{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/30/2015 2:15:35 AM
1
I think you're missing the point. Nothing is 100% avoidable, however risk can be mitigated.
English
-
No, I'm not missing it. The point I'm making is that [i]because[/i] nothing is 100% avoidable people will continue to ask for more and more extreme simple measures. New York, California, New Jersey, and D.C. are perfect examples of this phenomena. Violent crime is independent of firearms ownership or accessibility. Population density, socioeconomic conditions, culture, and education are the contributing factors to violent crime. We've gone down the road of "simple, reasonable restrictions" to extreme ends before.
-
How is it a fallacy when we have examples of it literally all over the world? Australia is pushing for more gun control because a terrorist illegally obtained a shotgun and caused a cluster-blam!- in a bakery. And they have some pretty strict gun control. What simple measures would you suggest?
-
작성자: Britton 7/30/2015 2:57:10 AMGun laws for law abiding people would stay the same. Stores that sell guns would be required to run a state level background check right before purchase. So obviously gun stores would need to be able to access that info, or have a program they enter a person's identification info in and the system shoots back a approved or disapproved to protect personal info, pretty simple. Now changes would happen if you commit violent crimes, or felonies. A three strikes and youre out rule would be something I'm OK with when it comes to more "minor" violence charges. Example, two dudes getting in a drunk bar fight doesn't warrant revoking gun rights. So there would have to be some basic guidelines setup, as well as some room for a judge to use his/her judgement. I'm aware of the illegal gun market, but there's no reason we can't make it harder for people who are prone to regular violence (domestic abuse, -blam!-, armed robbery, etc) to be a larger threat than necessary. Focus on the people, not the weapons.
-
Not wrong, it's a federal law. All Federal Firearms Licensees must perform a background check on all gun sales, regardless of whether they're in their store, at a gun show, under a bridge, etc. I get the feeling you've never bought a gun from a dealer at a gun show.
-
Then you didn't buy from a dealer, or he was breaking the law. It's interesting that the graphic conveniently ignores the 1993 Brady Law. You can't prove me wrong, because I'm not dude. [b]An FFL cannot legally sell a firearm to an individual without performing a background check[/b] Clearly you're talking about private sales, which is not a "gun show exemption" because private sales are not subject to the 93 Brady Law, [b]no matter where they occur[/b]. In fact, private citizens were denied access to the NICS. States like California, Washington, and Oregon require every private transaction to go through a licensed dealer, which adds a poll tax to each firearm purchase (because no dealer is doing it for free). You give private citizens access to the NICS and universal background checks are easier to swallow. Still, you couldn't charge a prohibited person for not undergoing a background check because that background check would require them to incriminate themselves (and would violate their 5th amendment rights). And Britton, don't call it a gun show exemption, or loophole. That's not what it is, and you're smarter than that. I am disappoint.
-
Unlicensed private-party sellers are not required to ask for identification, and cannot initiate a background check without the help of a Federal Firearms Licensee in all but three states, where they may do so voluntarily. The seller is also not required to record the sale. The loophole refers to a perceived gap in the law with regard to sales or transfers of firearms between private citizens. The term may also be referred to as the Brady bill loophole, the Brady law loophole, the gun law loophole, and the private sale loophole. And guess what, many gun show sales are done "privately"
-
Not by dealers though, and a vast majority of private sales don't happen at gun shows duder. The point remains that a universal background check law adds a poll tax to gun purchases in it's current form, and it will remain entirely unacceptable until private citizens can initiate the check themselves without the help of a dealer. Give private citizens access to the system before criticizing private sales.
-
작성자: Britton 7/30/2015 4:24:38 AMI don't what kind of big corporate gun shows you go to, but every one I've ever been to has a shot ton of private sellers. And only a handful of dealers. And I agree it should apply and be accessible to private sales too.
-
Most shows I've gone to only have a handful of private sellers, most of the tables are established FFLs from the surrounding area. All I'm saying is that calling it a gun show loophole is misleading as hell. Another potential acceptable option, allow the local police to conduct the background check.
