Where do criminals get guns and how can we stop them?
 

I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher last night, and the question of gun control was brought up, particularly pertaining to the shooting in Tucson. They touched on several things, from extended magazines to Reagan being shot to putting bar codes on ammunition to track it.

I've asked before where criminals get their gun because I was curious what could be done to limit that supply. While I did get a partial answer, I was also met with a lot of Second Amendment arguments and things about how if regular people couldn't get guns, only criminals would have them.

For a bit of information, here's an article from PBS on the subject:
frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS

What political and legal steps can be taken today to deal with the issue of criminals getting guns? Clearly locking up legally owned firearms to prevent theft could help, but as theft only represents 10-15% of guns in crimes according to the article, that would only put a small dent in the overall problem.

What can be done to deal with straw purchases and corrupt at-home dealers without violating the Second Amendment?

I'm honestly not sure. The bigger changes like putting bar codes on bullets would be fought tooth and nail by the political right and by gun culture. Small things like banning extended clips, though, are being fought, too. I'm not blaming the right and gun culture for gun crime, but I'm concerned that they're standing in the way of ALL gun control instead of just the gun control that really encroaches on their liberty to bear arms.

Close the gun show loophole in the Brady law....despite protestations from gun rights advocates that there is no loophole.

While the law requires licensed gun dealers to perform background checks on all buyers, unlicensed dealers and/or private sellers, particularly those set up at gun shows, are exempt.

Close the Loophole: Help Close the Gun Show Loophole. Keep Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals.

there is no gun show loophole.

Private non-FFL'ed persons can not sell firearms at gun shows to other private parties? Do they need to conduct back ground checks now too? What about waiting periods?

Forgive my interuption...

As a foreign devil, I don't understand the legislative framework. I've heard people mention this controversy in the past, but not looked into it in detail.

I see that you say there is no loophole, and that dc_dux says that there is one.

What is the supposed issue, and why does it not exist?

Tully, they always have been (to my knowledge).

It's no different than putting an ad in a newspaper for a private firearm sale, having someone come to your location and purchase the weapon. The current law does not force (at least in my state) that private owner to check the private purchaser. So, why should the exact same transaction suddenly require a check simply because it is conducted in a public place (gun show)? It's the same transaction (private to private sale).

--edited--

And what does Tuscon have to do with it? By all accounts, this guy was checked at the store where he purchased. Whatsmore, his crime was months after the purchase. The seven day waiting period wouldn't have mattered either.

The issue is thus:

licensed FFLs must perform a NICS background check on any purchaser, whether in their shop or at a gunshow event. A single individual, selling his own personal property, can walk around this same gunshow event with a sign attached to his personal property (gun) indicating it's for sale. If someone wants to buy from that private individual, neither the seller or buyer must be subject to a background check.

There is zero constitutional authority to require any sort of background check before a person sells a piece of his own private and personal property.

What do you make of this?

Gun Control Act of 1968 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How big are these gun shows, and do they often have out-of-staters coming to buy privately? Should there be regulations in place to ensure guns aren't crossing state borders without licensed sales?

Gun shows can have thousands on a daily basis. who knows how many out of staters show up.

If I buy a gun in Texas, then move to Kentucky, my gun doesn't affect interstate commerce. If I buy a gun online from Illinois, then my purchase would affect interstate commerce.

The whole interstate commerce clause mutilation is what has allowed congress immense unconstitutional power, something that the framers would never have allowed.

Tucson was the topic of discussion on Bill Maher which lead to a wider discussion about gun control. I didn't intend to associate that incident directly with the topic at hand, just what inspired me to start the discussion.

bg-

Gun shows vary in size from a couple hundred square feet to a couple of acres, so you can imagine it probably happens. That isn't really the gun show loophole, as the scenario could just as easily play out in the living room of one's home.

will-

I see. Fair enough.

There's usually anywhere from a couple hundred to a thousand people at any given time at my local show.

I'd say there's a gun show every month or so on average in my city as well, so there's no point in crossing state lines to get what i want or need. Maybe if I was looking for something super rare i might have to go online or to another state, but that becomes a huge pain in the ass because you have to ship it to a licensed dealer who takes a commission, or drive somewhere for a private sale.

I notice the act also restricts ownership for certain categories of people. Would the framers have never allowed that as well?

not sure i understand. can you explain 'certain categories of people' please.

Canadians, English, Socialists,...:)

To address the OP:

I'm not a felon or anything so I can easily buy a firearm, but if i had to obtain a firearm illegally it would be very easy. I could think of half dozen people who would sell me a gun this afternoon with no questions asked.

Most guns in the private sector have changed hands so many times there's no telling how many people legally or illegally have owned it.

Come to think of it I'm not sure banning private sales would have much effect on criminals getting guns. It might be slightly more difficult to openly advertise I suppose.

Drugs are illegal, but I'm sure you could get about anything you wanted with out much effort or legal risk.

