PokerPacker Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 9 hours ago, PeterMP said: 2. You might be for getting rid of straw purchases, but that doesn't really matter. I don't doubt your good will really, but the gun manufactures and gun stores are making too much money, and the wider political system has shown that it does not have the political will to actually do anything about it for too long. (I've posted this here before so you might have read it already, and I can find the old news stories on line if you want detailing it. NYC tracks where guns that are found to be involved in crimes come from. They were able to track them consistently to certain states and even in those states some gun stores really stood out as a lot of guns coming from those stores. NYC told people about this data. Nothing happened. They kept seeing guns from crimes come from the same states (a lot of southern states) and to some extent the same stores. So pretty early into his terms as mayor, Bloomberg hired some people to go into those stores in pairs. In each case, it was a man and a woman. The man talks to the clerk about the guns and the ammo. Picks somethings out. Then and only then the woman steps forward. She gives her ID to pass the background check and credit card to pay the bill. Then when they get the gun, the man takes possession of it and carries it out of the store. The woman is present, but she's never touched the gun before or after the purchase or interacted with the clerk other than to pass the background check and pay for it. Pretty clear straw purchase, right? Bloomberg has these people that he's hired that will testify that is how it went done. Bloomberg sues the stores. The response of the (Republican) AG in the southern state that the gun stores were in was to send Bloomberg a letter saying if he did something like that again, he'd criminally prosecute the people he hired to buy the gun. It wasn't that this awful this is happening and let us help you do something to stop it. It was we don't want you acting to shut down this revenue stream. The situation hasn't changed.) For me to believe the ATF or anybody is actually going to do anything about straw purchases in these states, I need there to be some sort of stick, and even then I'd be dubious because as I said, when it came time to apply the stick I think the Republicans would change the metrics to avoid the stick actually being applied. That southern state was Virginia. And yes, the Attorney General said he'd arrest New York operatives if they continued to conduct sting operations on Virginia soil. New York has zero jurisdiction in Virginia. Just like if the ATF held sting operation in Mexico, you can imagine they'd be arrested by the Federales or whomever in Mexico has jurisdiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 17 hours ago, PeterMP said: You want what you want, then give me something I want. Here are some things I'd like: 1. I'd like everybody that gets a gun license to have to go to their local police (at least at the country level) and have the license approved before they buy a gun. Doesn't matter if they passed the background check and mental health screening, the local police can deny it. Not just concealed permit holders. Everybody. If you are denied, you can appeal to a judge, and the local police have go explain their reason for denying and the judge makes a decision. Is this serious? I know this is PeterMP's suggestion and the NRA would go bankrupt fighting this (and for once, for good reason). The police can deny the application for no reason, and the citizen has to appeal to the courts, show up in court, and hope the judge doesn't side with the police (liberal judge goes along with police, conservative judge sides with petitioner)? Who is paying for the court appearance? Who is paying for the lawyer (because you know the police will have the DA file a brief on why they denied the application that will require a lawyer to interpret - also, will the political demographics influence what judge gets assigned these cases?)? NY, NJ, CA, MA...will just instill an automatic denial process and require the residents to go to court. Because they know that 80% will not have the means to do so. Now only rich folks can afford the process to get a gun. You've just made a right too expensive to exercise for 80% of the population. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 On 1/9/2017 at 10:00 PM, TheGreatBuzz said: Edit: someone asked earlier. I'd really like to see some stats on the numbers regarding gun crimes, gun violence, accidental shootings, etc for permit holders vs non- permit holders. That was me. Because everything is so state/locality dependent, I'm unaware of any easy way to do this. The best I can find is to look up permit revocation numbers. But even then you can only look at certain states because you need a state that first revokes permits based on whatever criteria you want, and also publishes such information. For what it's worth: My wife and I got into a debate on this a few years ago, she had the mindset that people with concealed permits are part of the problem. I was able to find numbers on Virginia State Police's website that put the revocation % at something like .001%. Virginia will revoke your permit for a number of things beyond actual gun crime, including: violent crime without a gun involved, drug charges, and I believe many less serious things like check fraud. I've posted about this before and been met with opposition for (what I view to be dumb) reasons. It requires someone be convicted of a crime (I don't view that as a bad standard...) and it should contain people that got in trouble for things far less serious than what we're discussing. So, if a person has a permit and commits a crime and isn't convicted, they wouldn't be counted. On the flip side we're counting a person caught on a crime not even related to guns. In short: The information I have found suggests people who go through the trouble of actually getting a permit, in VA, are not part of the "gun problem". If someone wants to provide information that suggests otherwise, I'll certainly reconsider. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, PokerPacker said: That southern state was Virginia. And yes, the Attorney General said he'd arrest New York operatives if they continued to conduct sting operations on Virginia soil. New York has zero jurisdiction in Virginia. Just like if the ATF held sting operation in Mexico, you can imagine they'd be arrested by the Federales or whomever in Mexico has jurisdiction. They weren't arresting anybody or taking them back to NY and arresting them. They collected evidence to build a case for a civil suit. The ATF has tried to run operations involving Mexico. The objective of Fast Furious was actually to get to the Mexican cartels. Though I suspect they actually had the support of some people in the Mexican government on that. On like states like VA seem to be willing to do. I mean after all, clearly the moral and ethical thing to do after you find out that gun stores that seem to supply a large number of guns that are involved in violent crime in another state are taking part in clear straw illegal purchases that are known methods by which violent criminals get guns is to threaten the people that made the effort to uncover it. (Sometimes, you have to make a choices between doing the legal thing and the right thing, and while the VA AG actions might have been legally correct, I see no way you can conclude it was actually the right thing.) Edited January 11, 2017 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Popeman38 said: Is this serious? I know this is PeterMP's suggestion and the NRA would go bankrupt fighting this (and for once, for good reason). The police can deny the application for no reason, and the citizen has to appeal to the courts, show up in court, and hope the judge doesn't side with the police (liberal judge goes along with police, conservative judge sides with petitioner)? Who is paying for the court appearance? Who is paying for the lawyer (because you know the police will have the DA file a brief on why they denied the application that will require a lawyer to interpret - also, will the political demographics influence what judge gets assigned these cases?)? NY, NJ, CA, MA...will just instill an automatic denial process and require the residents to go to court. Because they know that 80% will not have the means to do so. Now only rich folks can afford the process to get a gun. You've just made a right too expensive to exercise for 80% of the population. What I've proposed is based on the law in Missouri (a real left wing bastion) that was in affect for decades (back to the 1920s or something) until its repeal in 2007 (which studies have tied to increased gun crime in Missouri). You had to get a permit good for 30 days to buy a handgun. The background check was done by the local police, and they had to verify the permit. I've extended it to all guns because I'd like to also capture assault-like rifles (without having to worry about debating what actually makes something an assault like rife). I've lived in NY and currently live in NJ and our local police are elected and controlled, well locally, which means the people doing the decision making will be held accountable by the local population and not at the state level. The local cops I know where I live are pretty pro-gun and pro-NRA. I actually doubt they'd deny many permits. In terms of the appeal process, I'm not quite sure of the Missouri law to know the details of how they dealt with that, but I'm certainly willing to be flexible about it and how you'd make it fair to the person that has to do the appealing. Right off the bat, I don't see why we would have to leave it to a judge if the person would rather have it go to a jury. I'd also support innocent until proven guilty if you passed the background test in the context of the appeal. That is if the police can't come up with a good reason to deny the gun, then you get the gun. Would it be better if it wasn't a judge, but some sort of 3 person panel? What happens now if you fail a background check due to inaccurate information? How do challenge that? Anybody know? Edited January 11, 2017 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 15 hours ago, PeterMP said: 1. You might consider it a right, but if weapon = gun, the Supreme Court disagrees and has forever. People really did have to check their guns at the local sheriffs office when entering town in some old western towns. Your opinion is irrelevant. 2. You might be for getting rid of straw purchases, but that doesn't really matter. I don't doubt your good will really, but the gun manufactures and gun stores are making too much money, and the wider political system has shown that it does not have the political will to actually do anything about it for too long. (I've posted this here before so you might have read it already, and I can find the old news stories on line if you want detailing it. NYC tracks where guns that are found to be involved in crimes come from. They were able to track them consistently to certain states and even in those states some gun stores really stood out as a lot of guns coming from those stores. NYC told people about this data. Nothing happened. They kept seeing guns from crimes come from the same states (a lot of southern states) and to some extent the same stores. So pretty early into his terms as mayor, Bloomberg hired some people to go into those stores in pairs. In each case, it was a man and a woman. The man talks to the clerk about the guns and the ammo. Picks somethings out. Then and only then the woman steps forward. She gives her ID to pass the background check and credit card to pay the bill. Then when they get the gun, the man takes possession of it and carries it out of the store. The woman is present, but she's never touched the gun before or after the purchase or interacted with the clerk other than to pass the background check and pay for it. Pretty clear straw purchase, right? Bloomberg has these people that he's hired that will testify that is how it went done. Bloomberg sues the stores. The response of the (Republican) AG in the southern state that the gun stores were in was to send Bloomberg a letter saying if he did something like that again, he'd criminally prosecute the people he hired to buy the gun. It wasn't that this awful this is happening and let us help you do something to stop it. It was we don't want you acting to shut down this revenue stream. The situation hasn't changed.) For me to believe the ATF or anybody is actually going to do anything about straw purchases in these states, I need there to be some sort of stick, and even then I'd be dubious because as I said, when it came time to apply the stick I think the Republicans would change the metrics to avoid the stick actually being applied. 