The Gun Control Debate Thread

[TheGreatBuzz]

8 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Do you run background checks on people you sell to? If so, good on you. 

 

No.  But I would if the law required it and it was relatively simple.

[China]

Shootings spiked during the pandemic. The spike now looks like a 'new normal'

 

When the U.S. homicide rate jumped nearly 30% in 2020, experts hoped it was a temporary blip — a fleeting symptom of pandemic pressures and civil unrest.

 

"I lost a couple of people around that time, due to gun violence," says LaMaria Pope, who works for a youth outreach program in the Seattle area called "Choose 180."

 

Three summers later, she says that violence persists, and young people are more likely to be armed with a gun.

 

"Sixteen, and 17, 18 and up — they only feel safe if they have one. It's becoming a jacket — they can't leave the house without one," she says.

 

Hopes for a rapid decline in the pandemic murder spike are fading. National statistics for 2022 aren't yet available, but you can get a sneak peak from an informal year-to-date tally of murders in major cities compiled by data analyst Jeff Asher. The total count in those cities has dipped slightly lower than last year, but it's still well above pre-pandemic levels. And in 40% of the cities listed, homicides are trending higher.

 

Some of the worst trouble spots are cities such as Philadelphia and Baltimore, where year-to-date homicides are rivaling the high tallies of 2020 and 2021.

 

In Portland, Ore., the mayor has declared an "emergency" over gun violence, as the city struggles to reel in an annual murder count that shot up to 88 in 2021, from 36 in 2019.

 

Even some smaller cities, such as Little Rock, Ark., are in danger of eclipsing last year's murder numbers.

 

-----------

 

Vaught says you can see the "rise in reckless-type shootings" in the county statistics, where the number of shots fired has more than doubled, compared to the same period in 2019, and with more shots fired per victim.

 

Police around the country have noticed this trend. A new report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association points to "incidents of individuals indiscriminately shooting into large crowds while discharging massive amounts of ammunition," such as the April mass shooting in downtown Sacramento.

 

The chiefs point to the availability of extended ammunition magazines, as well as the growing popularity of "auto sear" switches, small after-market devices that turn semi-automatic Glock pistols into illegal automatics, capable of spraying bullets. (Similar attachments are also exist for AR-15-style rifles, but police worry more about handguns, which are used far more often in crimes.)

 

Click on the link for the full article

[tshile]

1 minute ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

No.  But I would if the law required it and it was relatively simple.

Used to be 20$ here. Whether in person or online. But that was years ago. 
 

for some reason I think Virginia has a law where they’re not allowed to charge more than a certain amount, to keep it from being a reason people don’t do it or can’t get guns. They do the same with permits

[Redskins Diehard]

7 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

No.  But I would if the law required it and it was relatively simple.

So how do you know you aren't selling those firearms to a domestic abuser, convicted felon, or any other category of person prohibited from owning a firearm?

[tshile]

27 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

And I can assume you didn't look at the link

You mean the part that said they cannot distribute trace data but can share it with local authorities? And then that New York created a group to analyze it?

 

do you understand the difference between:

we can take this trace data we have and share it with local law enforcement

 

and

 

federal laws prevent us from having the amount of trace data that is possible, if not for the laws that make it impossible for us to have it 

 

right?

 

I didn’t say they couldn’t trace any guns. 
 

I said they’ve been purposely prevented from being able to trace many/most/whatever guns through their ownership and that it affects the informedness of the work. 
 

and that, generally speaking, that would all be easily solvable if we didn’t have laws preventing such a thing. And then we’d have a better view at what’s going on so we can make more informed decisions. 

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2022 by tshile

[Redskins Diehard]

On 8/29/2022 at 6:14 PM, tshile said:

I don’t know how anyone could say with any level of certainty where the guns are coming from. 
 

my understanding is the people researching it struggle mightily on that specific aspect and are left making vague guesses. 

The link I posted says they know in 88 percent of the cases the ATF knows where the guns are coming from. Do you dispute that? Do you believe that is based on "vague guesses"?

 

Who's research are you citing? I don't believe you've mentioned that. It's entirely possible they are making vague guesses

Edited August 31, 2022 by Redskins Diehard

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

The link I posted says they know in 88 percent of the cases the ATF knows where the guns are coming from. Do you dispute that? Do you believe that is based on "vague guesses"?

I searched for 88. It came in two places neither of which say what you have here

 

i also searched for “eighty” but that had zero results. 
 

