Any chance for a reasonable discussion about guns?

Javelin said:

In reply to stroker :

Second, in more than one recent shooting, the background check failed to function properly (that raises some interesting questions as to why the background check failed to identify the perp but nobody seems to want to discuss that

I've discussed that numerous times in this thread. The big one is the 3-day "Proceed to Sale" provision in the Federal check. Multiple shooters have purchased a firearm knowing they would not pass the check, but applied on an advantageous date in order to get a weapon before the check came back.

Second is that only federally licensed firearms dealers have to do a check at all. There are multiple areas, such as the entire state of Arizona, that are firearms sanctuaries so they have state licensed (not federal) and ergo no checks, let alone dealers that operate as "private sellers", gun shows, and 3rd party purchases.

Finally, there is no universal background check. From what I've been able to find, only 1 state even checks all of their own databases (DOC, Juvenile, court orders) AND the Federal ones before issuing a pass. 19 states don't even use the Federal system (instead relying on their own LEO's to check the databases) and NO states cross check with each other. 

So unless you've been convicted of a Federal crime that results in a loss of your 2A rights AND try to buy a weapon in a state that actually checks AND happen to apply when they can actually get it back to the dealer before 3 days are up, then it's ridiculously easy to purchase a firearm in this country.

From GunPolicy.org on Arizona:

Background Checks in Arizona

Federal law requires federally licensed firearms dealers (but not private sellers) to initiate a background check on the purchaser prior to sale of a firearm. Federal law provides states with the option of serving as a state "point of contact" and conducting their own background checks using state, as well as federal, records and databases, or having the checks performed by the FBI using only the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System ("NICS") database. (Note that state files are not always included in the federal database.)

Arizona is not a point of contact state for the NICS. Arizona has no law requiring firearms dealers to initiate background checks prior to transferring a firearm. As a result, in Arizona firearms dealers must initiate the background check required by federal law by contacting the FBI directly.

Federal law does not require dealers to conduct a background check if a firearm purchaser presents a state permit to purchase or possess firearms that meets certain conditions. As a result, concealed weapon permit holders in Arizona are exempt from the federal background check requirement when purchasing a handgun. (Note, however, that people who have become prohibited from possessing firearms may continue to hold state permits to purchase or permit firearms if the state fails to remove these permits in a timely fashion.)

General US status for background check responsibilities -

We can significantly reduce the number of school shootings by tactics like locking down schools. 
 

We CAN'T significantly reduce the number of deaths caused by firearms related injuries by locking down schools, because the overwhelming majority of these are deaths that DID NOT OCCUR AT SCHOOLS.  

Heck, the majority didn't even have anything to do with mental illness.  Just childish curiosity and careless storage of a firearm.  Which requires COMPLETELY different approaches and solutions. 

Javelin said:

In reply to stroker :

Second, in more than one recent shooting, the background check failed to function properly (that raises some interesting questions as to why the background check failed to identify the perp but nobody seems to want to discuss that

I've discussed that numerous times in this thread. The big one is the 3-day "Proceed to Sale" provision in the Federal check. Multiple shooters have purchased a firearm knowing they would not pass the check, but applied on an advantageous date in order to get a weapon before the check came back.

Second is that only federally licensed firearms dealers have to do a check at all. There are multiple areas, such as the entire state of Arizona, that are firearms sanctuaries so they have state licensed (not federal) and ergo no checks, let alone dealers that operate as "private sellers", gun shows, and 3rd party purchases.

Finally, there is no universal background check. From what I've been able to find, only 1 state even checks all of their own databases (DOC, Juvenile, court orders) AND the Federal ones before issuing a pass. 19 states don't even use the Federal system (instead relying on their own LEO's to check the databases) and NO states cross check with each other. 

So unless you've been convicted of a Federal crime that results in a loss of your 2A rights AND try to buy a weapon in a state that actually checks AND happen to apply when they can actually get it back to the dealer before 3 days are up, then it's ridiculously easy to purchase a firearm in this country.

Okay, so it sounds like you're butting up against the 10th Amendment.  I can understand your frustration with the inefficiency of the arrangement but I don't think you're going to get SCOTUS to fix that problem.  Assuming that, what's your proposed solution?

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.  When I said "nobody wants to talk about that" I meant the national dialog on why background checks fail, not the GRM dialog.  Apologies. 

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to barefootcyborg5000 :

A lot of us spend ridiculous amounts of money to build cars, and feed tires to, to drive for 180 seconds once a month...

Don't make me break out the Batman slapping Robin meme...

In reply to SV reX :

Adam Lanza shot his way into a locked school.  The uvalde guy got in because someone breached protocol and left a door unlocked. 
 

But maybe you are correct. Inner city schools are pretty locked down. They have metal detectors.  How many of this shootings have happened there?  Not many by memory. I could be very wrong. 
 

about other kids getting shot, so many causes. Gang crime, bystander, but you also mentioned curiosity.   I'm not sure what the state of laws are in this country but seems like an opportunity to hold parents liable if their kids get ahold of their guns and becuse of careless storage.   I know many places hold parents legally liable for truancy, kinda the same thing. 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

What the hell was that?

