ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 21st January 2020, 02:16 PM   #81
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,766
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
OK, but I think you missed my point. Handguns are used for murder in this country 20 times more often than rifles, but Governor KKK wants to limit handgun purchases to 12 a year per person and confiscate rifles. Clearly this has nothing to do with the safety of the public and everything to do with impacting our ability to participate in the national militia described in the 2nd Amendment.
So he should be restricting the handguns as well?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2020, 02:47 PM   #82
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 7,743
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
OK, but I think you missed my point.
Probably. I assumed you ruined your own point.

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
Handguns are used for murder in this country 20 times more often than rifles, but Governor KKK wants to limit handgun purchases to 12 a year per person and confiscate rifles.
All of them? He wants to confiscate all of the rifles? You sure about that?

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
Clearly this has nothing to do with the safety of the public and everything to do with impacting our ability to participate in the national militia described in the 2nd Amendment.
You guys are a ******* hoot. What national militia? Most of the "militia" are fat ******* turds that couldn't handle a week of camping, let alone war. Take that dumb fat ass that was holding the .50 cal at the rally. That pasty peckerwood couldn't walk a mile...on a treadmill...downhill.

I think we have the "pew pew"ness taken care of due to the fact we have the largest and most expensive military in the entire world. The rest of the 'militia' can stand down and stick to their normal Call of Duty LARP'ing on the weekends. LoL militia, the ****...

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
So he should be restricting the handguns as well?
Technically he is since they can "only" buy 12 per year. No restrictions on ammo that I can see.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Last edited by plague311; 21st January 2020 at 02:55 PM.
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2020, 03:08 PM   #83
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,513
Originally Posted by Donal View Post
Federalist Paper No. 29 specifically defines a militia as being raised, organized, and maintained by its respective state. Hamilton mentions using the militia to defend against the federal government, but only after its uses of supplementing the regular army and putting down insurrections. In short, these Chairborn Rangers are NOT what was intended.
Federal law trumps Federalist Papers.

Originally Posted by 10 U.S. Code § 246
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2020, 03:11 PM   #84
BrooklynBaby
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,079
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
So he should be restricting the handguns as well?
He is restricting handguns. Nothing the left likes to do more than to pull numbers out of the air based on nothing and then codify them into laws that are universally ignored by those supposedly affected. You know, like the New Jersey law restricting magazines to ten rounds. (The standard mag for a Beretta M9 has been 15 rounds since the 1980s.) A FOIA request 4 months after the New Jersey law took effect shows zero standard ("high capacity" to the left) mags had been turned over to state police from the estimated one million citizens in New Jersey who have them.
BrooklynBaby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2020, 03:23 PM   #85
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,513
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
He is restricting handguns. Nothing the left likes to do more than to pull numbers out of the air based on nothing and then codify them into laws that are universally ignored by those supposedly affected. You know, like the New Jersey law restricting magazines to ten rounds. (The standard mag for a Beretta M9 has been 15 rounds since the 1980s.) A FOIA request 4 months after the New Jersey law took effect shows zero standard ("high capacity" to the left) mags had been turned over to state police from the estimated one million citizens in New Jersey who have them.
Is there any evidence to suggest that restricting individuals to purchase 1 gun max per month has any measurable effect on outcomes that the government has an interest in pursuing?
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2020, 03:26 PM   #86
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,354
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Federal law trumps Federalist Papers.
Quote:
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
There's a fair number of greybeards in those photos from Richmond. Limiting it to 45 years old excludes a whole lot of wannabe militiamen.

Which leads me to wonder if people over the age of 45 can still be in the National Guard.

Last edited by crescent; 21st January 2020 at 04:02 PM.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2020, 03:31 PM   #87
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,354
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Is there any evidence to suggest that restricting individuals to purchase 1 gun max per month has any measurable effect on outcomes that the government has an interest in pursuing?
It targets the movement of guns from the primary market to the black market. After all, nearly all of those guns that are so easily available to criminals started out in legal circles. If criminals find it easy to get guns, it is because a whole lot of guns are moving from legal circles into the black market. The legal market is the source of the black market.

