"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.

He thinks doing something that will not work is better than doing nothing to fix am ill-defined, complex behavioral problem.

We've offered workable solutions, such as armed teachers and volunteer resource officers, national concealed carry reciprocity, etc.  But, that doesn't fit the "common sense gun control law" narrative and mindset.

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.

Hence why you make a system which doesn't work through voluntary cooperation by the bad guys. Rules about firearms on planes aren't simply rules hoping people will comply, you have mechanisms like metal detectors.

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.

Incorrect, I have mentioned this particular idea in multiple conversations on this forum. You haven't proven it cannot work in reality, you have only claimed it cannot.

Your second argument amounts to basically "because other people haven't done it, you won't be able to either" which, if everyone accepted, wouldn't ever invent new better things or ways to do things.

I have repeatedly asked you guys for better suggestions for programs to try to keep guns out of the wrong hands but so far I haven't heard any better ideas.

Hence why you make a system which doesn't work through voluntary cooperation by the bad guys. Rules about firearms on planes aren't simply rules hoping people will comply, you have mechanisms like metal detectors.

That's a completely non-sequitur comparison.

Air travel is a highly regulated activity that includes public and private agencies and organizations.  Private airline companies can't sell tickets if safety isn't a top priority.  They are also going to be the target of lawsuits if they don't have metal detectors, full body scanners, hand pat-downs, and multiple screening stations.  They use luggage handling machines and procedures to increase safety.  The airport, the contracted support companies, the TSA, the FAA, the airline staff, the flight and ground crews -- all are part of a closed system that works to make sure a gun or other unauthorized weapons doesn't makes it into the passenger cabin.

You can't compare such a highly controlled environment with the one in which buyers and sellers freely transfer personally owned firearms.

To consider your comparison, it would require that you impose the same level of control onto the entire gun-owning population which airports employ.

Your comment is no different than saying, "We can put a man on the moon, so why we can't keep guns out of the wrong hands?"  One has nothing to do with the other.

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.

I don't think we need more gun laws but we could certainly swap out less effective ones with more effective ones.

I agree California would need to spend way more but given out isolation geographically, in all fairness, they would have a bigger hurdle to overcome than we do.

I am just not content with the whole stance that there is nothing we can do to stop bad people from owning firearms so lets give up trying. I want to find ways that increase that effectiveness while still respecting the 2nd amendment. Like I pointed out earlier, if we don't participate in the solution then they will just pass their own things and we will surely be worse off then.

Yes longer sentences for certain types of offenders would help and more mental health services would also help but even those bring with them constitutional issues which make them not very popular among the gun rights crowd either.

t isn't gun violence, it is people violence.

You are 100% correct, problem is that guns make us much better at being violent.

That's a completely non-sequitur comparison.

Air travel is a highly regulated activity that includes public and private agencies and organizations.  Private airline companies can't sell tickets if safety isn't a top priority.  They are also going to be the target of lawsuits if they don't have metal detectors, full body scanners, hand pat-downs, and multiple screening stations.  They use luggage handling machines and procedures to increase safety.  The airport, the contracted support companies, the TSA, the FAA, the airline staff, the flight and ground crews -- all are part of a closed system that works to make sure a gun or other unauthorized weapons doesn't makes it into the passenger cabin.

You can't compare such a highly controlled environment with the one in which buyers and sellers freely transfer personally owned firearms.

To consider your comparison, it would require that you impose the same level of control onto the entire gun-owning population which airports employ.

Your comment is no different than saying, "We can put a man on the moon, so why we can't keep guns out of the wrong hands?"  One has nothing to do with the other.

I think you missed the point because you are taking my comparison too literally. The whole point was that merely having a rule isn't enough on its own, you have to have some sort of mechanism for making checks to make sure people follow the rule. Speed limits wouldn't be followed very often if police never gave tickets to speeders. Just as cops could never check every private transaction they could never enforce all traffic rules everywhere all at once either  but if they do it often enough people will know the cops are there and gives a reason for people to comply.

You might not offer an express checkout price if you think the buyer might be an undercover cop right?

