Page 7 of 18

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:51 am
by Feud
What's your source on most being legally purchased?

While most might have been legally purchased at some point, I find it very doubtful that most end users obtained them legally. Ne

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:10 am
by xander
rus|Mike wrote:
xander wrote:That is the most vacuous logic that I have ever heard. First, there is no 100% effective way of stopping a motivated person from doing anything. However, making it more difficult to do something is going to weed out all but the very most motivated.

Am I not understanding something? I was under impression that criminals use criminally obtained weapons anyway and ban of legal weapons is not going to affect them.

You seem to be not understanding several things. First, I have not suggested that firearms be banned. Rather, I have suggested that certain kinds of firearms be banned (in the same way that, for instance, RPGs are currently banned), and that greater control and regulation should be imposed on other types of weapons. Second, the fact that a control is not 100% effective does not mean that it isn't worthwhile. It is illegal for minors to purchase alcohol in the US. Does that mean that alcohol is never used/abused by minors? Hell, no. But is does reduce the incidences of use/abuse. Finally, your claim that such regulations will have no effect on a criminal's ability to obtain firearms, because they already obtain firearms illegally anyway. Of course, if there are fewer weapons manufactured, then obtaining firearms, either legally or illegally becomes more difficult, which seems like an effect to me.

rus|Mike wrote:I would like to see guns most suited for self-defense (pistols, etc) being available to anyone who wishes to go through registration process and military-grade weapons (AK-47, etc) either banned or only available after strict background checks for people who can justify a need to own such weapon.

Isn't this exactly the approach I suggested above? To quote myself:

xander wrote:Most people would call for something between the ends. Personally, I would like to see registration of firearms, deeper background checks, bans on more powerful weapons (honestly---what do you need a AR15 for?), and a reduction in availability overall.


xander

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:21 pm
by Xocrates
Feud wrote:What's your source on most being legally purchased?

Hmm... It appears I generalized a bit. The article I recalled was specific to mass shootings,of which 3/4 occurred with legally acquired weapons.

For general crime the numbers appear harder to pin down. My search went from 80% being illegal, to most being illegal but being legally bought

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:08 pm
by Feud
I'd be interested in knowing where they got that number. I suspect they are doing a bit of fudging that media often does, reporting as legal sales that were legal for the seller but not buyer. In other words, the seller obeyed the law as far as they were able, but the buyer broke the law while buying but didn't get caught. This means the seller isn't legally liable, and so even though the gun was bought illegally oit gets counted as a "legal" purchase.

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:30 pm
by Xocrates
Feud wrote:In other words, the seller obeyed the law as far as they were able, but the buyer broke the law while buying but didn't get caught.

You do realize that can be considered an argument in favour of stricter gun control, right? ;)

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:59 pm
by Feud
Many gun owners don't mind reasonable gun control. However, when people start talking about licensing or banning, when there exists a failure to enforce laws currently on the books that would focus on those who are more likely to commit crimes, we get unhappy. Enforce the laws that are th ere to prevent guns being sold to criminals and the mentally deranged, then come talk to me about what I should it shouldn't be allowed to own.

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:07 pm
by Xocrates
Oh, I agree, certainly.

But what you said was an example where the Seller obeyed the law: i.e. a situation where the law was being enforced.

If the law is such that you can buy a gun illegally while the law is being enforced, there are worse problems than a lack of enforcement.

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:13 pm
by Ace Rimmer
Guns pour in at L.A. buyback events
Thousands of people line up to exchange guns for supermarket gift cards at the Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena and the Van Nuys Masonic Temple.


Los Angeles Times wrote:Many came bearing more than one gun. They pulled 22 pistols from the trunk of one white Honda, a haul that earned the driver $1,000.

Thousands of people with guns and no shots fired. :shock:

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:16 pm
by rus|Mike
Xocrates wrote:
Feud wrote:What's your source on most being legally purchased?

Hmm... It appears I generalized a bit. The article I recalled was specific to mass shootings,of which 3/4 occurred with legally acquired weapons.