Bulk Gun Purchases

Quote:
States with weak gun laws attract traffickers who make multiple purchases and then resell those firearms in states with stronger gun laws.2

Federal law defines a “multiple sale” as the sale of two or more guns to the same purchaser within five business days.3 Multiple sales are a significant indicator of firearms trafficking, and firearms sold in such sales are frequently recovered at crime scenes.

Data indicates that approximately 20–25% of all handguns recovered at crime scenes were originally purchased as part of a multiple sale.4
Handguns sold in multiple sales were up to 64% more likely to be used in crime than handguns sold individually.5
A study of crime gun recoveries in Baltimore found that guns purchased in multiple sales were significantly more likely than guns purchased in single sales to be recovered from a possessor who was not the original buyer.6

That's from a gun control group (not an unbiased source), but they've got cites for every assertation:
  1. Douglas S. Weil and Rebecca C. Knox, “Effects of Limiting Handgun Purchases on Interstate Transfer of Firearms,” JAMA 25, no. 22 (1996): 1759–1760. ⤴︎
  2. Id. ⤴︎
  3. 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A). ⤴︎
  4. Christopher S. Koper, “Crime Gun Risk Factors: Buyer, Seller, Firearm, and Transaction Characteristics Associated with Gun Trafficking and Criminal Gun Use,” National Institute of Justice, 2007, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221074.pdf. ⤴︎
  5. Id. ⤴︎
  6. Christopher S. Koper “Crime gun risk factors: Buyer, Seller, Firearm, and Transaction Characteristics Associated with Gun Trafficking and Criminal Gun Use,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 30, no. 2 (2014): 285-315. ⤴︎

Last edited by crescent; 21st January 2020 at 03:48 PM.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2020, 03:43 PM   #88
Hungry81
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,322
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
The leftists in Virginia were fulling planning on gun confiscation and/or gun registration. That is essentially a declaration of war on the Constitution and American citizens. Americans are not going to roll over for this anymore than the Patriots did at Lexington and Concord when the Brits came for their arms. This is the same country with the same ideals, and the citizens of this country plan to remain free. Almost all of the sheriffs in Virginia have said they are not going to enforce unconstitutional laws. If the left doesn't want to see people prepared for war in the streets, then they can simply obey the Bill of Rights and stop trying to take power from the people by attempting to confiscate the legally owned guns of law-abiding citizens, or trying to force registration so they can be confiscated down the road. Just stop, and everything will be fine, like it has been since the beginning. None of us want war, just freedom.
FREEDUMB!11@!11
Hungry81 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2020, 03:53 PM   #89
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,445
Originally Posted by Donal View Post
Ah, so we can change the Amendments and their interpretation for contemporary thinking?

Also, the whole point of these conversations is that fairly new interpretation is still up for debate and actually conflicts with several other Amendments and clauses.
Yes, but judges often simply ignore the plain meaning of the text (see, the creation of corporate personhood [!] was based on an absurd misread of the 14th amendment, and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, was based on an asinine view of the 14th as well as article 10, and Roberts' idiotic assertion that no state would ever try to discriminate based on race - despite obvious efforts to do exactly this right up to his ruling)
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2020, 03:56 PM   #90
Hungry81
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,322
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I am amused, puzzled, and frightened by the wide-spread belief of the militia-types that once they determine the Federal or State government has become illegitimate they will have the right to take their weapons and begin a violent uprising against said established governments. I do not see any discussion by them of how that determination is to be made. In particular a careful and open evaluation of the actual legitimacy of the existing government under the Constitution and the established legal system, and of the views of the actual majority of the population, does not appear to be part of the plan. Just what the camo boys think. Or some of the camo boys.



