When did you use your gun defensively?

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by edna kawabata, Jan 20, 2022.

  1. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How does the state prove I was required to run a background check when I sold a gun to someone, when the state cannot prove when I sold the gun?
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2022
    Rucker61 likes this.
  2. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The laws you support are unnecessary, ineffective, and cannot prevent illegal gun use.
    Thus, the inadequacy.
     
  3. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,475
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do like access to NCIS for private sales, but voluntary? I think all transferred ownership of a firearm should have a 4473 on record so if it is used in a crime it could be traced back to the last legal gun owner and that person could be charged with accessory to a crime if the perp had the gun illegally and it was never reported stolen. Straw purchases and illegal guns sales would dry up.
    Charging people for flunking a background check? Might be legal. Taking guns away from illegal gun owners before they commit a crime? How, stop and frisk? Unconstitutional. Remove ATF restraints on policing FFLs. The rest is cleaning up the mess after illegal gun use. And aren't you against red flag laws which have allowed active shooters when not enforced?
     
  4. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All background checks for private transfers are voluntary, regardless of the law. They simply can't be enforced. There's no way for law enforcement to know if I sold a gun to a friend.

    None of the current inventory of illegal guns will ever have a 4473, as they will never be sold via an FFL.
    Straw purchasers pass a background check and leave a signed 4473 with the FFL. Why do we still have straw purchases? Illegal guns sales would continue unabated. There's over 9 years of illegal guns out there.
    Might be? They've committed a felony, and left a signed legal document with their name, address and phone number on it? Why can't we prosecute more than about 50 a year?

    Prohibited persons in possession of a firearm are committing a crime. Stop and frisk was random? Searching convicted felons is targeted.
    Crooked FFLs aren't a measurable source of guns to criminals.
    Yeah, American jurisprudence works after the crime. We don't have effective pre-crime units.
    I'm against variants of Red Flag laws that don't embrace due process. When have Red Flag laws allowed active shooters?
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2022
    roorooroo likes this.
  5. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,475
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    On NICS fails, Biden just signed into law that charges the FBI to notify local law enforcement of NICS denials within 24 hours. This seems to be for "intelligence" purposes. 13 states already had local law notification and 10 of those states did not investigate or prosecute NICS denials. So we can do better.

    I'm afraid you've missed the salient point in requiring all gun transactions to have a 4473 (with a background check) and making the last legal owner of that firearm liable for illegal actions with that gun, if it was not reported stolen. That would incentivize all sellers to ensure a legal transfer of ownership. All that could be done on line without an FFL.

    The ATF was prohibited from making multiple evaluations of FFLs when an FFL is found negligent. They have few investigators and there are over 133,000 FFLs in the US so many go years without an inspection. The policy for years has been to hand out multiple warnings for sloppy bookkeeping and negligent practices out of fear of complaints to Congress and pulling their funding even more. So we can do better.

    My quote was Red Flag laws have allowed active shooters when not enforced.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianapolis_FedEx_shooting
     
  6. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,632
    Likes Received:
    13,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Once I crushed a spider with the stock of my AR15.
     
  7. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For better or for worse, the states aren't Constitutionally obligated to enforce federal law. It's the ATF's job to track down denials, but hopefully at least some states will investigate failed background checks. We have to get better than 10 out of 72,000.

    Except that the Democrats won't allow direct access to NICS. It's been requested. Sen Tom Coburn had a proposal that would do exactly this but it never made it out of committee. You'll never get criminal sellers to require their buyers to submit to a background check, and lawful owners already notify the authorities on stolen weapons because you can't get your homeowner's insurance to pay for the loss without a police report.

    "Better" evidently implies "lots more agents". Really, "lots more". What else is "better"?

    Not very useful for the purpose then, are they?
     
  8. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,475
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the case of NICS denials. There is a Q&A on "how do I find out if I will be denied?" It was a popular question. The only answer was go to an FFL and see if you pass. Should they be arrested for that? And I don't know what "We have to get better than 10 out of 72,000" means. If it refers to the number of NICS denials, they are less than 1% of background checks and some may not know they would be denied.