For general crime the numbers appear harder to pin down. My search went from 80% being illegal, to most being illegal but being legally bought

Ofcourse mass shootings happen with legal guns, because people who do them do not care if they are going to be caught. What percentage of all gun homicides are mass shootings? 0.00...1%? That's not "generalizing a bit", that's just a false statement.
Xocrates wrote:If you compare the US with countries with similar standards of living but with gun bans, the numbers aren't quite as favourable. Assuming this or this to be correct, the US has murder rates that quadruple most of EU, or countries like Canada or Australia.

You do realize that neither EU nor Canada have "gun bans" in traditional sense, i.e. you can legally own a self-defense gun there if you want to?

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:25 pm
by Xocrates
Ace Rimmer wrote:Thousands of people with guns and no shots fired. :shock:

Please do us all a favour and never ever do that kind of thing again. It feels condescending and makes you sound retarded.
You're better than that.

rus|Mike wrote:Ofcourse mass shootings happen with legal guns, because people who do them do not care if they are going to be caught. What percentage of all gun homicides are mass shootings? 0.00...1%? That's not "generalizing a bit", that's just a false statement.

I can't help but notice this conveniently sidesteps the point I was actually trying to make. Not least of which because it ignores the bit where I point out that most illegal guns were apparently legally bought.

rus|Mike wrote:You do realize that neither EU nor Canada have "gun bans" in traditional sense, i.e. you can legally own a self-defense gun there if you want to?

True, but they do have stricter laws and, perhaps more importantly, do not have a society that actively encourages the ownership of guns.

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:35 pm
by Feud
Xocrates wrote:Oh, I agree, certainly.

But what you said was an example where the Seller obeyed the law: i.e. a situation where the law was being enforced.

If the law is such that you can buy a gun illegally while the law is being enforced, there are worse problems than a lack of enforcement.


Actually, no. A seller can obey the law, but if the buyer or other third parties do not or do not properly enforce the law then the law is not being enforced. However, that is generally ignored and reported as a legal sale.

For example, the Tucson shooter broke the law when buying the gun, and enforcement of other precautions that would have prevented the purchase were not carried out. The sale was exactly the kind existing laws meant to prohibit, but those laws were ignored and so the seller had no way to kno w that the buyer was prohibited. Since the seller thus did not break the law in selling to him, having been given a green light by law enforcement, it gets labeled as a "legal" sale, even though it was anything but.

That's what I mean. Many of the "legal" guns you hear about in.crimes actually aren't, but the statistics label them as such anyway sincethe seller might not of broken the law.

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:38 pm
by Ace Rimmer
Xocrates wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:Thousands of people with guns and no shots fired. :shock:

Please do us all a favour and never ever do that kind of thing again. It feels condescending and makes you sound retarded.
You're better than that.

I intended to put one of these :P at the bottom.

:P

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:47 pm
by Xocrates
Feud wrote:A seller can obey the law, but if the buyer or other third parties do not or do not properly enforce the law then the law is not being enforced.

Details? I'm not familiar with system to understand how the seller could possibly legally sell an illegal gun directly.

Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:56 pm
by Feud
It's kinda like if someone steals a prescription pad . The pharmacist might follow all the laws and protocols, and thus be innocent of wrong doing on their end. But the buyer is not, and if the doctor doesn't do somethings to ensure that their keeping proper safety measures they might not either.

When it comes to gun sales, the media generally looks for one person who didn't break the law. , usually th e seller. If they can find that, the guns are often labeled as "legal", when actually multiple laws may have been broken or ignored in the process.

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:16 am
by rus|Mike
Xocrates wrote:
rus|Mike wrote:You do realize that neither EU nor Canada have "gun bans" in traditional sense, i.e. you can legally own a self-defense gun there if you want to?

True, but they do have stricter laws and, perhaps more importantly, do not have a society that actively encourages the ownership of guns.

You were talking specifically about bans:
Xocrates wrote:If you compare the US with countries with similar standards of living but with gun bans, the numbers aren't quite as favourable

<sigh>