Okay...lets say they even pull it off (somehow the military and police join them with their planes, tanks, H-bombs, etc). Then what? Are all the militia agreed as to what the resulting government should look like and who should run it? How does this not immediately degenerate to a bunch of violent warlords each pursuing their own interests, greed, lust for power, and bizarre visions of society and politics? How does this not become Somalia at its worse?
No all the malitias are of one mind, kind like a hive. They definately all have the same goals, objectives and a clear plan outlining triggers for insurrection, a plan of cooperation, duties and heirachy. They definately do not have competing interests and a well trained particularly in inter-militia cooperation and communication, and have established supply lines, industry and services all lined up willingly behind them. There is no way an armed insurrection with the existing agreed upon clearly defined true American objectives and goals could go wrong, and not achieve the true goals of the true American people. Pew pew mother ******.
Hungry81 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2020, 03:59 PM   #91
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,773
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
The leftists in Virginia were fulling planning on gun confiscation and/or gun registration. That is essentially a declaration of war on the Constitution and American citizens. Americans are not going to roll over for this anymore than the Patriots did at Lexington and Concord when the Brits came for their arms. This is the same country with the same ideals, and the citizens of this country plan to remain free. Almost all of the sheriffs in Virginia have said they are not going to enforce unconstitutional laws. If the left doesn't want to see people prepared for war in the streets, then they can simply obey the Bill of Rights and stop trying to take power from the people by attempting to confiscate the legally owned guns of law-abiding citizens, or trying to force registration so they can be confiscated down the road. Just stop, and everything will be fine, like it has been since the beginning. None of us want war, just freedom.
ONCE AGAIN for the dummies who cannot or will not read...and there appear to be a couple of thousand of those...

Quote:
Pro-gun activists threaten to kill state lawmaker over bill they misunderstood

Virginia legislator Lee Carter wrote a bill to allow teachers to strike. Pro-gun activists wrongly concluded it threatens their rights

The legislation introduced by Lee Carter, a 32-year-old Bernie Sanders-endorsed socialist, would allow public school teachers to strike without being fired, and has in fact nothing to do with guns. But some gun rights activists wrongly interpreted it as an attempt to fire law enforcement officials who might refuse to comply with gun control laws introduced by Virginia’s new Democratic legislative majority.

The result, Carter said, has been a torrent of threats and abuse on social media, from promises to vote him out of office, to claims that “this is tyranny and you know what we do to tyrants,” to explicit threats of murder, like, “I’m going to make sure you don’t live through this legislative session” or “I’m going to kill this guy, y’all make sure you don’t forget my name.”
Virginia Democrats won an election. Gun owners are talking civil war
Read more

Carter, says he has been so concerned about the death threats that he has started openly carrying a handgun to protect himself.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rike-bill-guns

Mod WarningFixed quote link. Do not mock other members by changing their usernames.
Posted By:zooterkin
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015

Last edited by zooterkin; 22nd January 2020 at 10:08 AM.
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2020, 07:19 PM   #92
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,863
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
ONCE AGAIN for the dummies who cannot or will not read...and there appear to be a couple of thousand of those...


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rike-bill-guns
It's a bizarre scenario. Right wingers have spent decades smearing libs as commies so much that they honestly can't tell the difference.

Gun control is a liberal policy. Socialists are mixed in their opinions on this topic. Several strains of leftism are very much opposed to gun control policy. Carter largely seems ambivalent to the whole thing, only supporting the background check provision.

They assume that Carter must be spearheading this anti-gun crusade because he's an open leftist and they have spent decades smearing every liberal policy as communism. To their minds, libs=leftism, so someone who is very left must be very much in support of centrist liberal policies, which is total nonsense. Duped by their own BS.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 21st January 2020 at 07:22 PM.
SuburbanTurkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2020, 07:50 PM   #93
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,194
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
ONCE AGAIN for the dummies who cannot or will not read...and there appear to be a couple of thousand of those...


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rike-bill-guns
You're just googling things, looking for a "pwn" and "gotcha." You're not even understanding the context of the articles you're skimming. The Guardian article you keep quoting is about a few anonymous tweets from unverified twitter accounts that allegedly misinterpreted House Bill No. 67 of the 2020 Session. This thread, and the various protests, are about other legislation, such as Senate Bill No. 16, which has everything to do with guns.

You are literally having a conversation with yourself.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2020, 10:00 PM   #94
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,354
'I Need to Claim My First Victim': Alleged Neo-Nazis' Violent Plans for Virginia Rally Revealed

Quote:
“You know we got this situation in Virginia where this is going to be, that opportunity is boundless,” said Lemley on Dec. 23, according to the documents. “The thing is you’ve got tons of guys who are just in theory should be radicalized enough to know that all you gotta do is start making things go wrong, and if Virginia can spiral out to a ******* full-blown civil war.”
Quote:
“We can’t let Virginia go to waste,” Mathews said. “You know what, Virginia will be our day.”

