Guns,guns,guns..Sam Harris's Opinion Piece

[ermghoti]

Cool, I see. I read Harris as not of the 'gun control' movement but more of a plug some gaps ie: mental competency/ unlicensed sales mentality, if only to stop these strawman arguments, I admit I may be reading him wrong but that was my impression from the article.

I concur, he is trying to take an independent position. I don't know whether he is squirming into trouble by taking a middle position in exclusion to taking a position entirely based on evidence, or if he is ignorant of the facts that would lead him to make better conclusions.

70% or so, he seems to grasp the issues.

I see thanks again, could you indulge me on the bold/italic part? Or link me to something..I wouldn't know where to look.

National Firearms Act

" The government's argument was that the short barreled shotgun was not a military-type weapon and thus not a "militia" weapon protected by the Second Amendment, from federal infringement."

1968 GCA

"The GCA created what is commonly known as the "sporting purposes" standard for all imported firearms, declaring that they must "be generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." As interpreted by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "sporting purposes" includes only hunting and organized competitive target shooting, but does not include "plinking" or "practical shooting" (despite the latter being a form of organized competitive target shooting) nor does it allow for collection for historical or design interest."

OK. What do you think of the Gunshow Loophole? Thanks for the info.

There is no gunshow loophole. Any sale that is legal anywhere else is legal at a gunshow. Any sale that is illegal anywhere else is illegal at a gunshow. The so-called "loophole" is that someone could go to a gunshow, meet a non-dealer looking to sell a gun, and buy it without having to perform the instant background check he would need to do if he bought a firearm from a dealer.

I haven't come up with a satisfactory way for a private citizen to run a background check on another private citizen that wouldn't be horrifically ripe for abuse. Maybe a federal level permit for gun sales/purchases? Opting out would leave one buying and selling exclusively going through dealers? Maybe the permit could impart advanced, jurisdictionally independent carry privileges?

More importantly, are private sales of used firearms a major conduit for illegal arms for criminals? I suspect not, as theft and straw purchases are the big ones. As I mentioned, far easier, and less fraught with rights violations to crank the penalties for illegal ownership, use, transportation and sales than to burden the overwhelmingly law abiding populace.

[Resonance10]

Oh, liberal media always goes out of its way to make anyone they disagree with look like an idiot. Conservative media does the same thing, but liberals control the vast majority of media in the U.S. The last place you want to try to get objective news is from the news. There is no unbiased news. If you want to know anything worth knowing, you have to do your own research - which will likely begin with some kind of bias.....See where this is going? It's pretty easy to understand how all the fighting and misinformation happens.

True, the worst thing is someone emotionally attached to an opinion for general ideological reasons even when the facts plainly contradict it. Hard to get past and true by degrees in us all. I respect most the people who show some awareness of this dynamic.

As for 'news'...best we can do imo is read/view from different sources, accept as strong the things they report almost the same and see the rest as opinion. To much paper news (here anyhow) is reporter masterbation..like never ending editorials, but then again it would be boring otherwise.
Obviously I bias reporting/opinion from people i respect..its like a big smiley circle of fail..

Btw I was talking bout Brit media, didn't know it was as bad over the water..

[Resonance10]

I concur, he is trying to take an independent position. I don't know whether he is squirming into trouble by taking a middle position in exclusion to taking a position entirely based on evidence, or if he is ignorant of the facts that would lead him to make better conclusions.

70% or so, he seems to grasp the issues.

I'd like to think hes just ignorant of those facts.

National Firearms Act

" The government's argument was that the short barreled shotgun was not a military-type weapon and thus not a "militia" weapon protected by the Second Amendment, from federal infringement."

1968 GCA

"The GCA created what is commonly known as the "sporting purposes" standard for all imported firearms, declaring that they must "be generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." As interpreted by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "sporting purposes" includes only hunting and organized competitive target shooting, but does not include "plinking" or "practical shooting" (despite the latter being a form of organized competitive target shooting) nor does it allow for collection for historical or design interest."

Man this **** is confusing..thanks for the links.

There is no gunshow loophole. Any sale that is legal anywhere else is legal at a gunshow. Any sale that is illegal anywhere else is illegal at a gunshow. The so-called "loophole" is that someone could go to a gunshow, meet a non-dealer looking to sell a gun, and buy it without having to perform the instant background check he would need to do if he bought a firearm from a dealer.

I haven't come up with a satisfactory way for a private citizen to run a background check on another private citizen that wouldn't be horrifically ripe for abuse. Maybe a federal level permit for gun sales/purchases? Opting out would leave one buying and selling exclusively going through dealers? Maybe the permit could impart advanced, jurisdictionally independent carry privileges?

