Current Events > My state is looking into one gun purchase a month laws and I don't get the point

(+) Yeah! (+)

80/80

Like, what's the argument? Shouldn't it be one gun magazine a month or... idk. I like guns.
---

Everyone knows that octopuses shoot up schools the most, so we need to limit the amount of guns they carry.
---

It's false "progress" to take heat off. Anti-gun nuts are going to find a small victory in this and it might shut them up for a little while, but in reality, literally no one buys multiple guns per month and it's entirely pointless unless it's like a family hunting trip and you buy a couple of rifles or something.
---

Has any mass shooter been able to kill more people by having a large number of firearms with them at the time?

It seems like most of the shooters mainly stick to 1 gun.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Has any mass shooter been able to kill more people by having a large number of firearms with them at the time?

It seems like most of the shooters mainly stick to 1 gun.

Most have had extended planning also, across multiple months, plenty of time to buy multiple guys with this new law also.
---

The VT shooter used atleast two... so he would have to wait 31 days to fulfill his grotesque act.
---

MabusIncarnate posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

Has any mass shooter been able to kill more people by having a large number of firearms with them at the time?

It seems like most of the shooters mainly stick to 1 gun.

Most have had extended planning also, across multiple months, plenty of time to buy multiple guys with this new law also.

Most of them also didn't legally buy their guns in the first place anyway.
---

I Like Toast posted...

MabusIncarnate posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

Has any mass shooter been able to kill more people by having a large number of firearms with them at the time?

It seems like most of the shooters mainly stick to 1 gun.

Most have had extended planning also, across multiple months, plenty of time to buy multiple guys with this new law also.

Most of them also didn't legally buy their guns in the first place anyway.

Also true, which kind of expresses my entire stance on gun laws to begin with. If they want guns, they will get guns. Laws don't change that.
---

Sounds like something targeted at people who buy tons of guns and then sell them on the black market.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Sounds like something targeted at people who buy tons of guns and then sell them on the black market.

You know there is a reason they have serial numbers on those things.
---

Tropicalwood posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Sounds like something targeted at people who buy tons of guns and then sell them on the black market.

You know there is a reason they have serial numbers on those things.

So? I'm saying what I think this proposal sounds like it's trying to combat.
---

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-york/articles/2017-03-08/prosecutors-new-york-virginia-gun-ring-dismantled

here you go, people like this buy more then one gun a month.
---

Still seems like there's a better way... Maybe around gun 25 ask a few questions
---

$1200 for a handgun and $2200 for a rifle? Those had better been new Sig Sauer and Noveske models respectively.
---

This is blatantly anti-consumer.
---

MabusIncarnate posted...

I Like Toast posted...

MabusIncarnate posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

Has any mass shooter been able to kill more people by having a large number of firearms with them at the time?

It seems like most of the shooters mainly stick to 1 gun.

Most have had extended planning also, across multiple months, plenty of time to buy multiple guys with this new law also.

Most of them also didn't legally buy their guns in the first place anyway.

Also true, which kind of expresses my entire stance on gun laws to begin with. If they want guns, they will get guns. Laws don't change that.

is that true? I googled it and this NYT article came up:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html

it says most of them got their guns legally but I didn't check to see what they meant by that (like, I know sometimes the gun is purchased legally by someone they're living with and they end up stealing it, not sure if it counts that as a legally purchased gun or not)
---

these are a couple years old but they say essentially the same thing

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/more-80-percent-guns-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441
---

I do. People who own guns are crazy and should be subject to testing

coldcuts posted...

People who own guns are crazy and should be subject to testing

...at a gun range.

Balrog0 posted...

these are a couple years old but they say essentially the same thing

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/more-80-percent-guns-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441

The article itself shows that the person using the gun wasn't who bought it. Which I wouldn't count since the person doing the shooting didn't buy it. And given the figure is coming from mother Jones they are going to slant the data to their narrative.

Police want to speak to a friend of Farook who purchased the two semi-automatic rifles used in the massacre, authorities told NBC News Friday.

---

I Like Toast posted...

The article itself shows that the person using the gun wasn't who bought it. Which I wouldn't count since the person doing the shooting didn't buy it. And given the figure is coming from mother Jones they are going to slant the data to their narrative.

Right, so the issue is that its totally legal for me to do a private guns transfer to one of my friends without doing a background check

Having someone else buy a gun that you then buy (or simply get) from him isn't illegal. Stealing it, however, would be.
---

Is it even possible to acquire a gun that wasn't legally purchased at some point?
The only scenario I can think of is a smash & grab at gun shop.