 

I hope he finds the help he needs with the right therapist. 

That is reality.  You are in denial.  50 million plus shot in the back of the head and pushed into ditches they dug, and you want to bury your head in the sand.  And you all like to call others shiny and happy.  

Godwin's law.   I don't know how we go from dead kids to hitler but here we are.  

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Actually, I think he's referring to Stalin and Mao.

In reply to stroker :

You're right.  But that's an even weirder reference to make. 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

In what way?

Do you not see the right to bear arms as a protection against an oppressive government?

In reply to Toyman! :

No. Not in the least. Personal gun ownership will provide zero protection from the US Govt, should it decide to be truly oppressive. 

Toyman! said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

In what way?

Do you not see the right to bear arms as a protection against an oppressive government?

 

I don't buy these fantasies.  I do think they are very useful for selling guns and ammunition and special "patriot" branded items and t shirts and the like. 

the best defense against an oppressive government is have multiple passports in a few nationalities.   

Fueled by Caffeine said:

In reply to SV reX :

Adam Lanza shot his way into a locked school.  The uvalde guy got in because someone breached protocol and left a door unlocked. 
 

But maybe you are correct. Inner city schools are pretty locked down. They have metal detectors.  How many of this shootings have happened there?  Not many by memory. I could be very wrong. 
 

about other kids getting shot, so many causes. Gang crime, bystander, but you also mentioned curiosity.   I'm not sure what the state of laws are in this country but seems like an opportunity to hold parents liable if their kids get ahold of their guns and becuse of careless storage.   I know many places hold parents legally liable for truancy, kinda the same thing. 

Inner city schools don't suffer from affluenza, maybe?

Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Toyman! :

No. Not in the least. Personal gun ownership will provide zero protection from the US Govt, should it decide to be truly oppressive. 

I dunno, the kid with a gun at Uvalde did a pretty good job of keeping the government away.

Judging by the stickers I see, most people who are vocally pro 2a are also vocally pro-government-oppression.

What I think Anthony GS is trying to convey is that it seems odd that it's okay to be passionate about school children from getting killed by a madman, but not okay to be passionate about when governments kill people by the millions (including children.) History tells us that both of those things happen. Unfortunately, trying to prevent one can increase the likelihood of the other. I don't think anyone here wants either to happen. But to ignore it and say it can't happen to us is to ignore history. It would be like saying "My state has not had a school shooting so we don't need to worry about it." The trick is to find ways to minimize the odds of both without increasing the odds of the other. 
 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

I didn't say schools ARE locked down. I said they could be, but locking them down would not address the majority of child deaths from firearm related incidents. 
 

You are an engineer. Certainly you understand that we need to identify the problem to attempt a solution. 
 

If the problem we are trying to address is kids dying from firearm related incidents, then schools (or AR-15s) aren't a very large part of the problem. 
 

If scary black guns are the problem we are trying to address, that's a completely different problem (and a pretty small percentage of child deaths from firearm incidents)

In reply to SV reX:

I agree with you   All too often we treat symptoms instead of real problems

this is a multi variable equation, I fear.  

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Toyman! :

No. Not in the least. Personal gun ownership will provide zero protection from the US Govt, should it decide to be truly oppressive. 

 

 

Judging by the stickers I see, most people who are vocally pro 2a are also vocally pro-government-oppression.

Totally. 
 

An interesting opposite view can be found in these two subreddits. 
 

https://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/ 

and

https://www.reddit.com/r/SocialistRA/

And I will jump back in with the "most people who purposely set forth to murder strangers suffer from some sort of mental health disorder" statement. 

Curiosity? Not a mental health disorder.

Suicide? Near 100% chance it is a mental health disorder. 

Gang violence? Grey area. So much of gang violence stems from megalomaniacal leaders who resort to force to enact will. Many followers do so because they have been groomed by the alphas, their peers and society for this fate. You can supplant religious violence with gang violence in this statement as well. Is it a mental health issue? Not directly but indirectly. 

Fueled by Caffeine said:

Toyman! said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

In what way?

Do you not see the right to bear arms as a protection against an oppressive government?

 

I don't buy these fantasies.  I do think they are very useful for selling guns and ammunition and special "patriot" branded items and t shirts and the like. 

the best defense against an oppressive government is have multiple passports in a few nationalities.   

Then you and Anthony don't have a common ground to start a discussion. By your statement, you have dismissed his reasoning without ever listening to what he is saying. You don't have to agree to have a discussion but you do have to listen and understand both sides. Otherwise you are just shouting at yourself because the other guy stopped listening as well. 

QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

And I will jump back in with the "most people who purposely set forth to murder strangers suffer from some sort of mental health disorder" statement. 

Curiosity? Not a mental health disorder.

Suicide? Near 100% chance it is a mental health disorder. 

Gang violence? Grey area. So much of gang violence stems from megalomaniacal leaders who resort to force to enact will. Many followers do so because they have been groomed by the alphas, their peers and society for this fate. You can supplant religious violence with gang violence in this statement as well. Is it a mental health issue? Not directly but indirectly. 