🤷‍♂️ 

[Redskins Diehard]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

I searched for 88. It came in two places neither of which say what you have here

 

i also searched for “eighty” but that had zero results. 
 

🤷‍♂️ 

Try searching for "12". That is the percent they couldn't determine.  I did the 88 math on my own 

[tshile]

@Redskins Diehard

are you talking about this?

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/surprise-atf-has-been-keeping-records-on-hundreds-of-millions-of-firearms-transactions/
 

where the ATF has a lot of these records simply because a gun broker goes out of business, so the records get turned over?

 

because otherwise my understanding is the ATF must destroy records within 90 days and are not allowed to keep them. 
 

this occurrence of about 900 million records is a bit of a loophole no one knew about until recently, and I assume republicans will put an end to as soon as they’re able to 

 

but I did quite a bit of googling. The idea that gun research is incredibly hard, and that we don’t have a great picture of things, we don’t even know how many guns are actually out there (estimates are 300 millionths), and that all of this is intentionally done via laws is… well pretty common view. Caio, Harvard, basically everything I pulled up. Not finding anyone claiming it’s easy or there’s lots of data. 
 

which was my entire point. We don’t have good data and research is intentionally handicapped, and as such you cannot say we are making informed opinions. We’re making best guesses given what is available. And every thing I’ve ever read has been pretty clear about it. 

8 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Try searching for "12". That is the percent they couldn't determine.  I did the 88 math on my own 

Fair enough. Didn’t think to search 12. 
 

I see where they said 12% of the record they reviewed, from this new group, we’re unable to come up with a state. So, it’s a percentage of a very very very small subset in a very specific area and they’re only discussing one aspect of the trace. 
 

did you read the sentence before they made that statement where try said:

Quote

The tracing process is time-consuming and prone to failure. Many of the records sought are lost, destroyed, incomplete, or otherwise missing.
 

 

😂 
 

the sentence literally before you did your math is saying the exact same thing I’m saying, that you’re arguing with me about 

 

I mean damn dude what do you w t from me. It’s pretty common understanding how hard it is to do this research and why. 
 

like I said - they cover that part of it in damn near every piece of research I read. Including the one you linked to use to argue against me on the topic 

Edited August 31, 2022 by tshile

[TheGreatBuzz]

45 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

So how do you know you aren't selling those firearms to a domestic abuser, convicted felon, or any other category of person prohibited from owning a firearm?

 

I don't.  The law doesn't require me to.

[Redskins Diehard]

26 minutes ago, tshile said:

@Redskins Diehard

are you talking about this?

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/surprise-atf-has-been-keeping-records-on-hundreds-of-millions-of-firearms-transactions/
 

where the ATF has a lot of these records simply because a gun broker goes out of business, so the records get turned over?

 

because otherwise my understanding is the ATF must destroy records within 90 days and are not allowed to keep them. 
 

this occurrence of about 900 million records is a bit of a loophole no one knew about until recently, and I assume republicans will put an end to as soon as they’re able to 

 

but I did quite a bit of googling. The idea that gun research is incredibly hard, and that we don’t have a great picture of things, we don’t even know how many guns are actually out there (estimates are 300 millionths), and that all of this is intentionally done via laws is… well pretty common view. Caio, Harvard, basically everything I pulled up. Not finding anyone claiming it’s easy or there’s lots of data. 
 

which was my entire point. We don’t have good data and research is intentionally handicapped, and as such you cannot say we are making informed opinions. We’re making best guesses given what is available. And every thing I’ve ever read has been pretty clear about it. 

Fair enough. Didn’t think to search 12. 
 

I see where they said 12% of the record they reviewed, from this new group, we’re unable to come up with a state. So, it’s a percentage of a very very very small subset in a very specific area and they’re only discussing one aspect of the trace. 
 

did you read the sentence before they made that statement where try said:

😂 
 

the sentence literally before you did your math is saying the exact same thing I’m saying, that you’re arguing with me about 

 

I mean damn dude what do you w t from me. It’s pretty common understanding how hard it is to do this research and why. 
 

like I said - they cover that part of it in damn near every piece of research I read. Including the one you linked to use to argue against me on the topic 

I have read that sentence.  I've actually read all of the sentences.  That sentence is why it is only 88 percent.  The sample size is 52,915. Hardly trivial numbers there. 

