial number of his gun. And happened to file a report. Soooo much easier if the gun is registered. Sooo much easier to track.

 

[gdnp]

Yeah. Let's say. This may sound like heresy to you, but the police do not have any additional Constitutional rights than those guaranteed to a private citizen in the USA. As long as your paradigm for possessing something is whether it is necessary in the performance of one's job, then we best get busy confiscating any equipment used by anyone who has an avocation.

We allow doctors and pharmacists to possess dangerous drugs if it is part of their job. We let construction companies possess dynamite if it is part of their job. We let microbiologists possess anthrax if it is part of their job. We allow soldiers to possess RPGs if it is part of their job. We allow fireworks professionals to possess powerful fireworks as part of their job. We allow circus performers to possess dangerous animals as part of their job. So there are plenty of dangerous things out there that we allow trained professionals to handle that we do not allow into the hands of citizens with an avocation.

 

[Drudgewire]

The US has a very high rate of gun crimes and gun deaths compared to other first-world nations. I find it hard to believe that the solution is getting more guns into the hands of the citizens.

It's one of those things I see both sides of. I really don't want easier access to firearms in a time where people seem to be going more crazy by the day. At the same time, I don't want anything in place that makes it harder or more expensive for me to load up on all the weaponry I can get my hands on.

Moral conundrums suck.

 

[Cicero]

We allow doctors and pharmacists to possess dangerous drugs if it is part of their job. We let construction companies possess dynamite if it is part of their job. We let microbiologists possess anthrax if it is part of their job. We allow soldiers to possess RPGs if it is part of their job. We allow fireworks professionals to possess powerful fireworks as part of their job. We allow circus performers to possess dangerous animals as part of their job. So there are plenty of dangerous things out there that we allow trained professionals to handle that we do not allow into the hands of citizens with an avocation.

Where are drugs, anthrax, dynamite, dangerous animals, etc guaranteed in the Constitution as a right to be possessed by the citizenry?

And none of these people are given any of these things unless they are licensed. Just as a person has to have a FFL license to engage in firearm sales. Although they can also do this as an avocation, not a vocation.

 

[gdnp]

Where are drugs, anthrax, dynamite, dangerous animals, etc guaranteed in the Constitution as a right to be possessed by the citizenry?

Clearly not. What degree of weapons possession is guaranteed by the constitution remains a matter of debate.

And none of these people are given any of these things unless they are licensed. Just as a person has to have a FFL license to engage in firearm sales. Although they can also do this as an avocation, not a vocation.

Do you need a FFL license to buy/possess guns? No? Then why is regulation of gun dealers at all relevant to the discussion? We are discussing gun possession by private citizens.

 

[Drudgewire]

And none of these people are given any of these things unless they are licensed. Just as a person has to have a FFL license to engage in firearm sales. Although they can also do this as an avocation, not a vocation.

Don't know about where you live, but you only need an FFL license to have a firearm sent to you through the mail in my state. I could sell my guns to my next door neighbor tomorrow with zero paperwork and as long as he's not a felon it's legal as sea salt.

MAN I love living in the south.

 

[Cicero]

If the owner happened to know the serial number of his gun. And happened to file a report. Soooo much easier if the gun is registered. Sooo much easier to track.

What do you mean happened to know? If they do not know, the dealer who sold them the firearm knows it. Again, what is this magical registration process that you speak of? Since only a few states have this requirement, if a person's legally purchased firearm is stolen, and it is not registered, then they would be inhibited to report the theft to the police.

Why do you want to track a firearm? Only NFA items that have been registered with ATF since 1934 are tracked by the federal government, but the information is confidential since it is considered a tax document. Even when the current owner of the firearm makes a request under the FOIA to have access to the applications of the previous owners, the forms are supplied only after the names have been redacted.

 

[Cicero]

Clearly not. What degree of weapons possession is guaranteed by the constitution remains a matter of debate.

Actually not. Or did you miss the Supreme Court decesion that states the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not a collective one. Private ownership of machine guns/smg's/silencers/sawed off shotguns is still legal in this country as regulated by the 1934 Firearms Act.

Do you need a FFL license to buy/possess guns? No? Then why is regulation of gun dealers at all relevant to the discussion? We are discussing gun possession by private citizens.

Regulation of gun dealers is relevant because they are required to keep track of their sales. You are the one crying about gun registration when individual dealers are already doing this for their own records.

 

[Cicero]

Don't know about where you live, but you only need an FFL license to have a firearm sent to you through the mail in my state. I could sell my guns to my next door neighbor tomorrow with zero paperwork and as long as he's not a felon it's legal as sea salt.

MAN I love living in the south.

Or a C&R license. But how would you know your neighbor is not a felon unless you had them fill out the form and send it in? Would you not keep a record of the serial numbers of the firearms and the names and addresses of the people you sold them to? If not, that is just being irresponsible.

 

[FlamingMoe]

We allow doctors and pharmacists to possess dangerous drugs if it is part of their job. We let construction companies possess dynamite if it is part of their job. We let microbiologists possess anthrax if it is part of their job. We allow soldiers to possess RPGs if it is part of their job. We allow fireworks professionals to possess powerful fireworks as part of their job. We allow circus performers to possess dangerous animals as part of their job. So there are plenty of dangerous things out there that we allow trained professionals to handle that we do not allow into the hands of citizens with an avocation.

Perhaps you didn't get his point. Or, if this wasn't his point, allow me to make it now. Why do cops "need" guns? To protect themselves and others, of course. So by allowing them for cops and disallowing them for anyone else, you have declared the lives of everyone else to be less worthy of protection than the lives of cops.