I think you missed the point because you are taking my comparison too literally. The whole point was that merely having a rule isn't enough on its own, you have to have some sort of mechanism for making checks to make sure people follow the rule. Speed limits wouldn't be followed very often if police never gave tickets to speeders. Just as cops could never check every private transaction they could never enforce all traffic rules everywhere all at once either  but if they do it often enough people will know the cops are there and gives a reason for people to comply.

You might not offer an express checkout price if you think the buyer might be an undercover cop right?

No, you're trying to use an example of keeping guns away from commercial aircraft to convince us that a completely unrelated system -- UBC -- is also possible.

Period.

And if you're worried about an undercover sting for your firearm sale, then you'll weigh the risk (Arrest) with reward (Sale + $1,000 bonus).

If the risk is too high, you'll opt for going with the background check.  If you need the money and have no other interested buyers, you might take the chance.

You still think human behavior is controlled by passing laws.  Yet, people commit serious crimes every single day.

How many more resources and money needs to be allotted for undercover Cops to ferret out illegal private gun sales?  How much will be spent prosecuting and jailing people for not following a purely administrative law?  At what cost will you finally admit the stated purpose of the law is no longer worth the cost given its measurable results?

Australia passed a massive gun ban.  Over the next decade, there was a massive spike in gun crimes.

The crimes were for violating the ban.  Gun violence was about the same as before the ban.

Congratulate the Aussies for creating a new population of criminals.

"I have repeatedly asked you guys for better suggestions for programs to try to keep guns out of the wrong hands but so far I haven't heard any better ideas."

That is easy,  don't let Democrats have guns.
 

"I have repeatedly asked you guys for better suggestions for programs to try to keep guns out of the wrong hands but so far I haven't heard any better ideas."

That is easy,  don't let Democrats have guns.
 

no ARs for civilian PSD for all politicians. They are only allowed those that are available to the average Joe Citizen

How many more resources and money needs to be allotted for undercover Cops to ferret out illegal private gun sales?  How much will be spent prosecuting and jailing people for not following a purely administrative law?  At what cost will you finally admit the stated purpose of the law is no longer worth the cost given its measurable results?

This is why I posted when asked what my solution is, but it won't work due to $ and staff issues.  Which brought be to the if MDA and other anti 2A org's spent their $ on this, then maybe it would have a chance. But they won't, so my idea won't work.

I don't think we need more gun laws but we could certainly swap out less effective ones with more effective ones.

I agree California would need to spend way more but given out isolation geographically, in all fairness, they would have a bigger hurdle to overcome than we do.

I am just not content with the whole stance that there is nothing we can do to stop bad people from owning firearms so lets give up trying. I want to find ways that increase that effectiveness while still respecting the 2nd amendment. Like I pointed out earlier, if we don't participate in the solution then they will just pass their own things and we will surely be worse off then.

Yes longer sentences for certain types of offenders would help and more mental health services would also help but even those bring with them constitutional issues which make them not very popular among the gun rights crowd either.

Wow. Oxymoron all over.

So lets just begin with the lat sentence. What constitutional issues do u see?  I mean if someone robs someone with a gun and they get a 10 year sentence and did all 10 years, that would be much better than a catch and release operation that we currently have. How would gun rights crowd be opposed to this?  Or someone has 20 convictions (career criminal), and they are held in jail for longer, than the catch and release program we have now.

The only way seeking mental help would be opposed by the gun rights crowd would be if the nation does what HI does.  This means one loses their 2a right until a clearance letter is issued. But if more funding was provided for more professionals, then I don't see how the gun rights crowd would oppose this.

You last sentence is making a problem where there isn't one.

"I am just not content with the whole stance that there is nothing we can do to stop bad people from owning firearms so lets give up trying. I want to find ways that increase that effectiveness while still respecting the 2nd amendment. Like I pointed out earlier, if we don't participate in the solution then they will just pass their own things and we will surely be worse off then. "

Many 2a org's have been vocal about catch and release.  It's just that those in power want to take the guns away from law abiding citizens, then have stricter punishments for criminals.

