Guns the cause of violence? No, but they can be closely tied to violence.

Making it harder for bad people to have firearms will reduce the number of bad people who can get their hands on them. It isn't an all or nothing type thing

Yet, with every attempt to reduce the number of bad people getting guns, it impacts the law abiding gun buyers, sellers and "gifters" -- as well as the cost to taxpayers and people trying to legally sell their privately owned guns.

There are roughly 400 million guns owned privately in the US.  Is it your belief that it's possible to stop bad people from getting guns if it's made "harder" in a nation with that many guns in circulation? 

Adam Lanza killed his mother to steal her gun and commit mass murder.  He wanted to buy his own, but didn't want to wait the mandatory period.   There's no information reported which indicated he would have been denied, although he did have some mental issues. 

Government is incompetent.  Asking them to make private sales less likely to arm a bad guy while not trampling on our rights will not end as you seem to believe.

As soon as the ATF decides the need a registry to enforce the UBC law, you'll see the anti-gunners pushing THAT as the next "commonsense gun law."

Unless I am looking at the wrong project exile, it seems to still be up and running in at least one state and has some numbers suggesting it had a beneficial effect.

"During the first year of Project Exile (1998), homicides in Richmond declined 33%, for the lowest number since 1987, and armed robberies declined 30%. In 1999, homicides declined another 21%.[2] By 2007, homicides in Richmond were down to 57 compared to 122 in the year before Project Exile.[4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile

Compare those numbers to national stats for the same period. Unless every state was actively implementing the project, then you can't attribute the drop in homicides to that single variable.

You might think you're objective, but you seem to lack critical thinking skills when presenting stats.  "Suggesting" something had an effect should lead to only one conclusion: more research is needed before drawing any conclusions.

I think there are two main ways of trying to control guns while still having the public ownership allowed.
1. Control what type of guns are available - Doesn't stop bad people, but makes them less deadly
2. Control who has access to the guns - Powerful guns are still allowed but who can get their hands on them is limited.

I do like your idea of better funding for the NICS system.

The issue I have with some in the firearm rights community is that too often we just point out why we think things wont work but don't really have suggestions for alternatives. If we line up and just say "that won't work" to every idea the anti gun rights people come up with we don't look like we want to address the problem, we look like we are just stonewalling. Thats why they make those stupid claims that we don't care about children getting shot at school, of course we care, but we aren't coming up with many ideas to address the problem.

You are correct, that a spot check system would require an improved NICS system. We don't have cops on every road at every intersection but if cops do enough traffic stops to make it known by the public that cops are out there stopping speeders (for example) you are going to see fewer people speeding. The same idea could be done at a gun show, have a plain clothes officer go in to try and buy something and if the seller makes no attempt to make some sort of background check cite them. They don't have to go to every seller, visit a few and word will get around. The idea behind the UBC system I proposed is that there will be fewer avenues for the bad guys to get guns if the good guys have an extra step to make sure they don't sell to bad guys. You will never eliminate all avenues but the fewer the avenues the harder guns will be to get.

I remember an interview with some Mexican Cartel members about how much they loved the American gun sales system. They were able to easily buy large numbers of guns and bring it across the border. He didn't specify exactly how it was done, straw purchases, street dealers, private sales but it was essentially allowing the cartel to become very well armed.

This is an oxymoron

"I think there are two main ways of trying to control guns while still having the public ownership allowed.
1. Control what type of guns are available - Doesn't stop bad people, but makes them less deadly
2. Control who has access to the guns - Powerful guns are still allowed but who can get their hands on them is limited. "

The reason why pro 2a people quickly shoot down the anti 2a peoples ideas is because they often violate the Constitution and don't involve logic/make sense. So refer to my OG post about the anti 2a working with pro 2a to actual do something better. This has been going on for decades. And lets use whataboutism b4 you do, what if MDA proposes a law that makes sense....

You assume the cartels get guns the illegal way with their statement. If they can find people with clean records to smuggle drugs, logic dictates they could do the same with gun purchases.  Have a legal person buy what ever they need and sent it to Mexico.  Then multiply this by the thousands if not millions of people who have their family in the cartels and be forced to do this.  Then add in our government or like agencies supply the guns to the cartels.

I've worked with anti 2a politicians and the bills they present are about 95% anti 2a. Lets look at recent SB1230 and the 77 pages; the only good part in there is the 4 year CCW valid permit.  So it's like saying "here eat this sh!t sandwich, but instead of eating 100% of it, you only have to eat 95% of it". That makes it all G right?  So this shows how even with meetings with pro 2a groups, they don't care.  And a FYI, that 4 year thing got added in in the final hearing. So prior to that, it wasn't in there at all.

