Changing Gun Laws

[rob]

I mean, why even have speed limits? Criminals are just going to speed anyway! Right???

 

For that matter, why have any laws at all? Criminals jsut break them anyway!

 

 

Brilliant!

[rob]

We should get rid of the 16-yo driving age and mandatory driver's ed. Criminal teenagers are just going to drive, anyway.

[Ben Beckerich]

 

My point is that it's REALLY easy for a felon to get a gun without a background check. And the seller isn't breaking the law. I am under no obligation (in washington state) to verify somebody's eligibility if I sell them the gun I keep under my bed. I'm not a dealer. If you dispute this then you're truly uneducated.

 

I mean, sure -- a guy without a driver's license can probably buy a car on the black market and drive it anyway, but that doesn't mean we should abandon licenses and car registrations does it?

 

Ugh, I just can't understand why this is so difficult for people to grasp.

 

My understanding of gun laws in the US and especially in the PNW is strong.

 

Do you check someone's driver's license before you sell them a car? You might- but you're not required to. You're required to report the fact that you sold it (ETA- Wait, no, you're not even required to do this, in Oregon at least), but not even who you sold it to. You certainly aren't required to verify their license is valid, or that they're not a felon.

 

So how would you apply this to guns?

Edited December 7, 2013 by Ben Beckerich

[tvashtarkatena]

Anecdotal experience, including mine, doesn't matter for shit when looking at long term national trends. We all live in our own local bubbles. The data's pretty clear, and its no secret to the gun industry. They market accordingly - fewer people are buying more guns and gun related toys each, and that's who they market to. Whether its a guy with 40 tre-bark outfits in his ATV garage or a cook with 10 years of canned food and 10,000 rounds in his bunker, the gun industry's primary focus is deeper, not broader. That's not to say they don't do both, as you would, but repeat bidness has lower marketing costs, especially as the gene pool shrinks.

 

Far fewer people are hunting these days, Rob's got that one right, but those who do spend many times more on fancy, high tech gear per head than ever before. Industry sales have continued to go up as a result. A lot of military tech has, as it usually does after war, found its way into the domestic market. ATVs, clothes, electronics, packs, tents - the days of your dad going out with his buddies in an F150 with a WWII canvas tent are long over.

 

Hunting is WAY less popular the younger the demographic - the rise of virtual entertainment and urbanization of the population are probably primary factors. Why freeze your ass off in east bum fuck when you can kill 100 aliens while tucking into a bag of Haribo frogs and giving shit to friends from 5 different states? Plus - no humping those fucking bloody loads. You've got to admit, the kids have a point.

 

Edited December 7, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[Ben Beckerich]

And there are, in fact, LOTs of people driving around cars that aren't registered to them. Ever gotten a parking ticket from halfway across the country? My wife and I both have- from people who failed to register cars we sold them. The only time you really need to get it registered is when your tag expires, and they won't give you a new one unless it's registered to you.

 

There are laws that say you have to register your car, and that you have to have a valid license to drive it. If you break those laws, and you definitely can, and you get caught, you suffer the consequences.

 

Likewise, there are laws against felons possessing guns. They can break them like anyone can break any law.. and they usually get caught eventually.

[tvashtarkatena]

Look, WA is one of the 48 states that guarantee the right to carry in their constitutions, in our case explicitly for personal defense. In that sense, we are solidly in the norm. The DC ruling really didn't matter for shit from a practical standpoint, except, of course, in DC itself. If the constitutional landscape of the States were different, it might have mattered more. In any case, WA is not at all unusual regarding its gun laws.

 

Edited December 7, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[rob]

 

Do you check someone's driver's license before you sell them a car? You might- but you're not required to. You're required to report the fact that you sold it (ETA- Wait, no, you're not even required to do this, in Oregon at least), but not even who you sold it to. You certainly aren't required to verify their license is valid, or that they're not a felon.

 

Excellent point. Car registrations and licenses are obviously useless, too

[Ben Beckerich]

 

Do you check someone's driver's license before you sell them a car? You might- but you're not required to. You're required to report the fact that you sold it (ETA- Wait, no, you're not even required to do this, in Oregon at least), but not even who you sold it to. You certainly aren't required to verify their license is valid, or that they're not a felon.