I don't think you'll get any arguments against the failure of the drug war, samcol.

What do you think about ways to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals? What do you think can be done to deal with straw purchases and corrupt at-home dealers without violating the Second Amendment?

Will,

Actually, on further review, I reinstate my question only rhetorically to Bill Maher. What does Tuscon have to do with it? This guy was legally allowed to own a firearm. The people who dropped the ball here were his parents. They knew (or should have known) he needed help and didn't do anything.

I hate to say it, but I sort of place them in the same bucket as the Columbine murderers' parents. How the flip do you NOT KNOW your kids made 20 something bombs in your attached garage???

Strawman would be really difficult to prevent. Keep in mind, it is only illegal if you are knowingly purchasing a weapon for someone who can't legally purchase. The majority of times a person purchases, they bring a friend or trusted someone to help them make a choice. In most accounts, it probably has identical appearance (passing the weapon between the two people, each person aiming it, evaluating the location of the controls, manipulating the weapon, etc) as a strawman purchase. It would really interfere with the commerce. It would also become an unfair burden on the dealer to attempt to pick apart the behavior of someone trying to purchase a gun and, on a hunch, cease the transaction as a pontential strawman...and the crooks could still do it: Person one walks in and finds the weapon they like. Person two walks in (alone) an hour later and buys it. You just can't prevent it.

It started as a discussion about how a nut was able to get a gun, but the discussion expanded to things like extended clips. It went from Tucson to extended clips to wider gun control.

I don't know much about Loughtner's parents, so I really can't say.

Gun Control Act of 1968 - Prohibited Persons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically, the government restricts the ownership of firearms based on certain criteria. I'm not sure the framers would have wanted that, which is why I asked. "Shall not be infringed," and all that. I ask because if we can agree that it's appropriate to bar certain categories of people from owning firearms (not sure you agree with this), then why not restrict the interstate sale of arms privately as well if we can see the benefit?

The act was implemented to regulate the interstate commerce of firearms. Would it not be relatively powerless if you had an interstate "loophole" regarding private sales?

Oh, I assure you, there are plenty of guns in Canada. :thumbsup:

No doubt to the chagrin of our framers.

To see the logical progression of why the government implemented 'restrictions', one needs to look at prohibition. Moon shiners and runners found it easy to acquire automatic weapons, so the government tried to find a way to limit that. The 2nd Amendment prohibited them from banning guns, but a new interpretation of the commerce clause could let them tax certain guns. Ostensibly, it was thought that if certain guns became cost prohibitive, Less of them would be bought and sold. Prohibiting classes of people, like felons, from owning firearms hasn't really achieved the desired result. It's part of the reason why I feel that if you can't be trusted with a gun, then you shouldn't be out of prison. If you're out, you should have all of your rights restored to you.

The framers wrote the commerce clause to prevent the states engaging in economic wars against each other. It was never intended to regulate private individuals in their personal affairs.

---------- Post added at 02:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 PM ----------

keep criminals in prison if they can't be trusted to operate within society on a lawful basis.

I swear I'm not trying to threadjack you Will.

I have found myself yelling at the TV as of late, and much as I like Maddow, Oldermann (well, not anymore, I guess), and Maher I think they're pressing the button on this one a little much. I don't usually yell.

I'm the black sheep liberal who owns guns and strongly believes in the 2nd Amendment, and I feel like Tucson is being used as a political tool to get gun-control pushed hrough the legislative process with Tucson fresh on the psyche - not very fair, in my opinion.

Concerns about protecting the life of humans should be the highest priority of law, but I think it's incredibly disingenuous to feel like we should do something *now* about gun violence simply because of recency.

Gun violence is not the leading cause of death of humans. 19 (Nineteen) people were shot at in Tucson that day, and as tragic as it is, if we're sloppy with the odds I'm sure more people died of heart disease and automobile-related accidents (or even starvation, worldwide) than did in Tucson.

Crazy people *will* get guns no matter what we do. Criminals *will* get guns no matter what we do. So we have to balance reasonable restriction, the time and money involved in those restrictions, against their success rate and the actual incidence of death involved.

Ban high-cap magazines IN HANDGUNS without a class III, I can support, that's reasonable. But restricting private party sale, requiring more invasive FFL backgrounding/psych eval, I'm not so sure. Techonology advances at a breakneck pace, and we will quite often invent things that somehow break the lethality barrier, and simply become too lethal to a mass of people that we limit it to trusted dealers and military members. I think high-cap (15+) in a handgun approaches the same mass-lethality barrier as a fully-automatic rifle. Certainly, my semi-automatic rifle has 30-round magazines, but I can't conceal it like I can a handgun, and I think that is a meaningful difference. If it's concealable, it should (arbitrarily, mind you) hold about half as many rounds as the maximum capacity of a unconcealed weapon, and I think that's fair.