Unless I am looking at the wrong project exile, it seems to still be up and running in at least one state and has some numbers suggesting it had a beneficial effect.

"During the first year of Project Exile (1998), homicides in Richmond declined 33%, for the lowest number since 1987, and armed robberies declined 30%. In 1999, homicides declined another 21%.[2] By 2007, homicides in Richmond were down to 57 compared to 122 in the year before Project Exile.[4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile

My apologies I thought I read somewhere that it got canned because too many black people were getting charged and convicted under that law.

....

"Oxymoron?"  You got the last part correct!   

He's loving this -- uses relative adjectives for everything:  fewer, more, less, some, etc.  The degree to which his new laws would be effective have been proven false in reality.  During the 10 year AWB 1994-2004, there was no measurable decrease -- or increase -- in overall gun violence due to the law.  The downward trend in gun deaths was already begun before the ban, and it continued long after it was sunset.  That fact while the number of AK and AR style weapons in the hands of the public increased dramatically.  The AR is now the most prolific semi-auto sporting rifle in the US.  People were still buying close-to-AR versions during the ban as the manufacturers made enough cosmetic changes to make them legal without impacting the function and lethality.

What makes a gun "more or less lethal?"  I submit that the individual using it is the primary factor.  A .38 special or .380 ACP in the hands of a well trained and practiced shooter can out perform a novice with a rifle if the scenario is a mass shooting.  Before Mandalay Bay, the record for the most deaths in a mass shooting belonged to Virginia Tech in which 33 died (incl. the gunman) and 23 others injured 9though not all by gunfire).  The weapons were a Glock 19 9mm and a Walther P22 .22LR -- both pistols!

There are also many more powerful rifles on the market and in owners' hands which are not considered assault weapons because they don't look the part.  There are also non-assault-weapon versions of semi-auto rifles that are fine to own with anti-2A people, even though there's no real difference between those and the so-called AW.

The AR and AK variants are being attacked relentlessly for two reasons -- they look scary to the ignorant masses, and they have been drummed up as the choice of mass shooters because they are "more lethal".  All firearms are lethal.  Nothing makes the AR more lethal than other rifles of a similar category.

As for magazine restrictions, it's still possible to own 50 10-rd mags to have 500 rds at the ready, just like having 16 or 17 30-rd mags provides.  The difference is you need to reload more often, but a rehearsed shooter can do a mag change in under 3 seconds.

The biggest problem with banning a gun believed to be 'more lethal" is that LE will never be able to stop the criminals from having them.  When 9mm Uzis and pistols were becoming popular among gangs, the Cops still carried a revolver with 5-6 shots max.  Eventually, LE adopted the semi-auto handguns so as to not be out-gunned by the criminals.  Many also carry an AR-15 in their patrol vehicles for the same reason.

Whatever the police carry for protection, the public has the right to also carry, because the threats are the same.

By banning "more lethal rifles," you are necessarily depriving the law abiding of the most effective option for self defense, even though law enforcement use them -- including DC agents who carry them as PDWs (Personal defense Weapons).

As for magazine restrictions, it's still possible to own 50 10-rd mags to have 500 rds at the ready, just like having 16 or 17 30-rd mags provides.  The difference is you need to reload more often, but a rehearsed shooter can do a mag change in under 3 seconds.

Giving up to 3 seconds is very generous.

Giving up to 3 seconds is very generous.

I'm allowing for nerves and adrenaline.

I'm allowing for nerves and adrenaline.

Or need to get a coffee first. 

Yet, with every attempt to reduce the number of bad people getting guns, it impacts the law abiding gun buyers, sellers and "gifters" -- as well as the cost to taxpayers and people trying to legally sell their privately owned guns.

You are right. It is a very difficult balance to strike but if your goal is to never impose on regular good guys buying and selling firearms then we would have to abandon almost all gun regulations would we not?

There are roughly 400 million guns owned privately in the US.  Is it your belief that it's possible to stop bad people from getting guns if it's made "harder" in a nation with that many guns in circulation? 

It is difficult to know to what extent but yes I think it would make some difference. Do you think we have as much gambling in Nevada as Hawaii?

Adam Lanza killed his mother to steal her gun and commit mass murder.  He wanted to buy his own, but didn't want to wait the mandatory period.   There's no information reported which indicated he would have been denied, although he did have some mental issues. 