Lemley and Mathews also fantasized about... throwing fireworks into the crowd during the rally in the hopes of provoking attendees into shooting, and sniping into a “running skirmish of MAGAtards, liberty militias and libertarians” as they tried to escape the chaos.
Quote:
Mathews asked whether they should load their truck to go to Virginia as if they were going to carry out “operations.”

“Yeah, we’re loading the truck for the war,” Lemley replied. He said that their campground would ideally be a few counties away from Richmond, “not in the ******* quarantine zone where they’re looking to arrest people like us.”
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2020, 07:49 AM   #95
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,161
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Federal law trumps Federalist Papers.
Quote:
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So, no one over 45 and they need to at least state their intention to join the National Guard.

How many of the GI Jokes in those pictures would be disqualified?
__________________
SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2020, 08:46 AM   #96
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,863
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Yeah, the right declaring victory because their protest was peaceful rings a bit hollow in this context.

Open Neo-Nazis were planning to attend and hoped to cause a chaotic mass cross-fire between police and armed citizens by strategically ambushing people with rifle fire. They had taken concrete steps to accomplish this goal and were likely only stopped because the feds have been monitoring this group after the recent slew of right wing terror attacks.

I think comparisons to UTR were probably a bit hasty. UTR was an event planned, advertised, and intended to draw extremists such as these neo-nazi and neo-confederate paramilitary groups. Lobby day is a mainstream conservative and pro-2A rally. Right wingers had hoped to gate-crash and perhaps co-opt the larger event, but were largely unsuccessful.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 22nd January 2020 at 08:48 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2020, 08:57 AM   #97
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,161
As I understand it, Lobby Day isn't even exclusively a conservative event.
__________________
SuburbanNerd A blog for making tech make sense
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2020, 06:10 PM   #98
Pterodactyl
Graduate Poster
 
Pterodactyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,199
So... what happened?
Shootings and beatings galore?
Pterodactyl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2020, 06:25 PM   #99
Ranb
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 10,013
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It's a bizarre scenario. Right wingers have spent decades smearing libs as commies so much that they honestly can't tell the difference.

Gun control is a liberal policy. .....
Which makes it all the more interesting that Trump is by far the most successful gun grabber (500,000 or so) with AG Order No. 4367–2018.

But then it was explained to me that Trump is not conservative, he is just Trump.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2020, 06:28 PM   #100
Ranb
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 10,013
Originally Posted by Pterodactyl View Post
So... what happened?
Shootings and beatings galore?
Nope. They fell short despite what some people hoped (or hyped) for.

https://babylonbee.com/news/media-of...uIjzKyKdIMeTsM
Quote:
Somber members of the press offered their thoughts and prayers that someone would start some violence at the gun rights rally in Virginia today.

Reporters expressed their grief and condolences as the violence they hyped has so far failed to materialize.
I think the BabylonBee is straining a bit to come up with biting satire.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 10:04 AM   #101
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16,311
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Which makes it all the more interesting that Trump is by far the most successful gun grabber (500,000 or so) with AG Order No. 4367–2018.

But then it was explained to me that Trump is not conservative, he is just Trump.
He is actually many Trumps. What he comprehends, what he says, and what he actually believes are often not the same at any one moment, and all that can change from moment to moment.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 07:07 PM   #102
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,513
Originally Posted by Donal View Post
So, no one over 45 and they need to at least state their intention to join the National Guard.

How many of the GI Jokes in those pictures would be disqualified?
It is not 45 and state their intention, as I have quoted you saying above. It is 45 or state intention.

Quote:
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2020, 07:15 PM   #103
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,513
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
It targets the movement of guns from the primary market to the black market. After all, nearly all of those guns that are so easily available to criminals started out in legal circles. If criminals find it easy to get guns, it is because a whole lot of guns are moving from legal circles into the black market. The legal market is the source of the black market.