I know it reads like one big "well these other things are worse!" but I stand by the simple assertion that we're better served pursuing reasonable restrictions and nothing more. If you could propose a reasonable, non-invasive way to keep more guns out of the hands of criminals and wackos I'm all for it, but it will never cure it, only treat it. And then we're in the land of triage; do our efforts and money really diminish it enough to justify it?

as to the high capacity ban......what does it say when an elected official spouts off that the only reason to have these is to kill alot of people quickly, yet exempt law enforcement?

Fark that.

dk-

Do you know if he was using a "33" in his G19? It's the only logical explanation for the people with multiple wounds and the sheer number of people wounded. 9mil just doesn't that that type of penetration to explain it.

As is true with most other constitutionally guaranteed rights, limitations are subject to levels of scrutiny. Scrutiny usually involves a balancing of the purported state interest, the degree to which the right is infringed on, whether the right is fundamental, whether the state interest can be accomplished through other means and other factors.

Interstate sales of arms are already regulated--even between private individuals. When selling to private individuals, I have always asked to see some form of State issued ID to verify that they're from the same state the sale is taking place in. Inter-state sales cannot take place absent a transfer through a FFL.

With respect to 'interstate commerce' that clause is so bent out of shape as to become comical (anything compounded enough will affect interstate commerce). I suppose you can construct an argument that state sales of guns will affect shipments of guns flowing around and make people fearful of travelling etc. etc. to get to close the gun show loophole.

---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

Unfortunately, Loughner did use a 33rd Glock magazine, which permitted him to shoot many, many times before reloading.

Unfortunately, many legislators are seizing on this fact to propose a new magazine capacity ban.

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:03 PM ----------

My solution? Greater information sharing, especially when it comes to psychological problems. VA Tech shooter also had mental problems, and apparently so did Loughner. Too bad NCIS did not pick up on this--which is a failure of that system. NCIS should be made more robust to catch mental problems. (However, there comes up problems of say, seeking help for depression but fearing that you'll lose your guns that way).

Kirstang-

He was never treated for mental illness so no one could have known, my understanding is that his parents were notified he could not return to college without a mental health eval, but he was never evaluated. Again, these parents dropped the ball.

But, you have hit the nail on the head: There is little due process in Mental Health evaluations. Also, the state of one's mental health is rarely permanent. Can you imagine getting put on the "no guns" list for some temporary mental health issue and then going to the state to try to prove "I'm not crazy. No really, I'm not. Why am I here? So, I can buy a gun. But, I'm not crazy!" Yeah, find me a state mental health "expert" whose going to take on the liability of calling you "fit to own a firearm" again.

If I remember right, he had the 33 rounder and 2 15 rounders. He had reloaded the first 15 rd mag when it jammed, then he was tackled.

Bad guys can get guns almost no matter what we do. They often prefer the illegal way so its less traceable back to them if they have to shoot someone with it. So if you take away the legal ways to buy guns then that will only hurt the good gun owner people.

dk...i'm not going to argue semantics.

And, I have no problem with private sellers selling guns out of their home w/o background checks....I do have a problem with such sales at organized gun shows.

The fact remains that many criminals know how easy it is to get a gun at a gun show w/o fear of a background check.

Mexican drug cartels buy thousands of guns illegally at gun shows (in Texas?).

A number of states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows. The fact that the federal law does not have that requirement and everyone knows it...the shady dealers (not the honest private collectors), the criminals, the mentally ill......

Such a provision infringes on no one's rights.

I truly believe the war on drugs is creating an environment that lends itself to more violence. Decriminalizing drugs imo would significantly reduce the number of crimes committed with firearms.

Outside of that I don't think there is an acceptable way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals without severely restricting the 2nd amendment to an unacceptable level (think Illinois). Even then I'm not sure it would be effective.

I do think there is a "Gun Show Loophole" but I don't see anyway to close it without stepping on citizens 2nd Adm. rights. You're never going to pass effective gun control law in the US, just never going to happen. If it did happen a blood bath would likely follow. I sincerely believe the best way to deal with gun, or any violence for that mater, is to deal with the mental heath issues and social/economic factors behind much of the violence.

According to a recent bi-partisan poll (after the Tucson shooting), there is wide spread support for closing the gun show loophole, even among gun rights advocates:
It particularly impacts the illegal interstate traffic in guns, where thousands of guns every year make their way from states with the "loophole" to other states where those guns are used to commit crimes...often by those who could not obtain a gun legally.

Presently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows...
Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I dont see how a national standard would lead to a bloodbath, particularly given the overwhelming public support.

I do see how it is a political issue that certainly wont be addressed by the current Congress.

Well I lived in Oregon and I sold firearms in Oregon. I tell you that the law has little to no effect on the sale of weapons privately.

Next thing you know they'll outlaw weed and nobody will be getting high anymore. Oh, wait... yeah never mind.