    You had to put a partisan spin on NICS self-verify. Coburn did "float" the idea to attach to bill that eventually got shot down by Republicans. There was another e-verify attachment ditched in 2019 that Trump said he'd veto. The NICS e-verify is a good idea but it needs to be coupled with an "e" 4473 and there needs to be blowback if not done and a crime is committed, otherwise it is useless. Most handguns start out legally and then, through private sales, end up in illegal hands, this would prevent that.

    The ATF is underfunded and understaffed and it has many more functions than policing FFLs. The "Tiahrt" amendment prevents the ATF from disclosing firearm trace data and multiple handgun sales reports data to anyone but law enforcement making outside scrutiny difficult. In 2015 7% of FFLs were inspected, only 42% had been inspected in the last 5 years. A bad apple FFL can only be inspected once a year otherwise a warrant is needed and if they lose their license it can be appealed which may take years while they continue to sell guns.

    Red Flag laws have saved a lot of lives when they are enforced.
     
  9. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There should be a way to check NICS status without committing a felony, I agree. 10 out of 72k:

    In 2010, 72,000 applicants were denied permission to purchase a firearm via the NICS and state systems. 34,000 of these were denied for previous felony convictions. Another 20,000 were denied for state and local prohibited status. Only 10 (10!) were convicted. We still have tens of thousands of people who committed a felony by lying on the Form 4473 and have a violent past free to find guns through illegal means. Given that a violent felon is looking for a gun, how many violent crimes could be prevented by arresting and incarcerating these felons? https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

    Coborn was just one proponent of self access to NICS. I'm not aware of a single Democrat supporting it. If the buyer is not a prohibited person at the time of sale, a background check does nothing.

    This would not stop straw purchases, theft or family transfers.

    • Releasing the information serves no useful purpose. The Congressional Research Service has repeatedly said "firearm trace data may be biased" and "cannot be used to test for statistical significance between firearm traces in general and the wider population of firearms available to criminals or the wider American public.”[1] These limitations exist because the "tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics."[2]
    • Traced guns aren’t always “crime guns”; firearms may be traced for reasons unrelated to any armed crime. The BATFE trace request form lists “crime codes” for traffic offenses and election law violations, among many others.
    • Trace information remains available for law enforcement use. The permanent version of the Tiahrt amendment ensures that trace data is available to federal, state, and local agencies "in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution" or for use in administrative actions by BATFE—the principal agency responsible for overseeing the conduct of federally licensed firearms dealers. The language and history of the Gun Control Act are clear: Congress always intended to keep this information confidential, and to allow its use only for legitimate law enforcement purposes. The firearms trace database includes information such as the agency requesting a gun trace, the location from which the gun was recovered, and the identity of the dealer and original retail buyer.
    • Both BATFE and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) oppose release of trace data. In fact, BATFE has fought for years in the federal courts to keep trace records confidential, because they contain information (such as names of gun buyers) that could jeopardize ongoing investigations—not to mention law enforcement officers’ lives. For example, a suspected gun trafficker could search publicly released information for names of "straw purchasers" he had used to buy handguns, or for traces requested on guns he had sold. That information could lead him to names of officers, informants and witnesses against his crimes. (View commentary by FOP President Chuck Canterbury from April 24, 2007)
    [1] Congressional Research Service, Gun Control: Statutory Disclosure Limitations on ATF Firearms Trace Data and Multiple Handgun Sales Reports 3 (June 30, 2006).

    [2] Congressional Research Service, Assault Weapons: Military-Style Semiautomatic Firearms Facts and Issues (May 13, 1992).

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...gun-owners-privacy-and-law-enforcement-safety

    So due process must be followed?
    I await your data.
     
