View Single Post
Old 01-30-2013, 10:59 AM   #55
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
I would go for that if instead of denied they are placed in prison for 10 years hard labor. You have to be joking… How is that a compromise? Someone may have assisted in murder and robbery by criminal activity and you want to just put them on the denied list after they do it 3 times. Sorry according to federal law now, from the 1960’s, they should be on the denied list after doing it the first time because they are a criminal. How is that a compromise? That would actually opening another loophole in the law as it stands now.

I would hold people to the reasonable person standard. In most states you must file a police report for any insurance claim involving theft or robbery. The courts have ruled that to be a reasonable standard. What is so difficult about reporting a theft loss? If your TV is stolen you would not call the police? Why is a firearm any different? I would really like to know what is so difficult about reporting a that a deadly weapon was stolen? You say a gun is a tool and I agree, if my band saw is stolen I will report it, what would make a "resonable person" not report a firearm stolen?
You missed the parenthesis of the previous line. IF, even after they have made all reasonable efforts to secure their firearms(Locked in a properly installed safe when not in use), they have their firearms stolen three times THEN they are placed on the permanently denied list. It happened to a friend of mine. His gun safe was broken free from the foundation by the use of a nearby bulldozer. You would have him do 10 years hard labor for someone else wrapping a chain around his gun safe? Again, it's about REASONABLE EFFORT. It's not opening a loophole, in fact it's closing the current loophole. As it stands now, the guy simply reports that his guns were stolen from under his bed, and he's free to go buy more. Oh hey he bought more AK's. whoops stolen again. darn thieves. Buy more AK's Whoops stolen again. It's like they know he has them under his bed or something. In your haste to dismiss my post as not compromising, you must have missed this section.

Quote:
Make it a requirement that the original purchaser is held liable if the firearm he purchased is used in a crime(If he is unable to prove that he made a reasonable effort to secure the firearm, say it was not in a properly installed and locked safe), and that ALL sales must go through an FFL(for a background check). Lets also add in that if a person has had more than 3 incidents of their firearms being stolen, they are placed on the denied list for NICS.
So that covered all of your reasoning.
1) Straw buyers cannot simply hand off their purchases to a buyer and claim their firearms were stolen without having to show an extreme effort was made to get them.
2) IF you buy a gun and it is used in a crime, YOU are liable. Which means that YOU MUST REPORT IT STOLEN BEFORE IT IS USED IN A CRIME! So I have no idea where you get off with that tangent about not reporting it stolen.
3) They cannot just sell it on the street and keep the money, as that sale HAS TO GO THROUGH AN FFL. That prevents people from saying, "Yeah I sold that to a dude I met at the gun show. What was his name? I dunno."

Of course this could all be a moot point anyway as the 3d printing technology gets better. You could print your own gun. Then there's relatively inexpensive CNC milling machines that could easily be adapted to make firearm frames(which are the only parts that have to go through an FFL). Ain't technology grand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier1985 View Post
the usa is no different to any other western world country, except that is one of the youngest and feel like they have something to prove. We over here in the uk don't get pushed around any more or less than the americans do... this was true even back in the "founding father" days, just didn't want to pay the kings taxes, but they ended up paying their own tax, amusing.

i'll never be convinced of being pro-gun owner ship, especially arming people to the teeth, that is just immature and ignorant. if there is a problem with massacres, handing out more guns will not resolve the issue, it would just make it easier for the suspect to do what they will do.

i went to Vegas a few years ago, even the car valet people have pistols, how ridiculous, et they will be arming MacDonald's employees next. That is one of the most off putting things about the USA, their fetish for guns.

but as i said before, ban and make automatic and some semi automatic weapons, anyone who has an arsenal of weapons has intent, if you only wanted to own a weapon for protection, you would only need a small pistol or something to that extent. Anything bigger or more powerful and it goes beyond defence and into the realm of intent.
Um, life in the colonies wasn't exactly all roses and sunshine. We had to pay taxes on goods from England as well as having high tariffs on our goods. And look at the third amendment. It was put there because British troops could come into your home, eat your crops, slaughter your livestock and even have their way with your wife and daughter, and you couldn't do anything about it. While taxation gets the primary focus, it wasn't the only thing. And it was taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. The colonies had NO SAY in Parliament. And they kept raising the taxes on things in the colonies, but we had no say in the matter.

Gun ownership does not cause massacres. The worst massacres in history were caused by means other than firearms. Bath Michigan. 38 children killed in a school. No gun was used. Weapon of choice? Dynamite. Oklahoma city. 168 souls, including 19 under 6. Weapon of choice? explosives(home made). And of course New York 9/11. 3000+ lost. Not a gun in sight. weapon of choice? Aircraft. Crazy people intent on killing massive numbers of people are far less concerned with the weapon they need than how to do the most damage.

Valets in Vegas had firearms? I never noticed that. Maybe it's because I don't let my knickers get all knotted because someone has a firearm. Or maybe it's because I rarely valet my car. But I would understand it, as they are sometimes in vehicles that are very expensive, and often have to run out to a darkened lot with the keys to that car in their hands.

And the whole "Arsenal" argument is just plain silly. A rifle is more accurate than a pistol. Plain and simple. A rifle also has less overspray than a shotgun. There are a ton of people who like to collect things. Some like firearms that look a certain way.
1 AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE REALLY HARD TO GET.
2 IF YOU HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE FEDS TO GET ONE THEY CAN RAID YOUR HOME AT ANY TIME.
3 YOU CANNOT BUY ONE THAT WAS REGISTERED AFTER 1 MAY 1986 UNLESS YOU ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT
4 THERE HAS BEEN ONE CRIME COMMITTED WITH A LEGALLY OBTAINED AUTOMATIC WEAPON BY A CIVILIAN SINCE 1934

(2 if you include the cop)
there... maybe NOW people will see it.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Tommycat; 01-30-2013 at 12:19 PM. Reason: realized I didn't respont to Xavier.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,