As for what the polls show is or is not supported right now, wait six month. The US tends to over react to just about every thing.

Earlier polls showed only marginally less support for closing the loophole (and tightening the national database), even among gun owners and gun rights advocates.

And, yeah, I know most criminals will find a way to buy a gun...but why make it so easy?

Here is a fact from a recent study of interstate transport of guns:

In 2009, just ten states (among those with the loophole) supplied nearly half – 49% – of the guns that crossed state lines before being recovered in crimes. Together, these states accounted for nearly 21,000 interstate crime guns recovered in 2009.

side note:
I do find it odd that those on the "terrorist watch list" can buy weapons, but cant board a plane...

U.S. Terror Watch List Individuals Are Allowed to Buy Guns 90 Percent of the Time, GAO Says - ABC News

...but don't get me started on the terrorist watch list.

Wasn't this taken from a study Commissioned by Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns organization?

you're being filled with smoke and bullshit on the mexican cartels.
?Project Gunwalker? investigators: Watch for smears, focus on leads - National gun rights | Examiner.com

and there is no evidence that doing so reduces the guns in criminals hands.

it infringes on my right to buy a gun from a private individual at a public gathering.

Well DC how are you going to make it more difficult without violating the 2nd?

you seriously expect such a biased website to give any sort of an honest sampling?

something i just can't understand is how people are so intent on dragging the government in to every aspect of their lives by regulating everything they can and can't do. You don't see how it would lead to a bloodbath? try telling me i'm not allowed to sell a piece of my privately owned property without the government giving me permission. multiply that times 5 million.

Yes.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns....uns_report.pdf

And the data is ATF data on "Time to Crime" measures.

So you respond with bullshit from a biased site?

Fact check:

...an ATF spokesman gave us more detailed figures for how many guns had been submitted and traced during those two years. Of the guns seized in Mexico and given to ATF for tracing, the agency actually found 95 percent came from U.S. sources in fiscal 2007 and 93 percent in fiscal 2008. That comes to a total of 10,347 guns from U.S. sources for those two years, or 36 percent of what Mexican authorities say they recovered.

Counting Mexico’s Guns | FactCheck.org

The poll was a bi-partisan poll of both Democrat and Republican pollsters. In fact, most polls over the last decade or so show more than a majority of gun rights advocates support tightening the national database and/or closing the gun show loophole.

I am saying you can sell anything you want out of your home and I dont give a shit. But in a PUBLIC forum, where the majority of sales require background checks....all sales should require background checks.

With national standards for gun shows (not sales in private homes) similar to those states that closed the loophole....where there have been no challenges ever in the federal courts that that those state standards violate the Second Amendment.

IIRC the Examiner.com was exposed long ago. I'm not sure they lean right or left really, just that they are there to make money and farm out all their work. There's no fact checking and many articles are plagiarized. On top of that many writers claim the site failed to pay them correctly.

I wouldn't trust any info coming from them.

Also, the 95% figure has been widely repudiated--that the 95% comes from 95% of *TRACEABLE* guns, whereas Mexico seizes about 30,000 guns a year.

So, 95% of the 10,000 or so traceable guns out of 30,000 or so guns recovered a year equals more like 33%. I have no problem with valid data--but I do hate it when people dick around with number games--as they did here for the 95% figure.

10,347 guns from U.S. sources for those two years (07 and 08) is still a hell of alot of guns going to Mexican drug cartels...mostly through "straw buyers" at gun shows (primarily in Texas).

I suppose that is a lot of guns. However, I'm uncomfortable with the American government further imposing process restrictions on to my rights to deal with the Mexican government's inability to deal with Mexican border and drug issues.

Anyway, that is off topic.

What type of solution would you propose to prevent the type of tragedies that occurred in VA Tech and Tuscon?

I've never cared for fact check, but since we have conflicting sources and info, just go with what you feel.


and I could pull half a dozen polls saying the opposite.


no they shouldn't. why the fuck should I have special permission to sell something I own in public? Aren't I part of the public?


and the courts are always right, right? kelo, united citizens, just to name a few. come on, the courts are fucked and you know it. It's half of the two faced tyrant organizations in our government that have ignored the constitution for over 100 years.

I agree the Mexican issue is a sidebar issue.

Back to the loophole...if dealers A, B, C, D and E at a gun show are required by federal law to conduct background checks...why not dealer F (who claims to be a private collector, but may very well be a shady dealer with intent to skirt the law)? Or at the very least a background check on dealer F.

There is no easy solution, but I think this is one small piece that has public support.

Improving the NICS would also help, but I dont have specifics.

Given that the courts have upheld that the government can restrict sales to certain categories of citizens/residents (criminals, illegal immigrants, mentally ill), it is most difficult when addressing the issue of the mentally ill...requiring a balance of their Constitutional right to privacy.

you ever been to a gun show? I used to work a few, never have I seen (dealer F) a private person trying to sell more than two guns. The shows I've worked don't allow private persons to have tables or booths. Private persons selling weapons generally have to walk up and down with flags on their weapons indicating they are for sale.