"I agree California would need to spend way more but given out isolation geographically, in all fairness, they would have a bigger hurdle to overcome than we do. "

What's the hurdle? I mean are you saying HI's registration doesn't work?  So if CA implemented registration for all guns, including 5 days for all incoming guns.  Are you saying needing to go to the police station to apply to buy a gun doesn't work either? The only accurate part of your sentence is that CA would have to spend way more $.

"I don't think we need more gun laws but we could certainly swap out less effective ones with more effective ones. "

Can you provide an example?  I mean  HRS134 was gut and replaced this year. And none of it makes it harder for criminals to get a gun or impacts them.

I don't think we need more gun laws but we could certainly swap out less effective ones with more effective ones.

I agree California would need to spend way more but given out isolation geographically, in all fairness, they would have a bigger hurdle to overcome than we do.

I am just not content with the whole stance that there is nothing we can do to stop bad people from owning firearms so lets give up trying. I want to find ways that increase that effectiveness while still respecting the 2nd amendment. Like I pointed out earlier, if we don't participate in the solution then they will just pass their own things and we will surely be worse off then.

Yes longer sentences for certain types of offenders would help and more mental health services would also help but even those bring with them constitutional issues which make them not very popular among the gun rights crowd either.

Show me where anyone here said we should stop trying to think of solutions.

The issue isn't that we don't want any new laws.  The issue is most of the laws proposed have been tried and have failed, have no logical chance of being effective, are unenforceable, and/or only serve to make legal gun ownership more burdensome and expensive.

The flaw in that statement is you don't stop to delve into all the ramifications and consequences of the laws you support.

It's like you're proposing we build a nuclear reactor on Oahu, but you have no thought as to how to handle the radioactive waste, prevent disasters caused by hurricanes or earthquakes, and so on.  You just want to build it and the see what happens - because you think trying a bad idea is better than doing nothing.

That's a childish and naive way of looking at a problem.  And the problem for which you are suggesting "solutions" requires much more than just passing a law.  The enforcement of a UBC requirement will necessarily demand a full firearm registration nationwide.  You said i haven't proven that to be true.  Then why does every state that forces residents to have a permit or license for a firearm transfer also have mandatory registrations?

Many states have passed laws prohibiting the registration of firearms.  Please explain why they would pass such laws if registration doesn't need to exist for certain "common sense gun laws' to work?  Surely they didn't pass a law for no reason.

No, you're trying to use an example of keeping guns away from commercial aircraft to convince us that a completely unrelated system -- UBC -- is also possible.

Period.

False. Period.

And if you're worried about an undercover sting for your firearm sale, then you'll weigh the risk (Arrest) with reward (Sale + $1,000 bonus).

If the risk is too high, you'll opt for going with the background check.  If you need the money and have no other interested buyers, you might take the chance.

Yes, you might take the chance. Thats true of breaking any law. You can't stop someone from breaking the law, the only think to can do is provide disincentives.

You still think human behavior is controlled by passing laws.  Yet, people commit serious crimes every single day.

So what? Sounds like an argument to abolish all laws.

How many more resources and money needs to be allotted for undercover Cops to ferret out illegal private gun sales?

Not that much.

So lets just begin with the lat sentence. What constitutional issues do u see? 

A frequent response from gun rights activists in answer to the problem of people like mass shooters is more mental health funding. I fully agree with that idea but I find it a rather disingenuous suggestion considering that people on the same side are also resistant to what would be done with more mental health funding.
In order words, our side is not known to support government health care, we are not known for supporting red flag laws, we are not known for mental health type background checks/disqualifications. (All aspects of mental health relating to firearms and all ones the gun rights crowd would make constitutional arguments agianst)

If we say more mental health but then resist all mental health programs, are we really for mental health care? Do you support government provided mental health care?

Entertain this hypothetical if you will:
Imagine there is an individual with a serious mental health issue known to law enforcement that would justify denying this person the right to own a firearm. In Hawaii, with all purchases requiring a background check you effectively limit the way this person could obtain a firearm to illegal methods like theft, straw purchase, black market. However in a state with no background checks this person could easily just get a gun from a legal private sale. What good is the background check at all if this individual can just go to a private sale?