The data is there and know where these guns are originating.  The institutions you cited are no doubt reputable but they don't have access to the data they would require. THEY are guessing.(or doing smart research things) 

So you think there is nearly no way we could know where the guns came from. I think there is about an 88 percent chance that law enforcement will. 

 

But that doesn't solve anything if the places where there guns are originating don't do anything to make it more difficult to get them in the first place. Virginia has taken steps in the right direction. 

Next step is to hold private sellers responsible for selling to known abusers, etc.

9 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

I don't.  The law doesn't require me to.

Gotcha. Sometimes people do a little more than the law requires them to.  Other times they sell guns to anyone with cash

[TheGreatBuzz]

8 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Gotcha. Sometimes people do a little more than the law requires them to.  Other times they sell guns to anyone with cash

 

I do more than the law requires as i just stated.

[Redskins Diehard]

6 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

I do more than the law requires as i just stated.

But you have no idea if the person you are selling to is a convicted felon, domestic abuser, etc. If they are legally allowed to own a gun. 

 

Honestly your protocol appears more to be about limiting own exposure. If the police come knocking it's probably because the gun has already been used in a crime. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

But you have no idea if the person you are selling to is a convicted felon, domestic abuser, etc. If they are legally allowed to own a gun. 

 

Honestly your protocol appears more to be about limiting own exposure. If the police come knocking it's probably because the gun has already been used in a crime. 

 

Blame the legislators. 

 

Also, I would imagine that the people who can't legally own a gun would be hesitant to hand over a contract with a copy of their ID.

[Redskins Diehard]

2 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

Blame the legislators. 

 

Also, I would imagine that the people who can't legally own a gun would be hesitant to hand over a contract with a copy of their ID.

I blame them too. At least they didn't pass a law that says someone is prohibited from verifying someone is legally permitted to own a gun. But there is lots of blame to go around when it comes to gun violence. If for no other reason there's so much gun violence 

[Larry]

2 hours ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Okay fella. Yeah a private seller and straw purchaser is the same thing

 

100 bucks says I know the reason why you didn't quote him saying that.  

 

2 hours ago, Redskins Diehard said:

And I can assume you didn't look at the link. Where it specifically says who the ATF will give data to and who it won't. Just because your researchers don't have access to the data doesn't mean there data doesn't exist

 

You quoted two posts, there.  

 

One of them is from a gun seller who specifically states that when he buys or sells a weapon (implying that he has in fact done so, at least once), he makes a record, and then sticks it in his sock drawer, and tells nobody else.  

 

So if you're going to try to argue that "well, law enforcement has all the records they need, to do everything.  They just don't share it with people doing research.", you might want to not quote the person who is telling you that when he sells a gun, nobody has a record of it but him.  

Edited August 31, 2022 by Larry

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Redskins Diehard said:

The link I posted says they know in 88 percent of the cases the ATF knows where the guns are coming from

 

"Coming from", as in "we know the date, time, and name of the person who transferred this gun to the criminal"?  Or as in "We know that the gun was sold 4 years ago in Virginia, and we have no clue what happened to it after that"?  

[Redskins Diehard]

56 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

100 bucks says I know the reason why you didn't quote him saying that.  

 

 

You quoted two posts, there.  

 

One of them is from a gun seller who specifically states that when he buys or sells a weapon (implying that he has in fact done so, at least once), he makes a record, and then sticks it in his sock drawer, and tells nobody else.  

 

So if you're going to try to argue that "well, law enforcement has all the records they need, to do everything.  They just don't share it with people doing research.", you might want to not quote the person who is telling you that when he sells a gun, nobody has a record of it but him.  

200 bucks says I know the reason you didn't quote me saying he said that. 

 400 bucks says I know the reason you didn't quote me saying "well law enforcement has all the records they need, to do everything. They just don't share it with people doing research"

 

Try reading everything Lare, you might gain some context. 

42 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

"Coming from", as in "we know the date, time, and name of the person who transferred this gun to the criminal"?  Or as in "We know that the gun was sold 4 years ago in Virginia, and we have no clue what happened to it after that"?  

Neither.

 

If you go to the link it will give you all the information you need to know what "coming from" means. 

[Larry]

18 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

200 bucks says I know the reason you didn't quote me saying he said that. 

I did quote you saying he said that. 
 

Swing and a miss. 

[Redskins Diehard]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

I did quote you saying he said that. 
 

Swing and a miss. 

No, you quoted me saying that.  

 

Now how about that other garbage you made up and attributed to me. 

[Larry]

33 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

 

 400 bucks says I know the reason you didn't quote me saying "well law enforcement has all the records they need, to do everything. They just don't share it with people doing research"

I've read everything you've posted. Including the multiple times you've argued with someone saying that researchers don't have sufficient data to do research, by trying to say that law enforcement has it, but won't give it to researchers. 

[Redskins Diehard]

13 minutes ago, Larry said:

I've read everything you've posted. Including the multiple times you've argued with someone saying that researchers don't have sufficient data to do research, by trying to say that law enforcement has it, but won't give it to researchers. 

Well you're getting closer to what I said vs the previous thing you pulled out of your ass. Instead of making broad claims without citing any actual research I posted a link. In this thread. From the NY AG. From that link -

 

While federal appropriations riders known as the Tiahrt Amendments dramatically restrict ATF’s ability to use and distribute trace data, ATF can share such information with local law enforcement and prosecutors. Like ATF, these groups can publish aggregate statistical data regarding firearms trafficking patterns. 

 

According to that ATF is restricted from sharing trace data but can share with law enforcement. Which is what I've said. Nowhere have I claimed law enforcement has everything they need to do everything. That is you making bull**** up and attributing it to someone else. 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Redskins Diehard

[Larry]

52 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Neither.

 

If you go to the link it will give you all the information you need to know what "coming from" means. 

Now. Digging through your link, because it's too much work for you to actually support what you're claiming. 
 

Here's what your link says about the data they have:  

 

Quote

To initiate a trace, ATF collects the make, model, and serial number of the gun from the recovering law enforcement agency. Next, ATF contacts the manufacturer to try to determine to which wholesaler the gun was first sold. If that data is available, ATF then contacts the wholesaler to determine to which dealer (FFL) the gun was sold. If that data is available, ATF then contacts the dealer (FFL) to collect records of who purchased the gun, where, and when. And if that data is available, ATF returns a completed “trace” of the firearm to the recovering agency with as much data as it was able to obtain through the trace process. Importantly, these traces do not capture any unrecorded, private sales associated with a firearm — sometimes called “gray market” sales.

 

So, it looks like a trace means they can tell who the first retail purchaser is. 
 

Which seems pretty close to my admittedly snarky "Well, it was sold in Virginia four years ago, and we don't know where it went after that".  
 

Next paragraph:  

 

Quote

The tracing process is time-consuming and prone to failure. Many of the records sought are lost, destroyed, incomplete, or otherwise missing. For instance, of the 52,915 New York State trace records covered by this report, ATF was unable to obtain any state of origin for 12% of traces and a date of retail purchase for approximately 42% of traces. 

 

(Note:  you're posting this link to try to dispute a poster who's saying that research data is difficult or impossible to obtain). 
 

Looks to me like they're saying that 12% of the time, they can't even tell which state the first retail sale was made in. And 42% of the time, they have the state, but not the date. 
 

Edit. 
 

And apologies. I'm on my phone, so my ability to do multiple quotes in a single post is limited. I intended this post and the previous to be auto-merged. But it seems you're replying to me while I'm typing the second half. 

Edited August 31, 2022 by Larry

[Redskins Diehard]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

Now. Digging through your link, because it's too much work for you to actually support what you're claiming. 
 

Here's what your link says about the data they have:  

 

 

So, it looks like a trace means they can tell who the first retail purchaser is. 
 

Which seems pretty close to my admittedly snarky "Well, it was sold in Virginia four years ago, and we don't know where it went after that".  
 

Next paragraph:  

 

 

(Note:  you're posting this link to try to dispute a poster who's saying that research data is difficult or impossible to obtain). 
 

Looks to me like they're saying that 12% of the time, they can't even tell which state the first retail sale was made in. And 42% of the time, they have the state, but not the date. 

You're pretty far behind.  Try reading again this is all covered. Look at why this topic came up in the first place. All I ever claimed was we could know where the firearms originated. I posted a link to a site that says that is true 88 percent of the time over 52k cases.  You can decide what that means with respect to ability to determine origin. 

 

Until next time...

 

 

[Larry]

1 minute ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Try reading again this is all covered.

Try actually quoting the things that you're claiming say (whatever you're saying). 
 

As opposed to posting a link to a 20 page document, waving your hand, and telling people to just read the whole thing, there's something in there somewhere that's close to what you're saying.