Tropicalwood posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Sounds like something targeted at people who buy tons of guns and then sell them on the black market.

You know there is a reason they have serial numbers on those things.

That really doesn't mean anything when the majority of gun deaths are resulted from illegally obtained firearms--be them stolen or bought and sold illegally such as in the article above.

This is definitely an interesting approach. I'm as pro gun as you can get but even I understand that there is a problem with laws that benefit legal gun owners being abused by illegal owners/traffickers.
---

why the fuck do these conversations default to mass shooting discussions? everyone realizes that mass shootings look horrible on TV but aren't the primary way people die to gun violence, right?
---

Balrog0 posted...

I Like Toast posted...

The article itself shows that the person using the gun wasn't who bought it. Which I wouldn't count since the person doing the shooting didn't buy it. And given the figure is coming from mother Jones they are going to slant the data to their narrative.

Right, so the issue is that its totally legal for me to do a private guns transfer to one of my friends without doing a background check

Having someone else buy a gun that you then buy (or simply get) from him isn't illegal. Stealing it, however, would be.

That is illegal.
---

EggplantParm posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I Like Toast posted...

The article itself shows that the person using the gun wasn't who bought it. Which I wouldn't count since the person doing the shooting didn't buy it. And given the figure is coming from mother Jones they are going to slant the data to their narrative.

Right, so the issue is that its totally legal for me to do a private guns transfer to one of my friends without doing a background check

Having someone else buy a gun that you then buy (or simply get) from him isn't illegal. Stealing it, however, would be.

That is illegal.

resale of guns between friends/family/acquaintances isn't illegal in most states actually. there's also no legal requirement for you to run a background check on them.
---

EggplantParm posted...

That is illegal.

It's also nigh-impossible to prove.

EggplantParm posted...

That is illegal.

It's illegal to get someone else to purchase a gun for you, yeah. Kind of like its illegal to not pay sales taxes on internet purchases. Without an enforcement mechanism, it doesn't matter.

Plus, I'm pretty sure you need to demonstrate intent. The SCOTUS case that ruling is derived from has a pretty unbroken chain of intent where someone got a gun through another person just to take advantage of a discount, including giving him the money prior to the purchase. I'm pretty certain if you do it the other way around (tell them to buy the gun and then buy it from them) it would be much harder to prove and prosecute.
---

monkmith posted...

EggplantParm posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I Like Toast posted...

The article itself shows that the person using the gun wasn't who bought it. Which I wouldn't count since the person doing the shooting didn't buy it. And given the figure is coming from mother Jones they are going to slant the data to their narrative.

Right, so the issue is that its totally legal for me to do a private guns transfer to one of my friends without doing a background check

Having someone else buy a gun that you then buy (or simply get) from him isn't illegal. Stealing it, however, would be.

That is illegal.

resale of guns between friends/family/acquaintances isn't illegal in most states actually. there's also no legal requirement for you to run a background check on them.

He's saying its illegal for you to get someone to buy a gun for you from a licensed dealer, which is true. But yeah, it is basically impossible to prove. Because you can sell your guns or give them away once you own them. So they need to prove the intent to sell prior to the purchase. I think you can only really do that if you catch them on tape or can prove a cash transfer.
---

monkmith posted...

EggplantParm posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I Like Toast posted...

The article itself shows that the person using the gun wasn't who bought it. Which I wouldn't count since the person doing the shooting didn't buy it. And given the figure is coming from mother Jones they are going to slant the data to their narrative.

Right, so the issue is that its totally legal for me to do a private guns transfer to one of my friends without doing a background check

Having someone else buy a gun that you then buy (or simply get) from him isn't illegal. Stealing it, however, would be.

That is illegal.

resale of guns between friends/family/acquaintances isn't illegal in most states actually. there's also no legal requirement for you to run a background check on them.

Yes, that is correct.

But what was described in his post is illegal. Straw purchases are illegal as is buying a firearm to instantly resell.

Questionmarktarius posted...

EggplantParm posted...

That is illegal.

It's also nigh-impossible to prove.

For the most part, yes. I am actually iffy on private sales for that reason.
---

Balrog0 posted...

EggplantParm posted...

That is illegal.

It's illegal to get someone else to purchase a gun for you, yeah. Kind of like its illegal to not pay sales taxes on internet purchases. Without an enforcement mechanism, it doesn't matter.