I mean if someone robs someone with a gun and they get a 10 year sentence and did all 10 years, that would be much better than a catch and release operation that we currently have. How would gun rights crowd be opposed to this?  Or someone has 20 convictions (career criminal), and they are held in jail for longer, than the catch and release program we have now.

I agree with this suggestion, and the soft on crime democrats are proving how stupid their ideas are here but this is only one aspect of the problem. It will do nothing to stop the mass shooters but would reduce gang crime and career criminals I think. 

What's the hurdle? I mean are you saying HI's registration doesn't work?  So if CA implemented registration for all guns, including 5 days for all incoming guns.  Are you saying needing to go to the police station to apply to buy a gun doesn't work either? The only accurate part of your sentence is that CA would have to spend way more $.

I mean that moving guns in and out of California is much easier than doing so in Hawaii. California would also be starting from nothing whereas we already have something in place so initially of course California would have to spend more.

Can you provide an example?  I mean  HRS134 was gut and replaced this year. And none of it makes it harder for criminals to get a gun or impacts them.

Not off the top of my head, I was making a general statement about removing bad/ineffective laws.


I am currently reading a book about a deep dive study into mass shooters. Only about half way through so I can't summarize their conclusions yet but I am hoping they will have some valuable insights. They interviewed dozens of shooters and their family members/friends to find out what made these people tick. They are a unique crowd where strong on gun crime laws would have zero effect. I will post about it when I finish

You still think human behavior is controlled by passing laws.  Yet, people commit serious crimes every single day.

So what? Sounds like an argument to abolish all laws.

"Sounds"' like a strawman argument.

Show me where anyone ever said abolish all laws.  Otherwise, try arguing the issue at hand instead of debating something nobody said.

I do get tired of repeating this, but here it is for the ten thousandth time;

Laws are not capable of preventing crime.  Laws can only punish the law breakers and provide a set of guidelines for society that limits everyone's behavior for the good of the public at large.  Guidelines are not barriers.  They require effective, constant, consistent and fair enforcement.

If you want to prevent crime, you need to watch the movie Minority Report (again?).  Short of arresting violent criminals before they commit the crime, there is no way to prevent what they are going to do.  Only the would-be-law-breaker can prevent themselves from committing a crime, and unfortunately morality has become relative -- it's not illegal if you don't get caught. 

Take a few mass shootings as examples where the shooter was reported to police for odd behavior.  The police could not do anything because the soon-to-be-mass-murderer had not broken the law.  Hence, they could not arrest and incarcerate him.

in the case of UBC, there can be no enforcement without knowledge the law was about to be broken.  So, someone has to inform the cops, the cops have to spend much more than "not much" to operate stings for law breakers, the buyer has to somehow lead the cops back to the seller such as if getting caught with a a gun he said he bought from "some guy", or -- to catch every single seller before they bypass the law -- there needs to be a list of what guns the seller owns.  Without it, there is no way to verify a background was run on the buyer before the transfer happened.  There's really no way around it.  And without it, criminals will still commit violence because the law can't prevent someone from bypassing it.

You must also factor in whether the seller would have bypassed the background check if the cops hadn't literally bribed him to break the law.  The seller probably wasn't looking for someone with extra cash so they could do an illegal sale.  if a legit buyer answered the ad and filled out the form, the seller would have gone along with the law and sold the gun for the asking price.  So the Cops are just creating opportunities to entice otherwise law-abiding sellers to break the law.  What good does that do? 

If all you're interested in is punishing the people who break your laws, then you have the solution.  if you think that is going to stop crimes involving guns, you're delusional.


Imagine a river, with the water flowing at a brisk pace -- nothing in its way, just a steady flow of water from its mouth to wherever it empties into.

Now, imagine placing a large rock in the river.  Does the rock stop the river from flowing?  Of course not.  The water finds the path of least resistance and begins to flow around the rcck.

Add another rock, and another.  Each time, the rock causes the water to change its path, but it doesn't stop it from reaching its destination.

The river is human behavior, and the rocks are laws.  No matter how substantial and how many rocks you place in the river, the water finds a way around them.  Even if you completely block the water from left to right bank, the river will find a way over, between or around the rocks.