Bulk Gun Purchases




That's from a gun control group (not an unbiased source), but they've got cites for every assertation:
  1. Douglas S. Weil and Rebecca C. Knox, “Effects of Limiting Handgun Purchases on Interstate Transfer of Firearms,” JAMA 25, no. 22 (1996): 1759–1760. ⤴︎
  2. Id. ⤴︎
  3. 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A). ⤴︎
  4. Christopher S. Koper, “Crime Gun Risk Factors: Buyer, Seller, Firearm, and Transaction Characteristics Associated with Gun Trafficking and Criminal Gun Use,” National Institute of Justice, 2007, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221074.pdf. ⤴︎
  5. Id. ⤴︎
  6. Christopher S. Koper “Crime gun risk factors: Buyer, Seller, Firearm, and Transaction Characteristics Associated with Gun Trafficking and Criminal Gun Use,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 30, no. 2 (2014): 285-315. ⤴︎
Well sourced. I agree it is a problem. Those will ill intent to purchase and distribute guns illegally will procure those guns via the easiest method. There are two possible scenarios that I can think of. What is the most pragmatic solution that I have offered or provide your own assessment.

Option 1: Make a law, so that only 1 gun can be purchased per month, thereby obscuring the individuals whom are purchasing guns and selling them on the black market.

If the legal means to obtain those guns disappear, do you believe that will severely restrict the amount of guns on the black market? Or will criminals be driven further underground and discover new ways to obtain firearms to sell into the black market?

Option 2: Allow the Federal agency access to the list of individuals whom are purchasing copious amounts of guns, so they can be properly investigated and processed.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th January 2020, 08:42 AM   #104
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,354
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Well sourced. I agree it is a problem. Those will ill intent to purchase and distribute guns illegally will procure those guns via the easiest method. There are two possible scenarios that I can think of. What is the most pragmatic solution that I have offered or provide your own assessment.

Option 1: Make a law, so that only 1 gun can be purchased per month, thereby obscuring the individuals whom are purchasing guns and selling them on the black market.

If the legal means to obtain those guns disappear, do you believe that will severely restrict the amount of guns on the black market? Or will criminals be driven further underground and discover new ways to obtain firearms to sell into the black market?

Option 2: Allow the Federal agency access to the list of individuals whom are purchasing copious amounts of guns, so they can be properly investigated and processed.

We're talking about straw purchasing, mostly. Which is one of the major routes that guns take to enter the black market.

Option 1 is proactive, Option 2 is reactive/deterrence.

In the years I've looked into this issue, the proactive vs. reactive/deterrence stance is often a divide between gun control advocates vs. well-meaning gun enthusiasts who want to be able to accept some gun regulation (but rarely do).

What I would point out is twofold: Many straw purchasers only operate for a short time. By the time they get tied to guns used in crimes, they may have already been imprisoned for something else or have moved on and stopped making purchases anyway. For example, drug dealers will offer discounts or free drugs if addicts with no criminal history will buy the guns for the dealers. The damage will already have been done, a potentially large number of guns may have moved into the black market.

Quote:
One straw purchaser bought 16 guns for a man she lived with, who was a felon at the time. She told us that she once bought 10 guns from the same store in one week, and the store gave her a discount for buying so many.46 A Georgia trafficker we interviewed purchased 15 guns in one visit and 60 more from the same store over a three-month period.47
Quote:
He drove her to the store in his Cadillac Escalade three times in 18 days to buy for him, she told us.49 The first time, she bought 11 guns; eight days later, she bought 14 guns; and 10 days after that, she bought six guns, according to her indictment.50
Quote:
Another straw we interviewed was a junior in college when she bought 26 guns from the same Ohio gun store during two visits in 2002.52 On her first visit, she bought nine guns from the store, five of which were the same model, a Jennings 9mm, according to her indictment.53 Ten days later, she and the trafficker returned to the same store and bought 17 more guns, including 15 more Jennings 9mms.


The other issue is that deterrence is of limited value to people who don't think things through. A lot of the street gangs rely on drug addicts and love-smitten girlfriends to make the purchases for them.

