Gun Control Proposals Poll

[Anastasis 23723]

I have an FFL/SOT and deal in Class 3, NFA, Machine Guns, etc.  When it comes to regular non-NFA weapons, Uncle Sam has no idea who owns what and doesn’t care.  It’s my responsibility to keep a record, and in the event that a gun is used in a crime, the ATF will trace the s/n.  Other than that, there is no “database”.
 

Yeah. But see, one time Vice ran this piece...

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

Yeah. But see, one time Vice ran this piece...

 

 

What if they wanted to trace every s/n? You're conflating "doesn't care" with "isn't able to."  Because when they "care," they clearly can given the fact that they rarely fail to trace any weapon with a serial number. 

Also, consider the fact that you don't seem all that concerned with your own privacy when it comes to gun ownership. The feds are forced to play catchup after a crime due to legal constraints, but you can't pretend that the data isn't available to them beforehand. If they wanted to confiscate weapons, and they put the list of gun owners together, you'd almost certainly be on it. If you're truly that concerned with a gun grabbing gestapo, you wouldn't be here proclaiming gun ownership.

Edited April 6, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Anastasis 23723]

I'm not conflating anything. I am trying to deal in reality versus something you watched on HBO and capabilities that you think exist but don't.

You are wasting your time talking about gun registries based on record turn-ins from gun shops that have gone out of business.  And for the record, unless McBrides or Reds have gone out of business, my name ain't showing up in their storage container. 

If you want to get all fucking nuts about info the government already has that they just need to turn the switch on, look at mental health.

There are distributed database systems that exist today that can easily identify almost every american who has a prescription dispensing for a psychotropic medication and/or has received a diagnosis for a mental health disorder on a medical claim. They cover medicaid, medicare, and the vast majority of private healthcare plans both group and individual. Over 200MM Americans. You want to bounce that up against NICS to ensure that the mentally ill are screened out during a background check? Literally one update to a table in the data model, and write a couple trivial queries and its done. Lets see that discussion play out.  Such a system would be infinitely more effective than some nonsense about creating a 4473 based registry. But you saw a segment on Vice, so we are talking about nonsense and storage containers at BATF.  

 

Edited April 6, 2018 by Anastasis

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

I'm not conflating anything. I am trying to deal in reality versus something you watched on HBO and capabilities that you think exist but don't.

You are wasting your time talking about gun registries based on record turn-ins from gun shops that have gone out of business.  And for the record, unless McBrides or Reds have gone out of business, my name ain't showing up in their storage container. 

If you want to get all fucking nuts about info the government already has that they just need to turn the switch on, look at mental health.

There are distributed database systems that exist today that can easily identify almost every american who has a prescription dispensing for a psychotropic medication and/or has received a diagnosis for a mental health disorder on a medical claim. They cover medicaid, medicare, and the vast majority of private healthcare plans both group and individual. Over 200MM Americans. You want to bounce that up against NICS to ensure that the mentally ill are screened out during a background check? Literally one update to a table in the data model, and write a couple trivial queries and its done. Lets see that discussion play out.  Such a system would be infinitely more effective than some nonsense about creating a 4473 based registry. But you saw a segment on Vice, so we are talking about nonsense and storage containers at BATF.  

 

I never watched anything on vice nor was vice the first place I read about it.  You continue to cringe about registration for no reason. You post plenty of identifying info here so you clearly arent truly worried about it.

Im fine with searching against existing mental health databases, but I am far more concerned with someone who hasn't been prescribed a psychotropic medication than I am with someone who knows they are fucked up and have sought help. Id much rather have thorough social media screening because thats where you actually see the signs. 

Incidentally, you know exactly why we cant search all mental health databases. Privacy laws. Ones that you dont think matter at all, and that you trust with your own info, while you believe the gov't is just itching to break the law on guns.  My point continues to be that they don't break healthcare law and they dont break gun laws. A registry means a registry. They could break the law and put one together against your will but they dont. Why do you think theyre gonna break the law and round up when the law says register?  And if the law says round up, theyre going to list you and round up anyway. 

It would be fucking cake for the govt to get 4473s from FFLs if they decide to fuck you. Theres a reason traces work. And if they decide to break the law, you're known. Shaggy was scraped. Facebook is scraped. You think they're not gonna show up to round up guns of people who post about owning guns all over the internet?  They'd probably do that before they even announced a registry since you're more likely to react poorly.   Someone like michael knight could avoid a roundup list if he actually owns guns, but you couldn't. All you are doing is hamstringing legal law enforcement by being a bitch about the easiest step they would need to make. A step that you allow them to make on literally every other thing in your life. 

Edited April 6, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Anastasis 23723]

22 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Im fine with searching against existing mental health databases, but I am far more concerned with someone who hasn't been prescribed a psychotropic medication than I am with someone who knows they are fucked up and have sought help.

And yet, psychotropic medication use is a fairly consistent factor in mass shootings. But you are more worried about all the people who are not on these meds. And if your concern is untreated mental illness, well, that can be built into the query for your big brother system.  It's all there.

Quote

Incidentally, you know exactly why we cant search all mental health databases. Privacy laws. Ones that you dont think matter at all, and that you trust with your own info, while you believe the gov't is just itching to break the law on guns.  My point continues to be that they don't break healthcare law and they dont break gun laws. A registry means a registry. They could break the law and put one together against your will but they dont. Why do you think theyre gonna break the law and round up when the law says register?  And if the law says round up, theyre going to list you and round up anyway.

This is trending to word salad. You are going on tilt over a gun registry that has zero political viability, the insistence on which will only further the resolve of your gun loving adversaries, and with good merit.  Instead of focusing on things that could have actually impacted and potentially prevented the mass shooting situations we are trying to address, you want to talk about fantasy. That's fine.  That's the realm of the vast majority of this debate.   

Edited April 6, 2018 by Anastasis

[JBJ 3828]

How would a gun registry prevent a shooting?

What would a gun registry be useful for at all?

[David Dennison 19560]

29 minutes ago, JBJ said:

How would a gun registry prevent a shooting?

What would a gun registry be useful for at all?

It would be useful for knowing who owns a firearm and where those firearms are. 

[bernorange 8385]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It would be useful for knowing who owns a firearm and where those firearms are. 

and?

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

1 minute ago, bernorange said:

and?

Expecting more than a sentence from Kevin?

[bernorange 8385]

So, with 75 people casting votes, there is only one proposal in the poll that has (just barely) more than 50% support.  Gridlock!

[Brian Fantana 6872]

Only 4% of voters voted for repeal of the 2nd amendment. So much for that strawman!

[FondrenRoad 4378]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

And yet, psychotropic medication use is a fairly consistent factor in mass shootings. But you are more worried about all the people who are not on these meds. And if your concern is untreated mental illness, well, that can be built into the query for your big brother system.  It's all there.

This is trending to word salad. You are going on tilt over a gun registry that has zero political viability, the insistence on which will only further the resolve of your gun loving adversaries, and with good merit.  Instead of focusing on things that could have actually impacted and potentially prevented the mass shooting situations we are trying to address, you want to talk about fantasy. That's fine.  That's the realm of the vast majority of this debate.   

Except registration is increasingly politically viable. We are rapidly reaching the point where hardcore gun activists become fringe. These "gun loving adversaries" are certainly noisy but become fewer every time a Parkland occurs and they decide to attack high school kids who just watched their friends get murdered. Right now, you can be part of solutions that would likely stop there, but if we maintain status quo due to continued pushback from the gun lobby, you'll end up with popular support moving right past registration.

In reality, the biggest part of a registration scheme would be licensing.  You had no problem going through that to drive. You registered your vehicles and got a license.  Nobody is coming to take your license or your vehicles unless you fuck up. And driving is a core component of your livelihood. Guns arent. Your life would largely remain unchanged without guns. Without a car, you couldnt work and couldnt feed your family. Whats really wrong with getting a license for owning a weapon? Europe does pretty well with it.

[bernorange 8385]

A license is government permission to do something that is illegal.

[Anastasis 23723]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Right now, you can be part of solutions that would likely stop there...

A gun registry is not a solution for mass shootings. Please tell me exactly how a gun registry prevents any of the following shootings?

- Parkland (age limit on purchase could have prevented asshole getting his AR; FBI and local LE both appear to have dropped ball on tips preceding the shooting)

- Sutherland Springs (improvements to background system could have prevented asshole from getting his guns; AF dropped ball by failing to submit disqualifying info to NICS system)

- Virginia Tech (improvements to background check system could have prevented asshole from getting his guns; had previously been adjudicated a danger to himself, failure of the NICS system)

 

Real solutions...you know, means to solving a problem...are right in front of you. I and many other gun owners will support them.  The problem is that you are not willing to take yes for an answer and you don't want to stop there...  

Edited April 6, 2018 by Anastasis

[JBJ 3828]

 

1 hour ago, bernorange said:

A license is government permission to do something that is illegal.

I think licensing can be used to streamline NICS.  Get checked once, buy what you want with a license.  Don't do anything that suspends your license.  It would be a license to purchase in my world, not a license to possess or operate.

Edited April 6, 2018 by JBJ

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Not much is going to stop true random mass shootings.  But the good news is the odds of dying in one is microscopic.  About 1,000 Americans have been killed in the last 52 years since Whitman in true, random mass shootings (does not count domestic violence where a husband snaps and wipes out his family or gang related shootings -- it is counting other mass shootings where 4 or more people killed).  WAPO Stats on Random Mass Shootings

We have 300+ million people in our country, unless you are engaged in criminal activity, the odds of someone murdering you with a gun are tiny.

I would like to focus on things that might actually prevent the 10k plus other gun homicides a year.

Legalize or decriminalize drugs and treat them like a public health issue, not a crime.  Release all non-violent drug offenders and restore their civil rights while expunging all non-violent drug offenses.  Let these people have a chance at a job so they don't feel the need to rob or steal.  Getting rid of prohibition will cut way down on gun homicides and gang turf wars.