I went to a gun show in Virginia once.

Most of the dealers had professional booths/displays, but a few were simply card tables with hand-made signs and much smaller displays...and what appeared to be much more private talk between seller and buyer. Were these private collectors? I have no idea since I had no interest in purchasing a gun.

the smaller card table setups are indeed FFLs, just very small time. That's the type of table I used to work. we always had to do background checks.

You're familiar with zoning? Car registration?

zoning used to be a decent practice, til it got all political. Now, zoning is usually used to prevent undesirables from creating business' or homes in an area that doesn't want it. Car registration is not a permission slip to buy or sell a car.

This seems like a legitimate question. Clearly background checks aren't unconstitutional, so what's the harm in requiring them for all sales?

We register vehicles and license drivers. Depending on your state, a driver's license is commonly required to own a car.

Why wouldn't we treat guns the same? Well regulated militia and all.

Zoning has it's problems; but the absence of zoning would be worse.

Issues of the government knocking on your door and saying, "Yea, we decided after the fact that we don't want you to have that gun. So turn it over now, or else."

And it has been done before in both Louisiana and New York.

I don't think I'd ever see the day the Government kicks in my door to take away my Ford Mustang....

background checks by a business is interstate commerce......maybe. private citizens selling private property is not interstate commerce.

The USC doesn't grant you the right to own and drive a car either.

Oh Also to add on:

Form 4473s already are a form of defacto registration. The gun, gun's serial, your name, address, telephone and all that are already linked to the gun. Everytime you purchase a gun, you have to fill out a 4473. (IIRC this was the doing of Brady, right?)

we need people to dump this line of brainwashing. The constitution doesn't GRANT anyone any rights at all. The constitution ONLY gives government certain powers to do ONE SINGLE THING, and that is to protect the rights of the people.

That's something I've never heard before.

I do remember that the NRA lobbied heavily against the Brady Act and then sued after it passed, stating that it violated the 10th Amendment. They wanted the whole statute to be ruled unconstitutional, but the SCOTUS only ruled that the provision which compelled state and local background checks was unconstitutional. The rest was upheld as constitutional, but I don't know whether or not the commerce clause was mentioned. I'll have to go back and read Printz v. US.

printz v. US was held to violate the 10th Amendment when applied to forcing states to conduct the background checks. the background checks themselves are now done via the FFL directly, hence the commerce clause applies.

You're saying the USC doesn't grant you the right to bear arms?

I believe DK's trying to say that the right to bear arms exists even without the Constitution, and the Second Amendment precludes the government from taking that away, versus the opposing view which is that the government "gives" us the right to keep and bear arms.

Kirstang is correct. US v. Cruikshank opinion states that the second amendment is not granted by the constitution, nor is it dependent upon it. It pre-exists the constitution.

I don't understand your position. What is the difference between a person selling a privately-owned firearm out of their home and a person selling a privately-owned firearm in a public forum? What would be achieved by allowing one but not the other?

On a side note: selling a firearm out of ones home seems like it could present significant safety concerns for both the seller and the buyer.

---------- Post added at 10:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------

Requiring non-FFL holders (regular guys like you and me) to conduct background checks seems like it could present a legal nightmare. As a seller, how do I verify that the information that the buyer is giving me is correct? Am I liable if the buyer presents fake ID? Would the seller be required to keep a sales receipt containing all of the buyers personal information like on the ATF Form 4473? I don't think I would be comfortable with any of those things as a buyer or a seller.

How do the FFL holders verify information?

I have no idea. It was an honest question.

If FFL holders have to do a lot of work on their own, I think there should be something done about that. The process of background checks should simply be to send the information in and get a yes or no back with a brief reason why in a day or two. I don't see why that should be any different for home sellers or anyone like that.

If the buyer gives false information, make that a crime with a serious enough punishment to require an arrest.

You can't sell whatever private property you feel like.

Also, what scenario does a law-abiding citizen require a 33 bullet magazine?

This is interesting to me. What private property should I not be allowed to sell?

I'm not making a value judgment on whether this fact should/shouldn't be true.

But it is a fact.

For example, I can't grow a Marijuana plant and then sell the buds. The plant would qualify as my private property, yet selling it is illegal.

Can I sell my car to a 10 year old?

Show me conclusive proof that stricter gun laws and magazine capacity restrictions will result in lower crime rates.

Well, we are sort of mixing qualifiers now. You can't sell marijuana because you can't OWN marijuana(in most states). It is an illegal substance. That is the distinction. And, while the buyer of property may be regulated (although, I'll bet a 10 year old could buy a car with cash), you can still sell the property - just not to the 10 year old (maybe).