This is not my personal analogy.  I heard it from a well known lawyer.

"Sounds"' like a strawman argument.

Show me where anyone ever said abolish all laws.  Otherwise, try arguing the issue at hand instead of debating something nobody said.

I do get tired of repeating this, but here it is for the ten thousandth time;

Laws are not capable of preventing crime.  Laws can only punish the law breakers and provide a set of guidelines for society that limits everyone's behavior for the good of the public at large.  Guidelines are not barriers.  They require effective, constant, consistent and fair enforcement.

If you want to prevent crime, you need to watch the movie Minority Report (again?).  Short of arresting violent criminals before they commit the crime, there is no way to prevent what they are going to do.  Only the would-be-law-breaker can prevent themselves from committing a crime, and unfortunately morality has become relative -- it's not illegal if you don't get caught. 

Take a few mass shootings as examples where the shooter was reported to police for odd behavior.  The police could not do anything because the soon-to-be-mass-murderer had not broken the law.  Hence, they could not arrest and incarcerate him.

in the case of UBC, there can be no enforcement without knowledge the law was about to be broken.  So, someone has to inform the cops, the cops have to spend much more than "not much" to operate stings for law breakers, the buyer has to somehow lead the cops back to the seller such as if getting caught with a a gun he said he bought from "some guy", or -- to catch every single seller before they bypass the law -- there needs to be a list of what guns the seller owns.  Without it, there is no way to verify a background was run on the buyer before the transfer happened.  There's really no way around it.  And without it, criminals will still commit violence because the law can't prevent someone from bypassing it.

You must also factor in whether the seller would have bypassed the background check if the cops hadn't literally bribed him to break the law.  The seller probably wasn't looking for someone with extra cash so they could do an illegal sale.  if a legit buyer answered the ad and filled out the form, the seller would have gone along with the law and sold the gun for the asking price.  So the Cops are just creating opportunities to entice otherwise law-abiding sellers to break the law.  What good does that do? 

If all you're interested in is punishing the people who break your laws, then you have the solution.  if you think that is going to stop crimes involving guns, you're delusional.


Imagine a river, with the water flowing at a brisk pace -- nothing in its way, just a steady flow of water from its mouth to wherever it empties into.

Now, imagine placing a large rock in the river.  Does the rock stop the river from flowing?  Of course not.  The water finds the path of least resistance and begins to flow around the rcck.

Add another rock, and another.  Each time, the rock causes the water to change its path, but it doesn't stop it from reaching its destination.

The river is human behavior, and the rocks are laws.  No matter how substantial and how many rocks you place in the river, the water finds a way around them.  Even if you completely block the water from left to right bank, the river will find a way over, between or around the rocks.

This is not my personal analogy.  I heard it from a well known lawyer.

If you are saying that words on paper alone are not enough to stop people from doing bad things then sure, you are technically right.

However, if you are saying that no one ever abstains from an activity because it is against the law then you are incorrect.

I have already explained to you how UBC rules could be enforced by law enforcement without a nationwide registry system and you just ignored them.

You talk about needing to catch every one but with a little critical thinking you know darn well that you don't need to catch every single person. Just like you don't need to catch every single speeder to get most drivers to slow down, you wouldn't need to investigate every single private sale.

You point out all the difficulties of a UBC system but then say they should still be in place for licensed dealers. It makes no sense to require one gun seller to do a background check and not another if the goal is to prevent prohibited persons. Liability isn't the reason FFLs are supposed to do background checks, that's not a real justification. All the problems you mention of private sales exist just the same for FFLs.

The goal is to make it more difficult for a legally prohibited person to be able to get a gun. That won't prevent all gun crime of course but it can make a difference.

The rock analogy doesn't fit reality. It assumes, in this case, that no amount of laws could ever prevent a person from getting a firearm, which even if true ignores the fact that people change over time. Case in point, I remember one interview with a man who had plans to shoot up a school but he couldn't get his hands on a gun and never went through with it. The water is always going to be seeking to go downhill, but humans aren't the same way. This man didn't just wait till he was 18 and then buy a gun and shoot up a school, he got over that terrible phase in his life.