  10. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,475
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I haven't bothered to respond because your "facts" have such a partisan spin that they become right-wing opinions that I've heard many times before and I've answered in other places. An example is "defunding happened (where?) and violent crime exploded where it occurred". Nope, violent crime has trended up in all cities, Republican or Democratically run. The top homicide rates are in Republican run states. So this is the kind of BS you go on about. Another example is attempting to compare legal ownership of a firearm and violent crime rate between rural and urban areas. Your rural "60%" may be a small number compared to the urban's "three times less" ownership because there is significantly more people, also there is a much higher proportion of illegal gun ownership which cannot be counted. It is easy access to firearms and poverty that is the problem. You and the right-wingers can't seem to add.

    Then you are on to right-wing conspiracy and myths, factoids, weird medical theories and libertarian theory that would lead to social Darwinism. I feel like I would be wasting my time refuting them all.
     
  11. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,475
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you think the gun lobby would go along with the idea that a legal gun owner would be liable for any injury or law broken with that firearm if not reported stolen? Why would that not inhibit straw purchases or any other illegal transfer of ownership (if you make NICS and 4473 required for any transfer of ownership)?

    Why the secrecy of the Tiahrt amendment? That is the way the gun dealers like it. Investigative reporters are not their friends. And what is wrong with assessing negligent FFLs more than once a year?

    After Connecticut increased its enforcement of its Extreme Risk law,20 one study found the law to be associated with a 14 percent reduction in the state’s firearm suicide rate.21 While it is always hard to measure events that “didn’t happen,” an important study in Connecticut found that one suicide was averted for approximately every 11 gun removals carried out under the law.22

    In the 10 years since Indiana passed its Extreme Risk law in 2005,23 the state’s firearm suicide rate decreased by 7.5 percent.24 Like Connecticut, another study estimated that Indiana’s Extreme Risk law averted one suicide for approximately every 10 gun removals.25 https://everytownresearch.org/report/extreme-risk-laws-save-lives/
     
  12. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,376
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m sorry you are unable to accept facts.

    Let’s recap.

    I’ve shown with links and pull quotes your sources contradict your opinions.

    I’ve shown your definitions of socialism and several economic terms like “goods” are completely incorrect. I’ve shown you have no understanding of economics. I’ve shown spending more on social programs has not decreased poverty to counter your claim reducing benefits would greatly increase poverty. All this has been backed by me with statistics from the census bureau. In return you posted unsubstantiated opinions based on your emotions.

    The top homicide rates are in areas with the lowest firearm ownership rates. I’ve shown this by providing pull quotes FROM YOUR LINKS. This destroys completely your argument that guns cause crime. Your unsubstantiated opinions don’t matter. And your own links contradict your opinions when you attempt to link a cite. For instance, YOUR link only referenced fear in relation to fearing firearms, never once in relation to owners owning them because of fear. The fear thing you predicated our discussion on is a fabrication from an OPINION PIECE written decades after initial data collection and analysis of that data.

    YOUR data showed women are far more likely to own firearms for protection in direct contrast to your assertion middle aged white males are the ones in “fear”. Literally nothing in YOUR sources supports your opinion.

    You literally just claimed “more people” cause more crime which is statistically accurate, but reject the FACT many places with the most firearms have the lowest crime rates. You seem unable to accept facts and instead depend solely on demonstrably inaccurate information, misrepresentation of YOUR sources, and partisan politics.

    None of the sources we’ve discussed differentiate between legal and illegal weapons so any claims you make in this regard are purely your unsubstantiated opinions and a deflection from your past misrepresentation of your sources.

    You will stop responding because you can’t make an intellectual argument based on facts. Your own sources contradict your statements. Now you have resorted to more labeling of myself even though I’ve shown conclusively based on accepted definitions I do not fit those labels. Your labeling even contradicts your sources on definitions of socialism.

    Go ahead and keep posting ridiculous claims that can be easily demonstrated to contradict even your OWN sources. It only makes your incorrect opinions less appealing to the masses. You are welcome to label me when I point out your many errors. The more logical fallacy you resort to the better.

    I would prefer you use actual empirical data to support your accusations of things like “weird medical theories”. I have always used peer reviewed published research to support ANY post concerning medical science on PF. Your unsubstantiated opinions of my posts on medical science are nothing but appeal to the stone fallacy. Look up what that means. But even though I would prefer you make arguments based on evidence, your fallacious arguments further discredit your positions on firearms and any other subject you pontificate on.