3. The gun show loophole isn't as important as many people think because in many states (again is most of the states that have most of the population is has been shut down so to a large number of people it is shut down). Can we go further? Every gun transaction needs to be accompanied by a background check. Giving a gun as a gift? The person getting it has to background checked. Somebody is inheriting a gun? The executor of the will has to make sure that person is background checked. Trading guns with somebody. The people have to go through a background check. Selling a gun to somebody over the internet? You are responsible for making sure the person passed a background check. And if you do any of those things and the person isn't checked, the person transferring the gun is criminally responsible. But even then, I'm not sure I could count it much as a positive move to reduce crime because I doubt the feds would actually enforce it very rigorously. I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of arguing about what the 2nd amendment says/means. One, there are numerous court rulings and they don't just simply say a gun is not a right. And my opinion may be irrelevant in court but it certainly matters in this discussion where I am negotiating for the Right in our mock negotiation. Me attempting to get rid of straw purchases and the gun show loophole don't matter? You and I have different carrots then. I'm all for empowering the ATF and crafting laws that cut down on that, but not in a manner like you want. I'd consider all transactions needing a background check and I think you are wrong on what "many states" require, especially for in-state transactions. (Recently I met a guy behind Best Buy and sold him a hand gun. I was not required to even see his ID much less know anything about him. You want to stop that? Your going to have to come off some of your positions a little more.) 10 minutes ago, PeterMP said: Would it be better if it wasn't a judge, but some sort of 3 person panel? What happens now if you fail a background check due to inaccurate information? How do challenge that? Anybody know? No. I am completely opposed to this and would not be willing to budge on it. And no, I don't know. *I think you and I are too far apart. Once the details start getting in the way, I think there are just to many points that either of us are dug in on. But I would say that in the current government, gun law favor my side more than yours. Sure there are things that I don't like but I am not that unhappy with the current set up. I would imagine your side is much more unhappy with the current situation. You want it to change, give some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Peter, wasn't that Missouri law found unconstitutional, which is why they repealed it? been so many I ain't sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 29 minutes ago, twa said: Peter, wasn't that Missouri law found unconstitutional, which is why they repealed it? been so many I ain't sure. No, I don't believe so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBass1724 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Not sure if it's been posted yet. But this is a cool video showing a couple of morons trying to rob a gun store. There was instant justice. http://kfan.iheart.com/articles/trending-104650/two-guys-try-to-rob-gun-15455077/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said: *I think you and I are too far apart. Once the details start getting in the way, I think there are just to many points that either of us are dug in on. But I would say that in the current government, gun law favor my side more than yours. Sure there are things that I don't like but I am not that unhappy with the current set up. I would imagine your side is much more unhappy with the current situation. You want it to change, give some more. Yes, my side is unhappy that innocent people are getting killed with guns because your side does not have the ethical and moral backbone to vote for politicians that will enforce the laws that are on the books to keep guns out the hands of criminals (e.g. straw purchase laws). Yes, my side is unhappy that it has to debate gun laws with people that say the death of about ~100 minors a year is not significant Especially when in other settings (many of) those same people claim to value the life of every person. Edited January 12, 2017 by PeterMP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 1 minute ago, CBass1724 said: Not sure if it's been posted yet. But this is a cool video showing a couple of morons trying to rob a gun store. There was instant justice. http://kfan.iheart.com/articles/trending-104650/two-guys-try-to-rob-gun-15455077/ Glad it turned out that way not the other way around. He still should have just given them the cash. It's generally safer when bullets aren't flying, because they'll often start flying back toward you. Btw how ****ing stupid do you need to be to try to rob a gun store of all places. Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBass1724 Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said: Btw how ****ing stupid do you need to be to try to rob a gun store of all places. Jesus. No kidding. Chances are better there than any other place that the workers/owners are packing heat. SMH 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I don't know about other states (especially states with strict laws) but i've yet to see a VA gun store where the people working the store didn't have guns on them... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 3 hours ago, PeterMP said: Yes, my side is unhappy that innocent people are getting killed with guns because your side does not have the ethical and moral backbone to vote for politicians that will enforce the laws that are on the books to keep guns out the hands of criminals (e.g. straw purchase laws). Yes, my side is unhappy that it has to debate gun laws with people that say the death of about ~100 minors a year is not significant Especially when in other settings (many of) those same people claim to value the life of every person. I'm not even going to start arguing these points again. I'm trying to work to find something that is better. Not perfect, just better. If we can't do that then we will just continue on the current trend and the left can just stay mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, PeterMP said: Yes, my side is unhappy that it has to debate gun laws with people that say the death of about ~100 minors a year is not significant It's not. ~100 out of 320+ million people just isn't much. 22.9% of the population was under the age of 18 in 2015*. That's over 73.6 million minors. That is 0.000135%. It's not significant. A child dying because their parent didn't secure their gun is tragic, the number is not significant. What laws do you propose that will make sure guns are secure and out of reach from children? I don't recall anything in your posts, but maybe I missed it? * https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/00 There were 38 lightning deaths in 2016, http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/fatalities.shtml Edited January 12, 2017 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 11 minutes ago, tshile said: There were 38 lightning deaths in 2016, http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/fatalities.shtml That is unreasonably high. We should build a fleet of automated mobile Lightning Rods that follow everybody around to keep them from getting struck. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, PokerPacker said: That is unreasonably high. We should build a fleet of automated mobile Lightning Rods that follow everybody around to keep them from getting struck. Bees wasps and hornets kill 58 people a year.... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/16/chart-the-animals-that-are-most-likely-to-kill-you-this-summer/?utm_term=.6ad4f1456eb6 also lol @ the post with the vehicle thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Maybe that's why we are working so hard to kill off the bee population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said: I'm not even going to start arguing these points again. I'm trying to work to find something that is better. Not perfect, just better. If we can't do that then we will just continue on the current trend and the left can just stay mad. You say you want to find something better. You say support you ending straw purchases and doing studies on gun violence, then vote for people that support those things. You want to send something to your representative, send him saying something that they should stop supporting policies that limit the ability of the ATF to enforce laws that are designed to keep guns out of criminals that are on the book. They should support policies that would encourage organizations like the CDC to do gun research. They should support polices that would reduce gun violence (without even passing a low) over putting money in the pockets of the gun industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, PeterMP said: You say you want to find something better. You say support you ending straw purchases and doing studies on gun violence, then vote for people that support those things. You want to send something to your representative, send him saying something that they should stop supporting policies that limit the ability of the ATF to enforce laws that are designed to keep guns out of criminals that are on the book. They should support policies that would encourage organizations like the CDC to do gun research. They should support polices that would reduce gun violence (without even passing a low) over putting money in the pockets of the gun industry. Well I'm not a single issue voter so I'm limited on who I vote for. And I have written some of my elected officials on different occasions and told them my thoughts. But my thoughts also include wanting things the left isn't interested in. And just like what happened with you and I, I assume that occasionaly negotiations do happen but break down once they get to the details. In my opinion, the left wants too much and isn't willing to only take a little bit of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, tshile said: It's not. ~100 out of 320+ million people just isn't much. 22.9% of the population was under the age of 18 in 2015*. That's over 73.6 million minors. That is 0.000135%. It's not significant. A child dying because their parent didn't secure their gun is tragic, the number is not significant. What laws do you propose that will make sure guns are secure and out of reach from children? I don't recall anything in your posts, but maybe I missed it? * https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/00 There were 38 lightning deaths in 2016, http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/fatalities.shtml I can propose lots of things. I was generally focusing on keeping guns out of criminals because you know they kill innocent people, including kids too. Oh and if your probability of somebody dying is 0.000135% in a population of 73.6 million people, your chances of only having 38 people die is statistically significant with a p-value < 0.001. And that's even assuming all those people that died in lightening strikes were minors. Whether something is significant or not depends on what you are comparing it too (which I've already told you in this thread). Edited January 12, 2017 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 22 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Well I'm not a single issue voter so I'm limited on who I vote for. And I have written some of my elected officials on different occasions and told them my thoughts. But my thoughts also include wanting things the left isn't interested in. And just like what happened with you and I, I assume that occasionaly negotiations do happen but break down once they get to the details. In my opinion, the left wants too much and isn't willing to only take a little bit of it. Again, the left is not willing to give much of anything up because they do not trust the right on this issue (as I've stated repeatedly). The right has what is now a long history of obstructing the enforcement of the laws on the book that are designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals so that the gun industry can pass more laws. Why would I give up anything to somebody like the AG of VA or people that voted for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, PeterMP said: The right has what is now a long history of obstructing the enforcement of the laws on the book The right isn't the only ones that do this. Sanctuary cities anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: The right isn't the only ones that do this. Sanctuary cities anyone? I don't disagree and am against sanctuary cities. Two wrongs don't make a right. **EDIT** Though, I don't think sanctuary cities are benefiting the profits of industry over people's lives to the extent that ignoring our gun laws are. And the next time Senate Democrats refuse to appoint a Republican nominee because they are against sanctuary cities, let me know. Edited January 12, 2017 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 want another? https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/11/14/concealed-carrier-answers-deputys-cry-help-kills-attacker/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts