What can be done to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms easily?

[IndyDave1776]

Consider this sceinaro. Joe is in a gang. He and his gang commit crimes, he is eventually arrested for grand theft auto, he goes to jail and is a convicted felon who has served his term of 3 years for grand theft auto. He gets out of jail and contiunes to hang out with his gang, they need guns, he has been tasked at obtaining them a bunch of handguns.

Tell me what you think would be the easist route for Joe?
A. Buy them from a FFL? No not an option.
B. Break into somebody's home with the hopes that he can steal a firearm. He very well might die doing this.
C. Drive to the gunshow and buy them from "private sales" and walk away with his guns.

We're talking about the same inner city crime that is being aided because somebody simply doesn't care whomever buys his/her firearm. Now the vast majority of folks on INGO actually ASK to see IN DL and LTCH which is harsher then the legal requirement. Should we not stive to take option C off the table. Is that not at least a little better? Will folks STILL be able to buy, sell, and trade with each their firearms at gunshows and in the classifeds? Yes. Now they merely have to simply LOOK at these two forms of ID. Now Joe is forced to look elsewhere for his guns, which as you said also come from.

Sure folks will still steal/kill for their guns, but at least as reasponsible gun owners we can say that they're not getting them from us.

You apparently believe in benevolent government. I would argue that anyone who believes in benevolent government is delusional, particularly when that person tries to argue that this law would affect criminals but not the rest of us. Incidentally, you may wish to consider the pipeline of guns from a certain well known gun dealer to criminals and then get back with me about how well this whole background check thing works.

 

[KoopaKGB]

You apparently believe in benevolent government. I would argue that anyone who believes in benevolent government is delusional, particularly when that person tries to argue that this law would affect criminals but not the rest of us. Incidentally, you may wish to consider the pipeline of guns from a certain well known gun dealer to criminals and then get back with me about how well this whole background check thing works.

I'm just talking about helping to make the chance of aquiring a firearm for prohibited persons from 100% in a private sale to now closing that option for him. To now they have to work that much harder to illegally aquire a firearm. I never said that these dealers shouldn't be prosecuted. The ATF should be all over it since they are the ones in charge of FFLs. The ATF is inherently weak with laws that keep it that way, but thats another topic.
There Goes the Boom - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 01/16/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central
There Goes the Boom - ATF - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 01/16/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[cook4army]

heres an idea

Okay, heres a brain storm of an idea. If the law requires that FFL holders do a background check, then it would seem reasonable to have private sales done the same way, to protect the seller mainly. How about any private sales that occur, must have the local PD sign off on the sale before it can happen. Seller turns in copy of DL to local PD station. Station pauses solitare for 3.2 seconds to run DL for criminal convictions. If it comes back clean, he stamps and signs off on a form that states that the buyer came back clean. Seller then takes paperwork to buyer and has them sign it stating that he understands he is cleared and the sale proceeds. Seller keeps forms on hand for X number of years. You could do this with family members as well.

 

[pirate]

Meh...If they are free men. (Not currently locked up) They should be afforded the same rights as me. Nothing needs to be done on that aspect IMO

 

[KoopaKGB]

Okay, heres a brain storm of an idea. If the law requires that FFL holders do a background check, then it would seem reasonable to have private sales done the same way, to protect the seller mainly. How about any private sales that occur, must have the local PD sign off on the sale before it can happen. Seller turns in copy of DL to local PD station. Station pauses solitare for 3.2 seconds to run DL for criminal convictions. If it comes back clean, he stamps and signs off on a form that states that the buyer came back clean. Seller then takes paperwork to buyer and has them sign it stating that he understands he is cleared and the sale proceeds. Seller keeps forms on hand for X number of years. You could do this with family members as well.

That sarcastic remark makes more sense then merely having to LOOK at a drivers license or LTCH?

How about being able to call in a NICS check yourself so you can be assured that this person is good to go.

 

[Trooper]

Meh...If they are free men. (Not currently locked up) They should be afforded the same rights as me. Nothing needs to be done on that aspect IMO

What our system does is strip them of rights. They are restricted citizens, for life. AT best 2nd class citizens. We have no means of their being able to redeem themselves. No process of redemption where they show themselves to be worthy of the trust of their fellow citizens.

 

[KoopaKGB]

What our system does is strip them of rights. They are restricted citizens, for life. AT best 2nd class citizens. We have no means of their being able to redeem themselves. No process of redemption where they show themselves to be worthy of the trust of their fellow citizens.

Not in all places Trooper.

"In Minnesota, for instance, violent felons can petition a court to regain their gun rights by showing "good cause." There is no waiting period. In Ohio, a violent felon need only demonstrate to a judge that he or she has “led a law-abiding life” since they’ve left prison. In Washington State, felons can get their gun rights restored as long as they haven’t been convicted of any new crimes in five years."

Seven of the Most Striking Ways States Have Loosened Gun Laws - ProPublica

 

[NYFelon]

I take it you're against those policies then?

 

[Project972]

money talks.

 

[NYFelon]

I am not saying a gun makes anyone evil, that would be like saying spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat. What I am saying is that the bank robber who used a firearm to commit his robbery should not have the right to own a firearm after he does his time, without some sort of formal system in place for him to go about regaining his right that he forfeited when he was found guilty of armed robbery.

So what of a person who robs a bank with nothing other than a note? Bank personnel are trained to offer no resistance at all to a robber, regardless of whether he has a weapon at all. They are to just hand over the money and let the police handle the criminal investigation, and the FDIC is responsible for the financial aspects. Should such a person be forever barred from owning pen and paper for the rest of his life? Or is it not the pen and paper's fault they were used to hold up a bank? The argument falls apart when applied to any other object on this planet. So, in essence, you are in fact subscribing to the idea that the gun is the object of evil, and the robber is merely the channel through which the evil of the firearm manifests itself.

One CANNOT forfeit a right. The robber no more forfeited his right to a firearm than a person convicted of slander or libel forfeits his right to speech. The right may well have been INFRINGED UPON and restricted by a law of man, but it has not been forfeit. Rights by their nature CANNOT be forfeit.

 

[KoopaKGB]

So what of a person who robs a bank with nothing other than a note? Bank personnel are trained to offer no resistance at all to a robber, regardless of whether he has a weapon at all. They are to just hand over the money and let the police handle the criminal investigation, and the FDIC is responsible for the financial aspects. Should such a person be forever barred from owning pen and paper for the rest of his life? Or is it not the pen and paper's fault they were used to hold up a bank? The argument falls apart when applied to any other object on this planet. So, in essence, you are in fact subscribing to the idea that the gun is the object of evil, and the robber is merely the channel through which the evil of the firearm manifests itself.

One CANNOT forfeit a right. The robber no more forfeited his right to a firearm than a person convicted of slander or libel forfeits his right to speech. The right may well have been INFRINGED UPON and restricted by a law of man, but it has not been forfeit. Rights by their nature CANNOT be forfeit.

I'm assuming armed robbery holds a higher punishment so yeah it might take the person LONGER to regain his rights if ever. But certainly right out of prison he should not legally be allowed to own a firearm. Maybe he robbed the bank when he was 22 years of age, he serves 10 years in prison or whatever and gets out. Maybe leads a law abiding life for the next 5-10 years has proven himself to be an upstanding citizen again. Depending on the state he lives in he can apply for his right to own a gun and vote again. Yes, I'm all for that.

 

[MickeyBlueEyes]

How about we just go with it on the Sharia Law thing and let the muslims chop off hands and genitals and such till we have no doubt who is who...