I don't think any UBC system would be capable of stopping that type of shooter.

Government is incompetent.  Asking them to make private sales less likely to arm a bad guy while not trampling on our rights will not end as you seem to believe.

As soon as the ATF decides the need a registry to enforce the UBC law, you'll see the anti-gunners pushing THAT as the next "commonsense gun law."

Why have FFLs make background checks at all if private sellers don't need to?

My apologies I thought I read somewhere that it got canned because too many black people were getting charged and convicted under that law.

It looks like some states did drop their program and it was a criticism that too many black people were being arrested but of course that could just be because they were committing more gun crimes...

Compare those numbers to national stats for the same period. Unless every state was actively implementing the project, then you can't attribute the drop in homicides to that single variable.

You need to go read more about the project results than to try and dismiss it with a simple overall gun homicide crime drop as if the people who studied the results made such a simple conclusion.

The project was implemented in a number of different jurisdictions, it wasn't a single one.

This is an oxymoron

"I think there are two main ways of trying to control guns while still having the public ownership allowed.
1. Control what type of guns are available - Doesn't stop bad people, but makes them less deadly
2. Control who has access to the guns - Powerful guns are still allowed but who can get their hands on them is limited. "

The reason why pro 2a people quickly shoot down the anti 2a peoples ideas is because they often violate the Constitution and don't involve logic/make sense. So refer to my OG post about the anti 2a working with pro 2a to actual do something better. This has been going on for decades. And lets use whataboutism b4 you do, what if MDA proposes a law that makes sense....

You assume the cartels get guns the illegal way with their statement. If they can find people with clean records to smuggle drugs, logic dictates they could do the same with gun purchases.  Have a legal person buy what ever they need and sent it to Mexico.  Then multiply this by the thousands if not millions of people who have their family in the cartels and be forced to do this.  Then add in our government or like agencies supply the guns to the cartels.

I've worked with anti 2a politicians and the bills they present are about 95% anti 2a. Lets look at recent SB1230 and the 77 pages; the only good part in there is the 4 year CCW valid permit.  So it's like saying "here eat this sh!t sandwich, but instead of eating 100% of it, you only have to eat 95% of it". That makes it all G right?  So this shows how even with meetings with pro 2a groups, they don't care.  And a FYI, that 4 year thing got added in in the final hearing. So prior to that, it wasn't in there at all.

Sometimes the proposals violate the constitution and sometimes they don't make logical sense but I don't think all their ideas violate one or both. Some think any gun control laws at all are a violation of the constitution.

Sorry but I don't know who you are referring to when you ask what if MDA proposes a law. Mom's demand action?
(Whataboutism has nothing to do with "what ifs" BTW)

If cartels are using straw purchasers that is still a violation of the law...

Don't get me wrong, you are great at pointing out the problems that come with gun regulations but waiting on a suggestion on how we should handle the problem we have with gun violence in this country.

Why have FFLs make background checks at all if private sellers don't need to?

I'm not going to research something that simple for you.  Here's a clue.  Take some time to learn how and why the FFL system exists now, and how guns were sold before FFLs existed.

Simply put, a system of licensed dealers who are mandated to run NICS checks for every sale is easy to enforce.  inventory of gun dealers are regulated and subject to ATF inspection, as are the original 4473s submitted to NICS.  if a dealer doesn't abide by the law, they lose their license and probably their freedom.  No national registry is needed for weapons that pass from manufacturer to wholesaler to dealer to customer.  That process is strictly regulated, and the penalties can put any of those entities out of business and in prison.

That system works to a large degree -- no national registry required.

Private sales are not regulated the same way, and the sellers have no interest in continuing to run a business.  The firearms private sellers advertise will in most states have no documentation to trace its owner if the gun changed hands more than once.  Once the new gun was sold, where it goes afterward is not tracked -- thus no way to enforce the UBC requirement.

You're too used to the Hawaii permit and registration BS.  That's at the state level. UBC on a national scale is the issue.  They won't have a registry to track gun ownership and transfers without which the whole 'common sense" unenforceable law will solve no actual problems.

I'm not going to research something that simple for you.  Here's a clue.  Take some time to learn how and why the FFL system exists now, and how guns were sold before FFLs existed.

Simply put, a system of licensed dealers who are mandated to run NICS checks for every sale is easy to enforce.  inventory of gun dealers are regulated and subject to ATF inspection, as are the original 4473s submitted to NICS.  if a dealer doesn't abide by the law, they lose their license and probably their freedom.  No national registry is needed for weapons that pass from manufacturer to wholesaler to dealer to customer.  That process is strictly regulated, and the penalties can put any of those entities out of business and in prison.