Quote:
Over four years, he and his fellow gang members made 50 to 60 straw purchases from four gun stores. Their straw purchasers were drug addicts who approached them in a local park and bought guns in exchange for drugs or money. “Where there’s dope, there’s guns,” he said.30
Quote:
One Georgia straw purchaser told us: He was on drugs when he bought dozens of guns during four straw purchases at the same store over five months. He knew nothing about guns.... He was also in a hurry when he bought guns because he knew the trafficker would pay him just after the purchase and he would be able to buy more drugs.32


Interestingly, Virginia has another bill in the legislature that would also address straw purchasing - the bill that would require reporting of lost or stolen guns within 24 hours. That could give teeth to the ability to prosecute some straw purchasers who later claim that the guns they bought were subsequently stolen or lost. That's more controversial because claiming that one has lost one's gun is seen by some gun enthusiasts as an easy end-run around registration requirements. .

Last edited by crescent; 24th January 2020 at 09:20 AM.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2020, 09:20 AM   #105
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,513
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
We're talking about straw purchasing, mostly. Which is one of the major routes that guns take to enter the black market.

Option 1 is proactive, Option 2 is reactive/deterrence.
I agree that option 1 is proactive. What are the expected outcomes of limiting purchases to 1 gun per month? That action by itself is not going to stop the flow of illicit guns, it would only slow it down. If it was enacted Federally, it would probably increase the cost of illicit guns. Do you agree that it would drive the criminals deeper into the shadows, resulting in law enforcement having less data on who may be engaging in criminal activity? For that reason, I do not believe that Option 1 is the best pragmatic solution.

Originally Posted by crescent View Post
In the years I've looked into this issue, the proactive vs. reactive/deterrence stance is often a divide between gun control advocates vs. well-meaning gun enthusiasts who want to be able to accept some gun regulation (but rarely do).

What I would point out is twofold: Many straw purchasers only operate for a short time. By the time they get tied to guns used in crimes, they may have already been imprisoned for something else or have moved on and stopped making purchases anyway. For example, drug dealers will offer discounts or free drugs if addicts with no criminal history will buy the guns for the dealers. The damage will already have been done, a potentially large number of guns may have moved into the black market.
I don't understand why it would matter if straw purchasers operate for a short time. It is not like those straw purchasers disappear from planet earth. Option 2 would result in the sales for more than 1 firearm to be recorded and reported to the ATF, whom can then investigate if the sale was for illicit purposes. If the transaction was found to be illicit then the individuals can be prosecuted and removed from free society and rehabilitated.

It isn't as if the black market lives in a vacuum, or that it is game over if/when the guns officially enter into the black market. Somebody knows somebody ad infinitum until the individuals responsible are caught. Plea bargains are a valuable tool for law enforcement.

Originally Posted by crescent View Post
The other issue is that deterrence is of limited value to people who don't think things through. A lot of the street gangs rely on drug addicts and love-smitten girlfriends to make the purchases for them.
If an individual is willing to violate the social contract of personal property for their lover or drug money, that individual needs assistance. As a society, we have a responsibility to the general populace and to that potential criminal to find them immediately. Law enforcement can either be notified of these criminals when they purchase 1 or more gun; or Option 2 some time long after that, most likely when that gun has been used for ill intent.

Limiting these individuals to purchase one gun would result in them purchasing 1 gun for their lover or in exchange for drugs, and nobody in law enforcement would be the wiser; until that gun was used in a crime. Out of all of the outcomes from the options we have discussed, this seems like the worst.

Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Interestingly, Virginia has another bill in the legislature that would also address straw purchasing - the bill that would require reporting of lost or stolen guns within 24 hours. That could give teeth to the ability to prosecute some straw purchasers who later claim that the guns they bought were subsequently stolen or lost. That's more controversial because claiming that one has lost one's gun is seen by some gun enthusiasts as an easy end-run around registration requirements. .
I am of the opinion that reporting stolen firearms to law enforcement is what responsible gun owners should do. I also want to avoid making criminals out of victims of a crime. There needs to be a type of law that would encourage and possibly penalize irresponsible gun owners. I am not sure how that would work. I haven't given it much contemplation.

The boating accident is said in jest on quasi-anonymous internet forms as a type of peaceful protest. Most guns owners are reasonable and want individuals whom misuse guns stopped.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.