 

[NYFelon]

I'm assuming armed robbery holds a higher punishment so yeah it might take the person LONGER to regain his rights if ever. But certainly right out of prison he should not legally be allowed to own a firearm. Maybe he robbed the bank when he was 22 years of age, he serves 10 years in prison or whatever and gets out. Maybe leads a law abiding life for the next 5-10 years has proven himself to be an upstanding citizen again. Depending on the state he lives in he can apply for his right to own a gun and vote again. Yes, I'm all for that.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Survivalcookie]

More people lock their guns up in safes bolted to their floor, so no more guns get stolen....you can document a gun all you want, won't help it from getting stolen and used by a bad guy.

 

[Survivalcookie]

Obviously our rehabilitation system is not working with rates of recidivism as they are. That’s not the topic of this thread, but sure we can brainstorm ideas on how to fix our prison system too.

Prison will never work...most guys who get out can't find a job...so they have to go back to crime to be able to eat. So I say just kill them when they commit a crime or make it where an employer can no longer ask the quest ion are they a felon.

 

[Tombs]

Shift the war on drugs to a war on gang activity and illegal arms trafficing...

It's really just that simple, actually enforce some of the laws already on the books.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You can work along the margins but I don't think anything will prevent those intent on commiting evil from committing evil.

The murderer of Newtown committed Murder and Theft to obtain his firearms. All the firearms murders and attempted that I have done have involved borrowed firearms (an Attempted Murder I did was Theft of a Smith I frame from a grandmother) from friends or family.

SVF is already a B felony in Indiana, 6 to 20. Federal felon in possession gets really steep. I don't see how enhancing the penalties will help anything. Everyone in the criminal class knows that it is against the law for felons to own guns and yet they do.

In order to mitigate the danger of criminals with guns a la Newtown, we need to eliminate the gun free zones that the government imposes on us (but not itself, have you noticed). Eliminate GFZs, make gun ownership mandatory, and teach firearms safety and proficiency in the public schools.

Kirk, you had me up to the highlighted line. "Mandatory" ownership is as bad as mandatory non-ownership: The people who don't want guns but own them just to comply with a stupid law will be the sources of guns for criminals, either as a result of a theft or a murder and a theft. Encouraged, OK. Incentivized, OK. Mandatory crosses the line for me.

Just my opinion, others are free to share it or to disagree, at their discretion.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[AJMD429]

"Background Checks" accomplish NO useful purpose as far as 'crime reduction', and there is ample data to prove that.

"Background Checks" however DO have two other purposes which need to be considered:

• Background Checks provide opportunistic politicians with no integrity the ability to appear to "do something" and thereby avoid being labeled as lacking in leadership by a biased and dishonest news media, spoon-feeding the masses instructions on who to vote for.
• Background Checks provide opportunistic tyrants with no integrity the ability to create a Registration Database.

Neither of those is a positive thing. Politicians voting FOR a "Background Check" therefore are lacking integrity, in that they are willing to pave the way for tyrants in order to earn political points for doing 'something' which they know will NOT reduce crime.

Further, creation of a Registration Database is NOT something which can be un-done, and we already have seen our own government create one when expressly prohibited by the law THEY are supposed to follow as well as their subjects, er, I mean citizens.


Like "Background Checks", Gun Registration has clearly been shown NOT to reduce crime, but have two effects of importance:

• Gun Registration provides opportunistic politicians with no integrity the ability to appear to "do something" and thereby avoid being labeled as lacking in leadership by a biased and dishonest news media, spoon-feeding the masses instructions on who to vote for.
• Gun Registration provides opportunistic tyrants with no integrity the ability to Confiscate Firearms.

Further, Firearms Confiscation has clearly been shown NOT to reduce crime, but has two effects of importance (I'll bet astute readers are seeing a pattern already, and if they use one-syllable words perhaps they can explain it to the 'progressive liberals' successfully).

• Gun Confiscation provides opportunistic politicians with no integrity the ability to appear to "do something" and thereby avoid being labeled as lacking in leadership by a biased and dishonest news media, spoon-feeding the masses instructions on who to vote for.
• Gun Confiscation provides opportunistic tyrants with no integrity the ability to commit Genocide.