That system works to a large degree -- no national registry required.

Private sales are not regulated the same way, and the sellers have no interest in continuing to run a business.  The firearms private sellers advertise will in most states have no documentation to trace its owner if the gun changed hands more than once.  Once the new gun was sold, where it goes afterward is not tracked -- thus no way to enforce the UBC requirement.

You're too used to the Hawaii permit and registration BS.  That's at the state level. UBC on a national scale is the issue.  They won't have a registry to track gun ownership and transfers without which the whole 'common sense" unenforceable law will solve no actual problems.

We may have to agree to disagree but it seems pretty pointless to have a very regulated way to purchase firearms and then a very unregulated way to purchase firearms. Of course the people up to no good are going to avoid the system with checks and records and look towards private sales all things else being equal.

The idea I have in mind is to take elements of Hawaii's permit to purchase system and use that with certain rules to implement a form of background check without a registry. It isn't a fully formed idea yet nor is it comprehensive but I think with some tweaks it could be a workable plan that achieves a form of UBC while also addressing the concerns of gun owners who don't want a national registry.

We may have to agree to disagree but it seems pretty pointless to have a very regulated way to purchase firearms and then a very unregulated way to purchase firearms. Of course the people up to no good are going to avoid the system with checks and records and look towards private sales all things else being equal.

The idea I have in mind is to take elements of Hawaii's permit to purchase system and use that with certain rules to implement a form of background check without a registry. It isn't a fully formed idea yet nor is it comprehensive but I think with some tweaks it could be a workable plan that achieves a form of UBC while also addressing the concerns of gun owners who don't want a national registry.

That is the flaw. People like you conjure up these laws and the only people that follow them are the law-abiding citizens - not affecting those that do not follow the law (duh). Legislators are quick to take away something from us but less inclined to empower us.

We may have to agree to disagree but it seems pretty pointless to have a very regulated way to purchase firearms and then a very unregulated way to purchase firearms. Of course the people up to no good are going to avoid the system with checks and records and look towards private sales all things else being equal.

The idea I have in mind is to take elements of Hawaii's permit to purchase system and use that with certain rules to implement a form of background check without a registry. It isn't a fully formed idea yet nor is it comprehensive but I think with some tweaks it could be a workable plan that achieves a form of UBC while also addressing the concerns of gun owners who don't want a national registry.

That's the first thing you've said that is true -- and it demonstrates that you're arguing for an idea that we've already proven can't work in reality.

Show me one state that does background checks for all private gun sales and does not require 100% registration after all transfers.
You don't have a fully formed idea, because coming up with one which (1) works, and (2) doesn't require a registry is an impossible task.

Why are you so adamant about a UBC that's mandated?  You seem more concerned that YOU as a seller have no way to know if your buyer is prohibited or not.  Why not start small -- set up a way for private sellers to run a background check.  Just ask for a pic of your buyer's ID and shoot that off to NICS along with your credit card or banking info.

Of course, the FBI has already told states (like NV) that they don't have the funding to do private sales checks.  Also, to law requires that all NICS applications be submitted by an FFL or LE.

FFLs don't have the profit margin to start doing this for every single private sale in the state.  They already make next to nothing for out-of-state firearm transfers they do.  FFLs are not supposed to be a source of free labor for the ATF.  They follow the law for the guns they buy and sell.  Facilitating private buyers and sellers isn't part of their business.

The big problem with people like you is you're all for new laws that sound like they will stop some people from getting guns, but as you admitted, you never think about the actual implementation, it's potential effectiveness, and how that law impacts all the law abiding gun owners who just want to legally sell/buy their own personal property.

Name another product in the US that requires a government investigation and their permission before an owner can give or sell it to another person.

Sometimes the proposals violate the constitution and sometimes they don't make logical sense but I don't think all their ideas violate one or both. Some think any gun control laws at all are a violation of the constitution.

Sorry but I don't know who you are referring to when you ask what if MDA proposes a law. Mom's demand action?
(Whataboutism has nothing to do with "what ifs" BTW)

If cartels are using straw purchasers that is still a violation of the law...

Don't get me wrong, you are great at pointing out the problems that come with gun regulations but waiting on a suggestion on how we should handle the problem we have with gun violence in this country.

Majority of the time if a proposal is coming from someone like Newson , CA , or HI, it would be almost all bad and violate the constitution.

Yes, MDA means Moms Demand Action, all of their proposals are bad or violate the constitution.

Yes, straw purchases are violating the law, thanks for stating the obvious. The comment about cartels using clean record people was about how they would circumvent any background checks and it being almost unenforceable, unless cops go knocking on buyers doors every week for the rest of their lives.

I gave you part of my suggestion on how to make gun violence less, when I suggested MDA and like orgs work with gun groups and obey the constitution. Anther idea is to allocate more money for the prison system and keep career criminals behind bars. Then keep illegals out of the country, more $ allocated for mental health help. That's why I brought up all the $ anti 2a orgs spend to push banning stuff, instead of helping the problem. That $ should be redirected if they truly cared.

But bascially, we have more than enough gun laws, so to answer you question, I suggest no additional gun laws. And in fact, delete some like suppressors law, bump stock law, PTA law, CCW/OC laws, mag limit law, etc...

The idea I have in mind is to take elements of Hawaii's permit to purchase system and use that with certain rules to implement a form of background check without a registry. It isn't a fully formed idea yet nor is it comprehensive but I think with some tweaks it could be a workable plan that achieves a form of UBC while also addressing the concerns of gun owners who don't want a national registry.

There is a reason why ONLY HI does what they do for gun purchases./transfers. Our tiny population allows it and no one is willing to challenge it, until now.

Imagine if a state like CA had all gun owners do the exact thing HI does to buy/transfer a gun.  They would need about 20,000 more police staff to do so. And even then, the wait times would be longer than HI's 2 weeks and thus subject to lawsuit. 

U should look up the HI AG"s stats and how great bringing in the gun is for catching law breakers with regard to registration. Like on avg; 24,000 guns are registered annually and like 3-5 are illegal. Go back 10 years and you will get the picture. Then look up how many PTA are denied, compared to those approved. This is another reason why other anti 2a states like CA won't want to spend the $ to do what HI does. It will take up too much resources for too little results.  I mean if a few thousand or even a few hundred were denied then maybe it might be worth all the efforts, but it's not even close to that. 

There is a reason why ONLY HI does what they do for gun purchases./transfers. Our tiny population allows it and no one is willing to challenge it, until now.

Imagine if a state like CA had all gun owners do the exact thing HI does to buy/transfer a gun.  They would need about 20,000 more police staff to do so. And even then, the wait times would be longer than HI's 2 weeks and thus subject to lawsuit. 

U should look up the HI AG"s stats and how great bringing in the gun is for catching law breakers with regard to registration. Like on avg; 24,000 guns are registered annually and like 3-5 are illegal. Go back 10 years and you will get the picture. Then look up how many PTA are denied, compared to those approved. This is another reason why other anti 2a states like CA won't want to spend the $ to do what HI does. It will take up too much resources for too little results.  I mean if a few thousand or even a few hundred were denied then maybe it might be worth all the efforts, but it's not even close to that.

Not to mention, if someone is prohibited and/or planning to commit a crime, if they can't or won't use an FFL, then they can't/won't use a law-abiding person selling privately.

The guy's girlfriend or buddy could just as easily pass the background check for him and make a straw purchase.  if the gun is discovered in the wrong hands, they can just say their friend must have stolen it the last time they visited.

Not all criminals are masterminds, and not all criminals are idiots.  They will find ways to bypass any background check system keeping them from their firearms.  In the end, zero gun crimes will have been prevented.

Buyer: You still have that Glock for sale?

Seller:  Sure.  It's $650.  Just fill out this 4473 and show me your ID, and i'll run your background check.

Buyer:  Here's $1,650 if we can do the "express check-out."

Seller:  You look like a fine, upstanding gentleman.  Need any ammo?

Sometimes the proposals violate the constitution and sometimes they don't make logical sense but I don't think all their ideas violate one or both. Some think any gun control laws at all are a violation of the constitution.

Sorry but I don't know who you are referring to when you ask what if MDA proposes a law. Mom's demand action?
(Whataboutism has nothing to do with "what ifs" BTW)

If cartels are using straw purchasers that is still a violation of the law...

Don't get me wrong, you are great at pointing out the problems that come with gun regulations but waiting on a suggestion on how we should handle the problem we have with gun violence in this country.

"Don't get me wrong, you are great at pointing out the problems that come with gun regulations but waiting on a suggestion on how we should handle the problem we have with gun violence in this country."

Brother, or Bra,  it isn't gun violence, it is people violence.