 

Excellent point. Car registrations and licenses are obviously useless, too

 

Um, no.. if we didn't have those laws, we couldn't pop people when they do retarded shit.

[rob]

 

Um, no.. if we didn't have those laws, we couldn't pop people when they do retarded shit.

 

 

ding ding ding ding ding!

[Ben Beckerich]

You have an authoritarian view on law. You think laws should be so restrictive that people can't commit crimes if they wanted to. But that'd be a pretty ridiculous system of regulation, if we applied it universally.

 

The civil-liberal crowd says punish people when they break the law, but otherwise leave people alone.

[Fairweather]

I don't particularly like guns. They're loud and shit. But I like having one around for home defense. If I lived in Germany, or Japan, I wouldn't be allowed to have one and I'd be cool with that. Its not a gun culture and its a less violent culture. In America "If guns were outlawed only outlaws will have guns," is a played-out old cliche, but there is some truth there.

 

I have zero interest in outlawing guns -- I just want to see them properly regulated with mandatory universal background checks, training and licensing: just like we have with cars (which are another possibly lethal implement which has been very successfully regulated)

 

As a gun owner myself, I cant even begin to fathom why any rational individual would be against universal background checks and licensing. Imagine if we treated cars like we treat guns. Shudder!

 

Cars are probably the single most heavily regulated thing we own... guns are largely unregulated... cars kill more people than guns, even if you factor in suicide. They kill more people unnaturally than anything, for that matter. If you leave suicide out of the equation, I think it's like 3:1, in fact.

 

I'm not sure how your car analogy is supporting your argument for regulation

 

There's also that pesky constitution thing that Rob & Co. can't get past. Guns are a protected right; cars aren't.

[Fairweather]

You have an authoritarian view on law. You think laws should be so restrictive that people can't commit crimes if they wanted to. But that'd be a pretty ridiculous system of regulation, if we applied it universally.

 

The civil-liberal crowd says punish people when they break the law, but otherwise leave people alone.

 

Mr Ben, you are wise beyond your years.

[Fairweather]

One of my Ed Abbey favorites:

 

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Of course, people with guns kill more people. But that's only natural. It's hard. But it's fair."

 

 

[Cobra_Commander]

Well, it’s just too bad that some dumb-asses insist on taking a collector’s hobby too far, costing us all a fat load of time, money, and agony to deal with as a nation.

 

Don’t have strong opinions about guns in general. I’m perfectly happy owning a shotgun and rifle, and it’s probably a smart move if you’re a little far from police response and are willing to fucking kill somebody with limited time to think about it. But I’m happy to give up the option to go plinking with an AR-15 or whatever. If anyone argues they can’t adequately defend their family and home with a Remington 870 or the like, they shouldn't be using a gun. Fuck gun “patriots” twisting law to suit their stupid collector's hobby of "tactical gear". No one’s going to take all guns away from you, ever.

 

Even worse are those single-issue voters who don’t give a shit if the country goes to hell, as long as #2 remains obscenely mis-interpreted. As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd says you can have whatever was available at the time the law was drafted. Have fun with that. I'm going to put two frigate cannons in front of my house.

[Cobra_Commander]

Fuck it, I'm buying this:

 

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=379287110

[Cobra_Commander]

Heads-up!

 

http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm

[rob]

There's also that pesky constitution thing that Rob & Co. can't get past. Guns are a protected right; cars aren't.

 

but the SCOTUS already ruled that controls on gun ownership is not unconstitutional. Another moment of cognitive dissonance? Just clench your teeth, it'll pass.

[rob]

 

The civil-liberal crowd says punish people when they break the law, but otherwise leave people alone.

 

OK, so should individuals be able to own cruise missiles? Nuclear weapons? I'm assuming you are OK with some amount of gun control. I'd be interested to know what level of gun control you consider reasonable.

 

I don't consider mandatory background checks, permits and registration to be unreasonable. Neither does Switzerland.

 

[ivan]

they can have my trebuchet when they take it out of my cold, dead backyard!

[Ben Beckerich]

OK, so should individuals be able to own cruise missiles? Nuclear weapons? I'm assuming you are OK with some amount of gun control. I'd be interested to know what level of gun control you consider reasonable.