Since Genocide currently continues to lead to around five thousand innocent civilians being murdered every day, it is a far more significant and far more likely thing to harm humans than all the 'school shooters' and ordinary criminals and terrorists combined. We ignore it at our peril, and to set the stage for genocide by allowing even a harmless-sounding "Background Check" is NOT something we can do without grave consequences, in both senses of the word.

If we could TRUST the government to honestly do a legitimate 'background check', it would still not reduce crime, even if we could trust them to NOT retain the 'registration' information as they currently do in clear violation of the law.

Sadly, school shootings happen (enabled by government-created 'gun-free-zones), and lovely innocent children die. The psychopaths who pull the trigger are the most guilty party, of course, but those of us who stand by and allow the conditions to be created for such senseless murders are to blame as accomplices. No - I don't mean those who own 'assault weapons', or belong to the NRA, or even those who watch stupid and violent video games - I mean the bureaucrats who create 'gun free zones' (yet send their kids to private schools with high-tech security and armed guards), AND I mean the apathetic "sportsmen" who spend $400 on a Leupold scope but won't donate $50 to the NRA, or who spend hours on the deerstand or Brownell's website, but won't write their legislators or show up at a public hearing, AND I mean those who are willing to accept a "Background Check", knowing full-well that it will save NO lives, provide political 'cover' for politicians lacking in integrity, and set the stage for genocide...

It will be the same folks guilty as charged if we set the stage for the even-worse carnage of GENOCIDE.

Of course thinking like that makes one an 'anti-government wacko', but it would have been nice if some of the German citizens of the 1930's had felt that way, wouldn't it...???

 

[Bill of Rights]

I am not saying a gun makes anyone evil, that would be like saying spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat. What I am saying is that the bank robber who used a firearm to commit his robbery should not have the right to own a firearm after he does his time, without some sort of formal system in place for him to go about regaining his right that he forfeited when he was found guilty of armed robbery.

I think we all get that that's what you're saying. My question, and possibly that of others as well, is "Why?" The gun does not make him recidivate. It MAY allow him to defend himself from his former associates, however, because despite laws to the contrary, *they* will be armed.

Consider this sceinaro. Joe is in a gang. He and his gang commit crimes, he is eventually arrested for grand theft auto, he goes to jail and is a convicted felon who has served his term of 3 years for grand theft auto. He gets out of jail and contiunes to hang out with his gang, they need guns, he has been tasked at obtaining them a bunch of handguns.

Tell me what you think would be the easist route for Joe?
A. Buy them from a FFL? No not an option.
B. Break into somebody's home with the hopes that he can steal a firearm. He very well might die doing this.
C. Drive to the gunshow and buy them from "private sales" and walk away with his guns.

We're talking about the same inner city crime that is being aided because somebody simply doesn't care whomever buys his/her firearm. Now the vast majority of folks on INGO actually ASK to see IN DL and LTCH which is harsher then the legal requirement. Should we not stive to take option C off the table. Is that not at least a little better? Will folks STILL be able to buy, sell, and trade with each their firearms at gunshows and in the classifeds? Yes. Now they merely have to simply LOOK at these two forms of ID. Now Joe is forced to look elsewhere for his guns, which as you said also come from.

Sure folks will still steal/kill for their guns, but at least as reasponsible gun owners we can say that they're not getting them from us.

This is a strawman argument. You've set up the scenario so you can knock down the "obvious" answer, except that in reality, fewer than 2% of crime guns came from gun shows. "Closing the gun show loophole" is a media codeword that really means "We want to eliminate private sales of guns so we know where all of them are."
So... let's again address two items mentioned upthread: Cars and hammers, both of which have been used to kill many people, though admittedly, those killed by use of a car are not all intentional. (neither are guns.) With that premise in mind, if my neighbor wants to buy my hammer, should I have to take it down to a federally- (or even state-)licensed hardware store so that the "dealer" can run a background check on him and charge us a fee to allow me to sell him the hammer? If I have a car to sell, should I not be able to run an ad in my local paper or put it on Craig's List?