    Facts are not partisan. You claim the countries with least inequality are certain countries, but the FACTS I present show you are incorrect. There is nothing partisan about the FACT the counties with the least inequality are not what you claim. Your denial of facts because you think they are “partisan” further erodes your credibility. I’m not partisan for presenting facts. You are demonstrating partisanship by rejecting facts you don’t think support the ideology you’ve been fed. The problem is, I’ve shown almost everything you base your beliefs on is false.

    To conclude, as your position is in contradiction with your sources and my sources, I accept your concession, but thank you for demonstrating the bankruptcy in knowledge of facts of the current anti-firearm demographic.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2022
  13. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, because that makes a criminal out of a crime victim. If someone broke into my house and stole bottles of alcohol or knives, should I be responsible for any crimes or deaths that result?
    We already have passed NICS check and a signed Form 4473 for every single straw purchase now. Why isn't that stopping transfers to criminals. We already absolutely prohibit possession of firearms by criminals. Those who sell to criminals won't require them to fill out a Form 4473 to take possession.

    I think the points were made in my previous post. I have no problem with increasing ATF FFL assessment.
    I love these studies: "Among commonly used methods of self-harm, firearms are by far the most lethal, with a fatality rate of approximately 90 percent, whereas, 4 percent of people who attempt suicide using other methods die".

    This is a disingenuous claim in that lumping all suicide attempts, some of which aren't serious attempts, paints a diluted view of reality. Hanging/suffocation suicides have a fatality rate over 60%, accounted for over 13,000 deaths per year since 2017 and the rate of suicides via hanging/suffocation grew 117% from 1999 to 2019 compared to a rate of growth of just 15% for gun suicides. The rate of growth for all non-firearm suicides was 57% indicating that firearms for suicide are becoming less popular than various non-firearm methods.

    Connecticut's non-firearm suicide rate grew 76% from 1999 to 2019. For raw numbers, that's 163 non-firearm suicides in 1999 and 317 firearm suicide deaths in 2019. For firearms, the numbers are 111 firearm suicide deaths in 1999 and 118 firearm arms suicide deaths in 2019. Looks like Connecticut suicides took advantage of the "easy availability" of alternative methods to firearms which weren't that popular to being with.

    In Indiana the study focused on the years 2005-2015. The study claims per your post that "from 2005 to 2015 the state's firearm suicide rate decreased by 7.5 percent. Perhaps interstingly, CDC shows that the firearm suicide rate in Indiana actually increased by 16% over that time period.

    upload_2022-5-22_8-26-39.png

    Even more interesting is that the firearm suicide rate in Indiana had decreased from 2000 to 2005, and that the firearm suicide rate from 2005 to 2020 increased by 32%, higher than the national increase of 22%. Gun control researchers seem to have a different definition of "effective" than I do.

    https://wisqars.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe[/quote]
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2022
  14. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,475
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [/QUOTE]
    Your logic is becoming increasing tenuous. Knives and alcohol are not subject to the same restrictions. Buying them doesn't require proof that you can legally possess them. As I've much repeated, there can be a legal trail of transfer of ownership. Low volume straw purchases are difficult to stop, but if there is evidence of an illegal transfer of ownership (no NICS/4473) accompanying any transfer of ownership then the last legal owner is liable for any harm caused by that firearm. That would stop the casual private gun selling to whoever's on armslist.com or by other means. A legal owner would make sure he is selling to a legal buyer and seller would not be liable if the buyer misused the weapon.

    You think the simple logic of removing a firearm from an acute emergency situation doesn't save lives and preventing her from obtaining firearms in the future if judged incompetent also doesn't save lives?
    https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_a3eef96b-644f-4292-b0d3-caeb5a772950
     
  15. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,475
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Spiders are our friends. You used your weapon offensively.
    Another innocent life taken by an AR.
     

Share This Page