This also frees up a massive amount of criminal justice resources.  Use the extra police manpower to police the community for things that actually threaten us -- like violent criminals and property crimes.  Change our sentencing laws to bury under the jail any asshole who commits a gun crime or engages in gun violence.  I am talking sentences so long that if and when they get out they are too old to be a threat.

Strengthen laws against domestic violence and remove guns from those convicted of domestic violence crimes.

Spend some of our war on drugs savings on mental health.  I am less certain on specifics related to mental health.

[SmokeyBear1861 107]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Not much is going to stop true random mass shootings.  But the good news is the odds of dying in one is microscopic.  About 1,000 Americans have been killed in the last 52 years since Whitman in true, random mass shootings (does not count domestic violence where a husband snaps and wipes out his family or gang related shootings -- it is counting other mass shootings where 4 or more people killed).  WAPO Stats on Random Mass Shootings

We have 300+ million people in our country, unless you are engaged in criminal activity, the odds of someone murdering you with a gun are tiny.

I would like to focus on things that might actually prevent the 10k plus other gun homicides a year.

Legalize or decriminalize drugs and treat them like a public health issue, not a crime.  Release all non-violent drug offenders and restore their civil rights while expunging all non-violent drug offenses.  Let these people have a chance at a job so they don't feel the need to rob or steal.  Getting rid of prohibition will cut way down on gun homicides and gang turf wars.

This also frees up a massive amount of criminal justice resources.  Use the extra police manpower to police the community for things that actually threaten us -- like violent criminals and property crimes.  Change our sentencing laws to bury under the jail any asshole who commits a gun crime or engages in gun violence.  I am talking sentences so long that if and when they get out they are too old to be a threat.

Strengthen laws against domestic violence and remove guns from those convicted of domestic violence crimes.

Spend some of our war on drugs savings on mental health.  I am less certain on specifics related to mental health.

I don't think you understand how corrupt the government is. Big pharma wants to keep everyone on their drugs (subsidized by the taxpayer), the black market drug operations are probably still funding covert operations (figure out who invented bitcoin), and the mental health crisis only makes the government more powerful. 

Please, move to another country.

Edited April 6, 2018 by SmokeyBear1861

[Brian Fantana 6872]

I thought everyone that wanted stricter gun control wanted to repeal the 2nd amendment? Seems like it's a stark minority.

[Anastasis 23723]

19 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

I don't think you understand how corrupt the government is. Big pharma wants to keep everyone on their drugs (subsidized by the taxpayer), the black market drug operations are probably still funding covert operations (figure out who invented bitcoin), and the mental health crisis only makes the government more powerful. 

Please, move to another country.

You got this all wrong Smokey.  Repealing the 2nd is at least an intellectually honest and Constitution position to hold.  

[Anastasis 23723]

13 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I thought everyone that wanted stricter gun control wanted to repeal the 2nd amendment? Seems like it's a stark minority.

No, nobody wants to actually admit to that.  Just like our government doesn't want to admit that they wipe their ass with the 4th.  The BOR is largely dead. I at least admire those people who are honest with themselves about it, and advocate for what they actually think needs to be done within a Constitutional framework. 

[Brian Fantana 6872]

Just now, Anastasis said:

No, nobody wants to actually admit to that.  Just like our government doesn't want to admit that they wipe their ass with the 4th.  The BOR is largely dead. I at least admire those people who are honest with themselves about it, and advocate for what they actually think needs to be done within a Constitutional framework. 

It's pretty convenient to just say "you're a liar" to everyone who says they don't want the 2nd amendment repealed I guess. It gets you out of having to form an actual, cogent opinion.

I wouldn't mind if it was replaced by something that was worded properly and relevant to the modern age, but I wouldn't want to ever fully do away with language that guarantees the rights of citizens to bear arms. As futile as I believe an armed resistance would be in today's United States, the right should still exist.

[Anastasis 23723]

"I don't want to repeal, I just want to change it."

That at least an intellectually honest position to take as well.  I am interested in what specific wording changes you would suggest, and how they would be functionally different from a repeal. 

I am also curious, do you want to do the same to other amendments in the BOR to ensure that they are worded properly and relevant to the modern age?  I also think that that is a strong position to take.  Let's rewrite them all so that we can be honest with ourselves on who we are and what we believe about the relationship between the government and the people.  

[Brian Fantana 6872]

20 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

"I don't want to repeal, I just want to change it."

That at least an intellectually honest position to take as well.  I am interested in what specific wording changes you would suggest, and how they would be functionally different from a repeal. 

I am also curious, do you want to do the same to other amendments in the BOR to ensure that they are worded properly and relevant to the modern age?  I also think that that is a strong position to take.  Let's rewrite them all so that we can be honest with ourselves on who we are and what we believe about the relationship between the government and the people.  

I have no clue, to be honest. I haven't really thought about it and it might be that no such wording exists that would satisfy the criteria. If that's the case, then keep it the way it is.

I don't know how to make it any clearer that in no way do I want to ever prohibit firearm possession. I also think it's possible to save lives with stricter regulation without trampling on the 2nd amendment, which continues to be the gaslight of the month for the fanatics around here.