What "universal background checks" is all about is telling me I can't dispose of my own property to whomever I wish, however I wish. As is oft-repeated, it's not about guns. It's about control.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

"Background Checks" accomplish NO useful purpose as far as 'crime reduction', and there is ample data to prove that.

"Background Checks" however DO have two other purposes which need to be considered:

• Background Checks provide opportunistic politicians with no integrity the ability to appear to "do something" and thereby avoid being labeled as lacking in leadership by a biased and dishonest news media, spoon-feeding the masses instructions on who to vote for.
• Background Checks provide opportunistic tyrants with no integrity the ability to create a Registration Database.

Neither of those is a positive thing. Politicians voting FOR a "Background Check" therefore are lacking integrity, in that they are willing to pave the way for tyrants in order to earn political points for doing 'something' which they know will NOT reduce crime.

Further, creation of a Registration Database is NOT something which can be un-done, and we already have seen our own government create one when expressly prohibited by the law THEY are supposed to follow as well as their subjects, er, I mean citizens.


Like "Background Checks", Gun Registration has clearly been shown NOT to reduce crime, but have two effects of importance:

• Gun Registration provides opportunistic politicians with no integrity the ability to appear to "do something" and thereby avoid being labeled as lacking in leadership by a biased and dishonest news media, spoon-feeding the masses instructions on who to vote for.
• Gun Registration provides opportunistic tyrants with no integrity the ability to Confiscate Firearms.

Further, Firearms Confiscation has clearly been shown NOT to reduce crime, but has two effects of importance (I'll bet astute readers are seeing a pattern already, and if they use one-syllable words perhaps they can explain it to the 'progressive liberals' successfully).

• Gun Confiscation provides opportunistic politicians with no integrity the ability to appear to "do something" and thereby avoid being labeled as lacking in leadership by a biased and dishonest news media, spoon-feeding the masses instructions on who to vote for.
• Gun Confiscation provides opportunistic tyrants with no integrity the ability to commit Genocide.

Since Genocide currently continues to lead to around five thousand innocent civilians being murdered every day, it is a far more significant and far more likely thing to harm humans than all the 'school shooters' and ordinary criminals and terrorists combined. We ignore it at our peril, and to set the stage for genocide by allowing even a harmless-sounding "Background Check" is NOT something we can do without grave consequences, in both senses of the word.

If we could TRUST the government to honestly do a legitimate 'background check', it would still not reduce crime, even if we could trust them to NOT retain the 'registration' information as they currently do in clear violation of the law.

Sadly, school shootings happen (enabled by government-created 'gun-free-zones), and lovely innocent children die. The psychopaths who pull the trigger are the most guilty party, of course, but those of us who stand by and allow the conditions to be created for such senseless murders are to blame as accomplices. No - I don't mean those who own 'assault weapons', or belong to the NRA, or even those who watch stupid and violent video games - I mean the bureaucrats who create 'gun free zones' (yet send their kids to private schools with high-tech security and armed guards), AND I mean the apathetic "sportsmen" who spend $400 on a Leupold scope but won't donate $50 to the NRA, or who spend hours on the deerstand or Brownell's website, but won't write their legislators or show up at a public hearing, AND I mean those who are willing to accept a "Background Check", knowing full-well that it will save NO lives, provide political 'cover' for politicians lacking in integrity, and set the stage for genocide...

It will be the same folks guilty as charged if we set the stage for the even-worse carnage of GENOCIDE.

Of course thinking like that makes one an 'anti-government wacko', but it would have been nice if some of the German citizens of the 1930's had felt that way, wouldn't it...???

All of ^^this.

Rep added.

Blessings,
Bill