The only private property that I can think of which you are legally allowed to own but can not legally sell are controlled substances. So, I guess I am trying to fit into context your statement that "you can't sell whatever private property you feel like" in regards to firearms. I'm just trying to understand what you are getting at.

After speaking with a few attorney friends I understand your point better. Not sure about the US v. Cruikshank reference seems every attorney I spoke with thought it a poor example to quote regarding the issue. Why? I really don't understand. Didn't go to law school, not going to debate such issues. I do think the first 10 amendments (The Bill of Rights) protect rights such as the right to bear arms.

As for size of magazines... why does it matter? If you can own a nine round clip and own as many hand guns as you want you can shoot all day as fast as you want. What are gun control people going to want next? A limit to the number of weapons a private party may own?

It was aimed at our strict Constructionist friends who feel it is unconstitutional to prohibit the sale of private property in any way

---------- Post added at 02:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 PM ----------

Technically speaking, you'd have to carry 4 individual pistols with 9 round magazines to equal 1 pistol with a 33 round magazine, plus you'd have to drop one pistol and pull out the next in order to do the same amount of damage. While you could still do it, it would be far less efficient

That's not how this is going to work. This thread is about specific steps. Show me statistics that confirm confirm a causal link between gun laws against longer clips and an increase in crime. I'm not interested in dealing with vague, statistically meaningless data on gun crime anymore, as it serves no purpose but to kill debate and discussion.

The question was posed in response to the question of
Asking for statistical proof is similar to playing "show me a scenario..."

Not to drag this thread further off topic, but yes. A 10 year old can purchase a car. He just can't drive it on public roads, though in some places he would be able to drive on private property.

----
Just some random thoughts on the subject:

I would probably qualify as something of a gun nut with many libertarian leanings. I do not like the idea of any impositions on the 2nd Amendment. Still, I recognize that we are living in a less-than-ideal world and so I am open to the idea of legislation that would impose practical caveats on gun ownership without infringing on the right to own weapons or imposing arbitrary standards.

I recognize the importance of ensuring that a person attempting to buy a firearm is legally qualified to do so. Because of this, I think it would be reasonable to require background checks for the transfer of firearms, but only so long as it did not impose an undue burden on the private buyer and seller. Perhaps local government's could establish an office that would communicate with the ATF database to provide instant background checks at no cost to the buyer and seller. It seems like a reasonable way to responsibly transfer a firearm while, at the same time, covering everyones asses. That being said, there are entirely too many problems with the current background check process. It's a broken system.

I am on the fence in regards to a national firearms registry. I recognize the importance of being able to trace a firearm that was used in a crime back to its owner. That being said, we are living in a post-Patriot Bill era and I do not like the idea of the government labeling me based upon what I own.

Banning high-capacity magazines seems like "security theater" that would only impose a completely arbitrary standard. What is the expected outcome of limiting a magazine to 10 rounds? How is a firearm that only holds 10 rounds somehow safer to the general public than one that holds 17 or 30? I do not support the idea of limiting the defensive capacity of all citizens based upon a handful of isolated incidents.

The same goes for banning "assault weapons". How does a flash suppressor or pistol grip stock make a firearm intrinsically more dangerous?

The notion of coding ammunition is absurd.

It just seems like rather than focusing on: How come loughner did not get the psychiatric help he probably needed?

We're focusing on guns as the problem....

When purchasing a regulated firearm (pistol, scary looking guns), Maryland has a system that authorizes the Maryland State Police to conduct a background check in to your mental health records (basically the State's ATF). Although I'm unsure of the efficacy of such system, I think it's a step in the right direction--so long as it didn't impose undue burden on individuals seeking to acquire firearms.

Will,

This debate has been waged for decades. The trouble that we 2nd amendment people have with engaging in it is that typically our opponents in the debate are disingenuous in their intentions. Most will say "we only want to reduce these high capacity magazines" or "we only want to make it harder for criminals to get guns." The truth for most people who are fighting those fights is that what they really want is to eliminate all private ownership of handguns and assault rifles. Is that what you would really like to see? If not, where is the line for you?

Criminals get guns from enterprising folk who don't care about law. The middleman will always be around. That's why the war on drugs never worked. Just drove up prices a bit. There will always be people out there ready to take the place of a black market dealer.

In other words, I don't think there should be much of a bother on gun control, just education.

And another part of the problem is that you 2nd Amendment people always assume that's what our intentions are

You are perfectly welcome to submit where you want to see the line, Derwood. I'm making no assumptions. I'm not debating until I know with whom I am engaged.

I'm personally anti-gun, but the country is to big and the borders too porous for any real gun control measures to succeed.

I respect the 2nd Amendment, but I find it hard to make the leap that the founders would feel the same about today's weapons that they did about those of their time. The Constitution was written at a time of muskets and single shot pistols. Stating unconditionally that they'd feel the same way about 33 round magazines and automatic weapons (etc., etc.)