Ok, I agree with your statement. I guess I'm wondering what the point is?

We have a mental health problem. We have people getting shot. Probably as a result of the mental health problem. 
 

I am of the opinion that the shooter in Uvalde was mentally ill. I am also of the opinion that the easiest way to have possibly avoided the shooting was with a few cleaner laws related to acquiring a gun. 
 

If there had been a thorough background check, it might have caught his mental instability. If there had been a delay of a couple weeks before he could acquire a gun, it might have given him time to reconsider his actions. If there was a training requirement in handling the weapon, it may have communicated some safety guidelines that got through to him. 
 

Yep. He was mentally ill. But waiting for the national response to mental illness to catch up to him would have taken decades, and most certainly would not have stopped him. 
 

We need a far better approach to mental health. We also need to consider sensible guidelines for gun ownership. 

Toyman! said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

Toyman! said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

In what way?

Do you not see the right to bear arms as a protection against an oppressive government?

 

I don't buy these fantasies.  I do think they are very useful for selling guns and ammunition and special "patriot" branded items and t shirts and the like. 

the best defense against an oppressive government is have multiple passports in a few nationalities.   

Then you and Anthony don't have a common ground to start a discussion. By your statement, you have dismissed his reasoning without ever listening to what he is saying. You don't have to agree to have a discussion but you do have to listen and understand both sides. Otherwise you are just shouting at yourself because the other guy stopped listening as well. 

Giving that reasoning a platform discounts reality though. If the government wants to oppress, it will. Ask the Natives. You can have as many assault rifles as you want, it's not going to stop the brigades of tanks and nuclear bombers from taking you out anymore than shaking your fist at the wind. That's why Fueled by Caffeine called it fantasy, because it is.

A firearm might protect you from a singular person, or even a group of people. It's not going to protect you from the full wrath of the government, ever. It didn't in Waco, nor Ruby Ridge, nor Burns, nor Jonestown, nor Wasco.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

dculberson said:

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

Nice straw man you've built up there. I think it might be time for a break. 

Maybe you can explain to the group what " shall not be infringed means," since you are so enlightened. 

Show us your well regulated militia. 

In reply to Toyman! :

Fueled by Caffeine said:

Toyman! said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

In what way?

Do you not see the right to bear arms as a protection against an oppressive government?

 

I don't buy these fantasies.  I do think they are very useful for selling guns and ammunition and special "patriot" branded items and t shirts and the like. 

the best defense against an oppressive government is have multiple passports in a few nationalities.   

Then you and Anthony don't have a common ground to start a discussion. By your statement, you have dismissed his reasoning without ever listening to what he is saying. You don't have to agree to have a discussion but you do have to listen and understand both sides. Otherwise you are just shouting at yourself because the other guy stopped listening as well. 
 

This, I wish I could give more than one thumbs up. Most of the things I disagree with I at least understand. I often want the same result, I just disagree that some ideas will work or believe they will cause worse problems. I wish there were no need for guns, or locks, or laws. But that is not the reality that we live in. I understand the reasoning behind the desire to tighten gun control laws. I also understand the resistance to them. I don't see how one can have an informed opinion without acknowledging both sides. 
 

On the subject of armed citizens taking on the military, I think I gave some good info on that a few pages back so I'll keep it brief. 
 

1) No, citizens with legal guns will not stand much of a chance against the full might of the U.S. military. 
2) It's unlikely they would ever have too. Because any resistance is many times more difficult- militarily and politically, and on the personal level of the individual soldier-  than no resistance. 
3) The fact that there is the possibity of resistance is a deterrent, which is the whole point. Not to have a bloody battle with citizens Vs. the government, but to avoid it in the first place. 

If one wants to debate the likely hood of the US government imposing it's will on an unarmed population, that could be a reasonable discussion. Depending on who you ask, the answers would be from extremely unlikely to almost certain. But anyone who says the chances are zero is a poor student of history. 

I don't think the intent of "against an oppressive government" comments is kinda radicalized.

The entire might of the government against one guy? No gun is helping there but the situation is absurd there 

But against a singular corrupt government official? Yes, a gun will matter.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Except not one single person has advocated for disarming the population, so you're still in fantasy land. 

We say "gee, we should do universal background checks so felons don't get guns" and your response is "you can't take our guns so we can keep the government in line!". It's not even the same universe. When the reasonable people on both sides are working on things like unifying existing gun law across all 50 states to close loopholes and fringe 2A people are shouting "not one inch" THEY are the ones not understanding (just as much as the non-existent "melt all guns down and put the nuclear genie back in the bottle world peace" fringe). 

You also missed Wasco in my response, which is the government's preferred way of crushing you, which is with bureaucracy. They don't ever need to threaten force, let alone actually use it. Imminent domain, endless red tape, qualified immunity, etc are all government constructs designed to keep the population in check when needed. There's a reason untouchables like Capone went down to tax fraud and not a shootout.