Plus, I'm pretty sure you need to demonstrate intent. The SCOTUS case that ruling is derived from has a pretty unbroken chain of intent where someone got a gun through another person just to take advantage of a discount, including giving him the money prior to the purchase. I'm pretty certain if you do it the other way around (tell them to buy the gun and then buy it from them) it would be much harder to prove and prosecute.

I get what your saying. The wording just threw me off.

Yeah, it is definitely hard to prove without any concrete evidence. Would like harsh penalties on all parties involved in the abuse.
---

EggplantParm posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

EggplantParm posted...

That is illegal.

It's also nigh-impossible to prove.

For the most part, yes. I am actually iffy on private sales for that reason.

So, because it might be a straw-purchase, private parties need to march down to a FFL store to hand-down grandpa's old civil defense pistol?

Questionmarktarius posted...

EggplantParm posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

EggplantParm posted...

That is illegal.

It's also nigh-impossible to prove.

For the most part, yes. I am actually iffy on private sales for that reason.

So, because it might be a straw-purchase, private parties need to march down to a FFL store to hand-down grandpa's old civil defense pistol.

in my state, there are different rules for different kind of guns already -- usually it has to do with age restrictions on the person or has to do with hunting --minors can own long-barrel guns but not hand guns, there are antique gun hunting seasons, etc -- but I don't see why those kind of variations couldn't be written into background checks for private sellers. In fact, Im pretty sure within-family gun transfers are usually excluded when states try to expand background checks but I'd need to double check that
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

EggplantParm posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

EggplantParm posted...

That is illegal.

It's also nigh-impossible to prove.

For the most part, yes. I am actually iffy on private sales for that reason.

So, because it might be a straw-purchase, private parties need to march down to a FFL store to hand-down grandpa's old civil defense pistol?

Well there's a straw man.

Maybe I should have said "mixed feelings" instead of iffy. I'm not against private sales or gifts--but I can see how it will be abused and straw purchases aren't the only ways for that abuse to occur. IE: private sale to a individual who shouldn't own a gun due to mental state or being a felon.
---

EggplantParm posted...

IE: private sale to a individual who shouldn't own a gun due to mental state or being a felon.

In those cases, a negligence charge is likely to actually stick.

MabusIncarnate posted...

Also true, which kind of expresses my entire stance on gun laws to begin with. If they want guns, they will get guns. Laws don't change that.

maybe not, but the laws can make it much more inconvenient and incur stiffer penalties if caught.

i dont get the argument of "why have a law if criminals will do it anyway?". its so when they DO get caught there are repercussions.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

EggplantParm posted...

IE: private sale to a individual who shouldn't own a gun due to mental state or being a felon.

In those cases, a negligence charge is likely to actually stick.

Maybe. You would still have to prove they were actually negligent. It wouldn't be fair for some to sell a gun privately and to be bit in the ass because the guy he sold it to didn't have any immediate red flags.

Mass shootings are horrible but our main gun problem lies with illegal guns in the streets. If anti-gun folks didn't attempt to take such leaps, I'd be more open to a better regulation--including a one purchase per month and even a reform in private sales. But it's so iffy when any change can result in California-like laws.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

So, because it might be a straw-purchase, private parties need to march down to a FFL store to hand-down grandpa's old civil defense pistol?

If I have to go to the dmv to change the title when gifting a car why can't you for a gun? Especially if it can reduce unnecessary deaths that neither side of gun control wants.
---

EggplantParm posted...

Mass shootings are horrible but our main gun problem lies with illegal guns in the streets.

Are the illegal guns manufactured illegally?
---

scar the 1 posted...

EggplantParm posted...

Mass shootings are horrible but our main gun problem lies with illegal guns in the streets.

Are the illegal guns manufactured illegally?

No, they were bought illegally or stolen.
---

Gun control advocates aren't interested in reducing crime. Their goal is to make it as difficult as possible to legally own guns.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

so I don't know why we focus on that.

Because it's the only part that can have action taken on it?

You might not know, but killing people with a gun is in fact illegal. If the people committing these acts don't care about the law then the next logical step is trying to use the people who do care from giving them access.

Maybe spend 3 seconds thinking about it next time.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

No, the next step is to make them care

Feel free to offer any suggestion. If they don't care about life in prison or the death penalty, what on earth are they going to care about?

fenderbender321 posted...

then you're mostly just hurting good people.

No, you mildly annoy them to keep other good people alive. It's kind of how every law exist.
---

AlephZero posted...

Gun control advocates aren't interested in reducing crime. Their goal is to make it as difficult as possible to legally own guns.

This. Bernie supporters and other communists know that they need to disarm the populace in order to achieve their agenda.
---

So name these "obvious" solutions.
---