More importantly, are private sales of used firearms a major conduit for illegal arms for criminals? I suspect not, as theft and straw purchases are the big ones. As I mentioned, far easier, and less fraught with rights violations to crank the penalties for illegal ownership, use, transportation and sales than to burden the overwhelmingly law abiding populace.

I get it.
I was under the impression illegal possession/sale of a fire arm was a pretty serious offence.

[ermghoti]

Man this **** is confusing..thanks for the links.

Quite the mess. The US hit the 10,000 mark for federal, state and local firearms laws about twenty years ago, and it's entirely the firearm owners' responsibility to comply with the ones applicable to them.

I was under the impression illegal possession/sale of a fire arm was a pretty serious offence.

It is, but if the laws are not enforced, they are useless. The Federal restrictions are draconian, but are rarely prosecuted, except for the occasional example made of a doomsday prepper, separatist, or dodgy dealer. Violent criminals generally see the charges reduced or eliminated in plea bargaining, which is not entirely useless, but philosophically, the government(s) in the US do(es) not consider simple possession of an illegal firearm by a convicted felon as worthy of the decades long sentence such a crime would incur if prosecuted.

Just a mandatory one year sentence for possession saw a massive reduction in the use of firearms by criminals here in Boston in the '80s. Shitloads of people got stabbed though, oddly enough.

[Mr. Machette]

I was under the impression illegal possession/sale of a fire arm was a pretty serious offence.

You lose your freedom for years, go to hardcore, federal "pound me in the ass" prison, become subject to a fortune in fines ($250k for owning unregistered PARTS of a machinegun) and you lose the right to legally owns guns.

I wouldn't say "draconian" (excepting "intent" clauses) but certainly harsh as any civil society could justify for "possession of contraband".

[judoka_uk]

Yes. Furthermore, I'm sure there would be a long line of foreign governments anxious to supply the rebels with AK-47s and RPGs, along with military personnel defecting with military hardware. So the guns from Jim Bob's closet would only be a starting point.

In an imaginary world where the US is in a literal state of war, I'd wonder what states would still survive in an organised form, rather than in the Somalian sense of a state.

[thrutch]

Question for OP (and other Brits). This is a serious question and not intended to be smartass. I'm genuinely curious.

It seems like we constantly have Brits chiming in on discussions about gun control in the U.S. Even starting threads like yourself. Often, they'll argue the issue quite passionately. Why does this subject interest you?

I can say without hesitation that I don't give one iota about politics in the UK, unless perhaps it's something related to foreign policy that could have a direct impact on the U.S. The gun control debate is clearly a domestic issue and has zero impact on British folk. Why do you care at all? I really would like to understand.

You may get the occasional Brit chiming in on here, but then internet fora tend to be populated with people who think their opinion is valuable. American gun ownership is not really an issue over here.

I don't care. I can't think of anyone I know in the UK who really cares either. The USA's passion for gun ownership is a completely alien concept for the average Brit who's never owned, used or in many cases even seen a firearm. You'll get a brief media flutter after each school shooting, but it's quickly forgotten.

I suspect if you did a straw poll you'd find more people over here who are upset about Pakistani children being killed by American drones than those upset about American children being killed by American guns. I'd probably be one of them.

[Resonance10]

You lose your freedom for years, go to hardcore, federal "pound me in the ass" prison, become subject to a fortune in fines ($250k for owning unregistered PARTS of a machinegun) and you lose the right to legally owns guns.

I wouldn't say "draconian" (excepting "intent" clauses) but certainly harsh as any civil society could justify for "possession of contraband".

Ok thats pretty harsh! And thats without proving malicous intent..? Do you think its fair or should 'intent' be proved in your opinion?
Ermghoti..says its rarely enforced tho..what kind of plea bargaining gets you out of such obviously condemned behaviour?
How does this pan out against other crimes like drug possession?

[-TANK-]

"A well-made gun can remain functional for centuries"

Why is that? Because the SOB took care of it? And why is that? Because the SOB knew that someday the weapon would take care of him...just sayin. Leave the guns out of it, its all about the media, psycho-shat and more social media making heros of these ----wads.

My idea is to forever banish the SOB from all records, ie he was never born, never lived, never died, basically erase anyone from all history books who kills someone else.

Takes away the cowards attempt to become infamous then fix these folks mentally, it isnt that hard, maybe remove some testicles if you have to. Settles em down a bit.

[Permalost]

My idea is to forever banish the SOB from all records, ie he was never born, never lived, never died, basically erase anyone from all history books who kills someone else.

Takes away the cowards attempt to become infamous then fix these folks mentally, it isnt that hard, maybe remove some testicles if you have to. Settles em down a bit.

We can't really study the phenomenon of random public shootings properly if we sweep all the details under a rug. An ostrich approach has never been the best way to go with violence and weapons.