The problem with 2nd amendment folks is that they see the issue as black and white / all or nothing. I've lived with some certifiable "gun nuts", I'm pretty damned indifferent to gun ownership, in general. There is clearly an escalating issue with gun violence and an absolute refusal to even discuss the issue among 2nd amendment folks. I also find it intellectually dishonest to continually quote the portion of the second amendment that you like, while ignoring it's qualifying clause.

The situation in Arizona doesn't happen without a gun. Mental health is the problem, but he's lucky to kill a single targeted person with a knife or baseball bat. Guns aren't the problem, but their easy access to criminals and/or insane is a problem.

the framers wrote the constitution with the idea that the people could always retain power over the central government, especially with their experience that a standing army was the bane to liberty. They also grudgingly agreed that a standing army was necessary for defense, but that the people should be as well armed as that standing army to maintain their liberty.

you find it hard to make that leap simply because you are anti gun and are unable to accept that the framers believed that the people should always be more powerful than the government.

---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------

the 'well regulated militia' consists of 'we the people'. as George Mason said, "who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

it's not the national guard and it's not law enforcement.

If I could go back in time and un-invent guns, I would. Short of that, I know it's impossible to eliminate gun ownership. It will never happen.

The line is necessity. What's necessary for home defense and hunting? Balance that with what's necessary to ensure that criminals can't be too well armed. Does an extended clip mean your home or person is safer than normal clips? Does it mean more efficient or effective hunting? Or is it more deaths and injuries at a shooting? Do you need an automatic rifle to defend your house from common criminals or to take down a buck?

I agree access is the issue. But when it comes to magazine capacity, it's as if the government is limiting the speed limit to 30mph for EVERYONE because ONE nut drove his SUV through a crowded market at 80 mph.

Another point, Self and home defense or hunting is what is palatable for the average joe--pointing out the second amendment's prefatory 'necessary to the security of a free state,' as well as the common meaning of the term 'militia' illuminates the true meaning of the second amendment--as another check and balance against government and over concentration of power. I know this sounds like tin-foil hattery, but under a plain meaning as well as how the militia operated back then (grabbing the household rifle and heading out), this would justify the need for 30 round magazines and fully auto weapons--to fight tyranny or foreign invasion (not impossible back then.)

Another point to consider, people claim that people only had muskets back then, true, but back then people communicated by mail and about the only mass media was newspaper. Nowadays, with television, internet, and cell phones, we still honor the first amendment no matter the form. Saying that the founders did not envision magazine fed automatic weapons and thus invalidates the second amendment is the same as saying the founders did not envision the internet and thus statements made through the internet are not protected by the first amendment.

Regardless, this thread is way derailed now. I just agree that I do not like mentally unstable people easily obtaining firearms. Now how to narrowly tailor such a rule will be the challenge faced as Second Amendment jurisprudence develops.

from a logical viewpoint--putting aside what i regard as static from the strict construction folks----it seems to me that attempting to "keep guns from criminals" is less effective than across the board gun controls simply because criminal is an ex post facto category---there is no criminal until a crime has been committed, a process, a conviction etc.---and no amount of criminological/cj profiling or modeling is going to isolate any group or class of people who **will be** or even **might** be criminal because of the above. and it's not illegal to intend to commit a crime if you don't commit it. so you can't determine, you cant know---you can't impute essence to a class or group of people (short of being an outright fascist)...so you're always chasing, always behind.

across the board controls seem more logical.
demonstrations for the efficacy of such controls are simple enough if you look at international crime rates/types/levels of violence and so forth.
and there is an extensive industry of lobbyists and others who are interested in creating as much noise as possible around causal statements because they stand to loose politically (and by extension monetarily) if they loose the fight over gun control.

but i think the argument could be made that it is socially and ethically desirable that feer guns be available to fewer people.

and this is not to even begin to touch the appalling role of the united states in international small arms trafficking and the consequences of that---and entirely different discussion---except insofar as it indicates the extent to which the small arms producers are altogether too free of restrictions.


insofar as tucson is concerned, gun control questions are independent of mental health treatment/options and screening for them...both should be funded. maybe if conservatives could be less fixated on streaming obscene levels of resources into making weapon systems that kill people in great number....but i digress.

i'm not sure that i articulated the main argument with adequate clarity...gearing controls around preventing criminals from getting them is always chasing...it seems to me the wrong kind of argument, something set up to fail.

curiosity, if guns could be made non-existent, what would you consider the best defense to a free state.

not that it happens often, but in the case of a home invasion by multiple armed invaders, that extended clip might make the difference between life and death in avoiding to have to reload after 10 rounds. The need for an automatic weapon is self evident, if one considers that the 2nd Amendment was intended to ensure that the people could stand up to a regular army.

hunting or sporting purposes has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

I agree; but that means that "well regulated" applies to everyone.