 

One of my standards for the validity of a law is how relevant it is. A lot of things are illegal because... well, just because! You're just dumb if you don't get it. These people tend to be fans of Bill Mahr.

 

I see absolutely no need for a law that does not do anything. A law against owning nuclear weapons, being the ultimate example of this.

 

Does the law prohibiting people from owning nuclear weapons keep anyone from owning them?

 

Do you think a person who has the money, means, and will to own a nuclear weapon cares at all if they're illegal? I can guarantee you- I would put a month's salary down on it- that law has never once stopped anyone from obtaining a nuclear weapon who otherwise wanted one.

 

You can carry the same logic on down the line of less destructive devices. If you can obtain one, you can whether it's illegal or not. If you can't, you can't whether it's legal or not.

 

I don't consider mandatory background checks, permits and registration to be unreasonable. Neither does Switzerland.

 

You still haven't answered how this can be implemented... nor the problem it addresses, or how it fixes it. I'm starting to suspect you think things should be regulated because... well, just because!

Edited December 7, 2013 by Ben Beckerich

[Ben Beckerich]

Do you think you're an authoritarian? Do you think marijuana should be illegal? Do you think it should be regulated? Do you think free, independent citizens need a lot of regulation in general? Or do you limit this application of law to just certain things?

[JasonG]

I'm curious how folks envision background checks working with a private sale.

 

Would the seller be held responsible for verifying that the name/spelling/DOB/SSN/etc. was correct? Would people be comfortable with giving this type of info to some stranger when they want to buy a gun? Or, perhaps the background check would be run through the local PD?

 

 

[Ben Beckerich]

The problem with these "common sense solutions" is that they generally seem to completely gloss over application. It's stuff that sounds very reasonable to people who aren't actually really thinking about it. There's never any direct linkage between cause and effect, nor promise that the restriction will positively affect the problem (if there is one).

[rob]

OK, so should individuals be able to own cruise missiles? Nuclear weapons? I'm assuming you are OK with some amount of gun control. I'd be interested to know what level of gun control you consider reasonable.

 

One of my standards for the validity of a law is how relevant it is. A lot of things are illegal because... well, just because! You're just dumb if you don't get it. These people tend to be fans of Bill Mahr.

 

I see absolutely no need for a law that does not do anything. A law against owning nuclear weapons, being the ultimate example of this.

 

Does the law prohibiting people from owning nuclear weapons keep anyone from owning them?

 

Do you think a person who has the money, means, and will to own a nuclear weapon cares at all if they're illegal? I can guarantee you- I would put a month's salary down on it- that law has never once stopped anyone from obtaining a nuclear weapon who otherwise wanted one.

 

You can carry the same logic on down the line of less destructive devices. If you can obtain one, you can whether it's illegal or not. If you can't, you can't whether it's legal or not.

 

 

It sounds like you're saying nothing should be illegal but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a chance to clarify. If you could pop down to the walmart and buy a thermonuclear device, all you need is the money. Are you seriously suggesting that the illegality and scarcity of nuclear weapons does nothing whatsoever to prevent ownership and furthermore, are willing to stake a months income on that?

 

I must misunderstand.

 

BTW, I met Bill Maher once, briefly. He seemed like a real dick

[rob]

Do you think you're an authoritarian? Do you think marijuana should be illegal? Do you think it should be regulated? Do you think free, independent citizens need a lot of regulation in general? Or do you limit this application of law to just certain things?

 

No, I most definitely do not consider myself an authoritarian. I do not believe drugs of any kind should be illegal (or guns for that matter) but I believe a well-regulated market (and militia! ha!) which allows people to easily obtain regulated products within a navigable framework of rules effectively prevents a burgeoning black market while protecting consumers. For instance, there is not a very large black market for tobacco and alcohol because the vast majority of customers can get the product legally within the regulatory framework. If you were to raise the cost of cigarettes too much, however, then a black market might emerge. And yes, obviously, some things require more or less regulation than others. Some things require none. Did I answer your question?

 

Am I totally incorrect in pegging you as a libertarian? I am certainly not a libertarian, although I was raised that way.