Since cops aren't special or any more deserving of life than any other random individual, we should either all be allowed to procure firearms, or none of us should.

Equality and all that...

 

[Drudgewire]

Or a C&R license. But how would you know your neighbor is not a felon unless you had them fill out the form and send it in? Would you not keep a record of the serial numbers of the firearms and the names and addresses of the people you sold them to? If not, that is just being irresponsible.

It's the chance you take. If you don't know the guy you're selling a gun to well enough to feel secure he isn't a convicted felon then you deserve the sentence you get when a crime is committed with the firearm you gave him. I'm against straw purchasing as much as the next guy and am glad there are punishments in place for such things.

But as long as you're above board, it's a bit of a comfort knowing gun sales CAN be handled without the government having to be informed. I've never sold a gun, but I bought my first one from a friend I trusted enough to know he wasn't selling me anything he bought from the back of a van. The fact I didn't have to pay an extra $40 to broker it through an FFL and fill out a bunch of paperwork to alert the man was pure gravy.

Think that's a problem? Then stay north of the Mason-Dixon line. Trust me, we're all packing down here.

 

[gdnp]

What do you mean happened to know? If they do not know, the dealer who sold them the firearm knows it.

More and more bizarre.

We were discussing whether the police would know whether a particular gun was stolen. If there is a gun registration process and the person who is possession of the gun is not the registered owner, then it is obviously not a legally possessed gun. Without any requirement that someone whose gun has been stolen do anything.

Again, what is this magical registration process that you speak of?

The one that I proposed back on post #53, of course.

Since only a few states have this requirement, if a person's legally purchased firearm is stolen, and it is not registered, then they would be inhibited to report the theft to the police.

All the more reason for a national registration process for all guns.

Why do you want to track a firearm?

So if a firearm is used in a crime the police knows who owns it. So if the police go to serve a warrant on an individual they know what weapons that person legally owns. So that if a person is stockpiling weapons it can be monitored and investigated, if warranted. So that if a person's right to possess firearms is revoked, it is known what firearms they possess.

That should do for a start.

Only NFA items that have been registered with ATF since 1934 are tracked by the federal government, but the information is confidential since it is considered a tax document. Even when the current owner of the firearm makes a request under the FOIA to have access to the applications of the previous owners, the forms are supplied only after the names have been redacted.

Which has 0 relevance to what information I believe the police and federal authorities SHOULD have access to.

 

[gdnp]

Actually not. Or did you miss the Supreme Court decesion that states the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not a collective one. Private ownership of machine guns/smg's/silencers/sawed off shotguns is still legal in this country as regulated by the 1934 Firearms Act.

You really do need to learn how to use the quote function. It is not that difficult.

Are you stating that one supreme court decision has ended the debate over the extent of individual rights to firearm possession guaranteed by the second amendment? Or that this interpretation could not be revised by a future court?

Regulation of gun dealers is relevant because they are required to keep track of their sales. You are the one crying about gun registration when individual dealers are already doing this for their own records.

What records gun dealers keep are of little relevance to a police officer attempting to determine whether a weapon is legal or not. I wish the police to have that power without subpoenaing a gun dealer's records. And the records, if any, of subsequent sales of gun from one owner to another. Would you have the policeman who pulls over a car call up the car dealer in order to determine whether the car has been stolen?

 

[gdnp]

Perhaps you didn't get his point. Or, if this wasn't his point, allow me to make it now. Why do cops "need" guns? To protect themselves and others, of course. So by allowing them for cops and disallowing them for anyone else, you have declared the lives of everyone else to be less worthy of protection than the lives of cops.

You yourself admit that police have guns to protect themselves AND OTHERS. So your assertion that limiting them to cops somehow makes their lives more valuable than the lives of others is fallacious. Just as limiting the use of radiation therapy equipment for cancer treatment to trained physicians does not suggest that physician's lives are more valuable than anyone else's. It simply reflects that dangerous equipment should be limited to those who are trained in its use and have a legitimate purpose for its possession.

Since cops aren't special or any more deserving of life than any other random individual, we should either all be allowed to procure firearms, or none of us should.

Of course, I have never stated that individuals should not be allowed to procure firearms. Only that they should be licensed to do so and the firearms should be registered. Do you think that police forces give weapons to officers without making sure that they go through extensive training in their safe handling and use? Do you think that they don't track which officer is in possession of which weapons?

Equality and all that...

Are you thus proposing that citizens should only be allowed to possess guns after they have gone through training in their use equivalent to what a police officer goes through? Equality and all that...

 

[gdnp]

Would you not keep a record of the serial numbers of the firearms and the names and addresses of the people you sold them to? If not, that is just being irresponsible.

Yeah, that's what we need...a system for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals that depends on people being responsible.

 

[applecorped]

There is no system that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

[Tricky]

There is no system that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

There are systems that will reduce the number, otherwise, criminals would be equally well-armed everywhere in the world. We know that is not the case.

 

[a_unique_person]

It says nothing about her being legally in possession of a gun and there isn't a state in the Union that allows guns, legal or not in a bar. Yes guns are used all the time by criminals if that is what you meant.

That guy who did the latest massacre was not a criminal, until that point.

 

[a_unique_person]

There is no system that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Way to go, mexico.

 

[Cicero]

Yeah, that's what we need...a system for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals that depends on people being responsible.

Registration of firearms does not keep them from winding up in the hands of criminals. The background check upon purchase of a firearm does that. But of course the mental health professionals do not want their records used in a background check.