Against other people without guns? Numbers, I suppose. Conquering America would be impractical without guns, so I wouldn't really worry about it.

I want you to imagine a world where the government had no guns, dk. Think about that.
Can you name a real life instance of an extended clip meaning the difference between life and death against a criminal?
Yeah, but it's a practical use for a gun and it's important for this militia to stay well regulated and all that.

Why not just have another oxymoron for the government "The War on Guns" lol it'll be as successful as the "War on Drugs". We'll see the deficit quadruple and more people owning because the black market will be busier than ever.

My point is, you will NEVER be able to keep guns out of people's hands, and yes, some of those people WILL be head cases. Those people will always get their gun, the innocent law abiding Joe just wanting to defend himself and his family and property, will then be unable to get a gun for the right reasons. I truly can't see middle ground here.

to me, the focus on the extended magazine or legislation to limit magazine capacity is nothing more than a feel good measure. A skilled shooter can shoot 30 rounds using 2, 15 round magazines with less than a seconds difference than a single 30 round magazine. So, limiting magazine capacity is pointless.

A smart, skilled shooter would have used a 50 cal sniper rifle and probably got away.

I have seen no evidence of skill here. Just a deranged guy with some firepower.

I have no idea if 30 round clips have any bearing. What I do see is a complete unwillingness to discuss what is reasonable. The pro-gun stand seems to be "any weapon, anybody, anywhere", I really don't buy the non-existence of a middle ground.

so long as the debate is framed as if "the law abiding citizen" is entitled to any weapon and ammunition in any amount with any means of delivery at all then there is no middle ground. i think that's the point of the politics of framing around this debate. the gun lobby has no institutional interest in there being a middle ground because they see that as possible defeat for them, with attending losses of revenue. the approach would have to be that fewer weapons available that are more difficult to get is a socially desirable goal in itself and those tighter across-the-board controls be implemented.

but i agree that there seems to be no middle ground at the moment.

I do. alot. police kill about 30-35 people a month. imagine 300-350 more people being alive if police were disarmed.

the point is not to prove it's happened, just that the possibility is there.

lots of tools have practical uses. Why aren't you well regulated?

---------- Post added at 06:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 AM ----------

why should there be a middle ground? when you have to bargain with that which you already have, you're going to lose in the end.

and kudos to you for keeping up with goebbels and the gun lobby revenue myth. :thumbsup:

Can't we agree, though, that no amount of armament by the citizens has any chance AT ALL to stand up to the government/army at this point? Sure, you could stand in front of your house and fire into the soldiers standing outside our door, but about 5 seconds later, your house would be a pile of dust.

The idea that a) the US Government would ever declare war on its own citizens and b) that the citizens could reasonably fight back are both fiction of the highest order

YouTube Beating: Richmond, VA Beating Posted to YouTube - wtvr

---------- Post added at 09:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 AM ----------

It's called an insurgency.

See i.e. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mexico, Colombia.

I appreciate your honesty, and while you took offense at my "assumption" it seems like it was more accurate than not. willravel, the creator of the thread, has also conceded he is entirely anti-gun. This furthers my point as to why it's a challenge to engage in an honest compromising debate.

And to roachboys point, the trouble with "middle ground" as we've seen with those who are anti-gun is that this extended magazine fight is simply a battle in a larger war (pardon the violent rhetoric). To continue the metaphor, very rarely is it an effective strategy to lose a battle in order to win a war. Rather, it's more effective to attempt to win every battle. Since we are "at war" with those who really want to magically wipe guns off the face of the earth, it makes it more difficult to even engage in compromise because one knows their intent and desired end game. It isn't as if it will end with the destruction of 33rd magazines. Then it will be 19 rd magazines, then 17, then 15, then 13, 12, 10...some anti-gunner somewhere will always see a problem with the number of rounds a person can carry in a loaded firearm - because the realization is that, to them, even one round is too many. So, why concede even one denomination to those who seek to eliminate all of them?

There was one and only one failure in the system which caused the Tuscon incident - his parents. They absolutely knew their son had mental health issues and they did not address those issues. They stuck their head in the sand and allowed their son to kill those people. I'm sure they feel tremendous guilt over that fact, in retrospect. The only lesson to be learned here is that you have a responsibility to society to steward your loved ones who are mentally ill, even if it is uncomfortable or embarrassing.

With all due respect, Loughner's mental health issues were mainly (if not entirely) late onset in his late teen years. This would mean that his parents aren't the only ones who could have (or maybe should have) addressed the issue. He probably spent more of his waking time around teachers and friends. And what about health professionals? What about Loughner himself?

It's easy to pin blame. The difficult thing is to learn from the incident instead and to think how many can play some part in preventing such things.


* * * * *

So, to recap:

Where do criminals get guns?

Wherever they can.

How can we stop them?

We can't.

Does this just about sum it up?