Skip to main content

View Diary: So Guns Don't Kill People, eh? (328 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is no difference (6+ / 0-)

    in civilian rifles that look like military ones, and ordinary civilian rifles. The military looking rifles are actually less effective than any normal hunting rifle. My go to weapon when the zombies come would be my 30/30, a more stable platform, and more effective round. And it costs a third of the black scary ones.

    "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

    by meagert on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:25:58 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's a great comfort to the dead. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, poco, Debby, myboo, sethtriggs

      See, we didn't ban the weapon because we didn't want to be LOOKIST!  So we banned no weapons at all.

      And now you're dead.

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:32:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I really don't give 2 shits about civvy ARs or AKs (9+ / 0-)

        They were used in several horrible mass shootings, but in the overall gun violence they barely make a blip.
        Talk to me when you really want to reduce deaths by firearms. You'll find laws that fix the social network will be magnitudes more effective than whether you have a heat shroud or not.

        "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

        by meagert on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:42:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Type of Gun isn't as important (5+ / 0-)

          as how responsibly it's handled and protected from unauthorized use.  Regardless of the weapon characteristics, Universal Background Checks, Banning Straw Purchasers, Gun Safes, Trigger Locks, Proficiency Exams can do a lot to curb many of the problems - but not all.

          •  I sort of agree (5+ / 0-)

            Not necessarily with your list, but with your willingness to discuss.
             The background check system should be improved. As it stands it is underfunded, and incomplete.
             Straw Purchases are already illegal.
             Gun safes are very expensive. Maybe the govt. could subsidize them instead of the giant Oil business. Plus, if someone breaks into my home and steals a weapon, isn't that already against the law?
             Trigger locks are effective when children are around, but very dangerous in a self defense situation. People really do defend themselves, often.
             I have no qualms with proficiency education. We used to even have that in elementary, and high school programs. The young learned safety and responsible care.
             

            "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

            by meagert on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 10:11:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Straw Purcheses are not Illegal (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Agathena, mamamedusa

              that was the main problem in the "Fast and Furious" Case.  ATF tried to tag guns bought by a possible straw purchasers, but they U.S. Attorneys argued that had no law to arrest or prosecute them - so the guns disappeared over the border and were used by the cartels.  Their opinion was that there were literally nothing they could legally do about it, so the weapons got away.

              The Background Check System is completely non-existence for resales and at Gun Shows, which involves about 80% of gun sales.

              Stealing a weapon is a crime, but failing to report that your gun has been lost or stolen isn't (depending on the jurisdiction).

              The incidents of people using their guns in "self-defense" - as I noted in the diary are dwarfed 22 to 1 by the number of suicides, and 7 to 1 by homicides and criminal assaults committed using guns.  1/22nd isn't good enough. Kids particular those 18-20 are exactly the group highly likely to use someone else gun to commit suicide.

              •  Wrong. "Straw purchases" are illegal n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ban nock

                "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

                by meagert on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 11:17:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Only if you (0+ / 0-)

                  present false information. http://smartgunlaws.org/...

                  Federal law prohibits straw purchases by criminalizing the making of false statements to an FFL about a material fact on ATF Form 4473, or presenting false identification in connection with the firearm purchase. Two federal statutes – 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) – are the primary laws under which straw purchases are prosecuted.
                  Form 4473 simply documents who you are, what you're buying and whether you've passed the background check.

                  Filing out that form accurately when your own record is clean, buying a series of weapons and then reselling them on your own without checking the background of the secondary purchaser is not illegal.

                  18 USC 924 says.

                  (a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, subsection (b), (c), (f), or (p) of this section, or in section 929, whoever -
                  (A) knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of this chapter;
                  (B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), or (q) of section 922;
                  (C) knowingly imports or brings into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition in violation of section 922(l);
                  Nothing in that stops you from reselling the guns to someone else as long as you fill out the form correctly.The only limitation on resale via 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) is that the you can't have knowledge that the person you are selling to is in another state, or from another country unless you are a licensed dealer/manufacturer (and hence a background check kicks in. It is unlawful...
                  (3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;

                  (4) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, to transport in interstate or foreign commerce any destructive device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity;

                  (5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in</> (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to

                  (6) for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;

                  From what I can tell the way this functions in reality is that even though you can't lie on the form, verbally or in writing to a licensed dealer,  if an unlicensed reseller doesn't ask someone which state their reside in, or which state they intend to take the guns into -  they don't have to tell you, and if they lie there's nothing you can do about it.  So people can say we have laws against "straw purchasers", but in reality - we can't really enforce them very well.

                  Vyan

          •  Here is you problem. How do we guarentee that (0+ / 0-)

            gun owners are responsiblie. I mean guarentee. Post a bond? Mandatory insurance? Criminal and civil penalities for misuse? I mean we require this of every other dangerous tool. If I injure you with my chainsaw you can sue my ass off and collect from my homeowners insurance. Or if you borrow my chainsaw and injure yourself through my negligance. But how are gun owners who are not responsible held accountable? Not to mention gun dealers and manufactorers.

            •  When you guarantee that the non gun owners are (0+ / 0-)

              responsible citizens, I'll match that.
              As for your lawsuit argument, what goes for the chainsaw already goes for misuse of firearms too. See, everyone wants new laws. Most of what everyone is proposing, already exists, and yet you still see violence.

              "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

              by meagert on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 11:58:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Right because the slaughter of 30,000 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          deviant24x

          a year will immediately commence switching to butter knives and nail hammers.

          I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

          by detroitmechworks on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:53:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You then ban wepaons based on the type (0+ / 0-)

      of ammuntion they fire. You can get an AR-15 in Hello Kitty colors. Still just as lethal. And useless in a civilized society.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site