Then it’s a good thing that isn’t what my point was. There is no place where I suggested the level of recordkeeping that you are envisioning.

You want to buy a gun? OK. You will have to undergo a background check. Exactly the check you currently have to pass to purchase a gun from a dealer. So no real additional burden there.

Now that you have a “I can buy a gun” card all you have to do is show it when making a purchase. The seller (dealer, gun show person, neighbor with garage, whoever) has to see your card before making the sale. I think there value to their recording the name and ID number of the buyer, but would be willing to debate that point.

I haven’t suggested the seller then has to report the sale to anyone. So what has been registered? The buyer goes and buys lots of guns from lots of people. I didn’t suggest any central repository for the info, any place the gov’t could go to see an inventory of buyer’s guns at a glance.

If we were seriously discussing this suggestion, I’d get more into whether the sales should be reported or not, etc. But to the depth we’ve gone into it you end up with some validation being done that the buyers of guns anywhere aren’t folks who shouldn’t be allowed to have them, and nobody being required to register their purchase.

In that I was using it as a tossed-off example to clarify a point and and didn’t realize I’d have to be as nit picky as a lawyer in choosing the precision of my words to avoid being pulled off into a tangent on an irrelevant aspect by someone who seems more interested in picking those nits than recognizing the point actually being made.

For argument’s sake, just imagine I’d originally said “I get asked to show my driver’s license to make a credit card purchase…”. Would that do it for you?

Jesus.

Yes, such a presupposition required an assumption…one that I believe to be correct. Feel free to prove me wrong at your leisure.

You didn’t get any “reasonable response” as to what is objectionable about registration? As I said before, pretending like I didn’t answer your point doesn’t make my answer magically go away, regardless of how much easier it is to simply dismiss it rather than address it.

The progression from requiring background checks only at gun shows to your suggestion that registration would not be objectionable, absolutely WAS a progression…the natural and inevitable one based on the exact reasons that I put forth: requiring background checks at gun shows wouldn’t work, and outloawing all private transfers would be unenforceable without total registration.

Refusing to acknowledge the progression because it’s more convenient to ignore it does not make it any less real or any less obvious. Nor does it make the next inevitable step of the progression after registration (confiscation) any less a legitimate concern.

You have to register with the government to post on blogs? Which ones?

We’re not talking about registering with a private entity for the privilege of using their server space and bandwidth to post your opinion…we’re talking about registering with the government prior to being granted permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right.

Registering to exercise the right protected by the Second Amendment is no less extreme than having to register to exercise the rights protected by any of the other amendments.

It’s only your own biases against the right protected by the Second Amendment that makes you see the other examples as “extreme” while completely dismissing the similarities with what you propose.

You are aware of the laws pertaining to credit cards?

“Hell, I’ve got to show a driver’s license to make a credit card purchase.” -Sean D. Martin, October 8, 2009 at 12:46 pm

Hmm. How, specifically, does “I’ve got to show my driver’s license to make a credit card purchase…” translate logically into “showing ID isn’t required and that merchants who do require it are actually in violation of their agreements with the credit company.”?

Be that as it may, I agree that you were simply using that as an example. Since you refused to even address my point about your ignorance of gun purchasing laws, I was simply using your obvious ignorance of credit card laws to illustrate your ignorance of the law in general.

I really didn’t NEED to go there, since your entire point…that federal background checks and recordkeeping associated with gun purchases is in some way analogous to showing ID to use a credit card…is ridiculous on its face and adequately demonstrates your ignorance in and of itself.

Unfortunately, you are so woefully ignorant of the gun laws that you seem to have no idea how ridiculous the “illustration” you tried to draw was, so I went another way with it.

Either way, the fact remains.

Throughout this discussion, your “go-to” tactic has been to either simply ignore, or dismiss without addressing any substantive points I raised to which you had no viable response.

It’s pretty pointless to continue a debate when one side simply refuses to address the points raised.

“Why are those people not in jail?” presupposes that they are not. And I asked what you based that on. Nice try to turn it around as if I’m responsible for backing up your assumptions, but doesn’t work.

This discussion thread absolutely demonstrates the intended and inevitable progression. Just in this discussion, we’ve moved from the supposedly “common sense” measure of banning private sales at gun shows, to your advocacy of registration.

First, your paranoia is showing. I didn’t advocate for registration. I did ask what was the objection to it (and haven’t gotten a reasonable response to that yet) but asking for your view isn’t advocating the opposite one. But in any event, registration is a sidenote which, despite your diatribe against, I wasn’t arguing for. What I did suggest is that every buyer be required to show some form of ID.

Second, that’s not a pregression. That’s an alternative suggestion on how to deal with the problem. Again, your turning every point into “everyone not if full favor of no controls is a ‘gun grabber’ in full favor of outlawing all guns” really makes a reasoned discussion difficult.

In your opinion, there is no constitutional issue with registration of people who desire to exercise a constitutional right. Then I guess you wouldn’t have a problem with registration of…say…everyone who wants to post on a blog?

Is there a constitutional issue with it? You haven’t said there is.

As for registering before posting to a blog, it should be noted that many blogs do require exactly that. This one included, to an extent. But you’re talking about registering with the gov’t, of course, and I would have problems with that. But a blog comment isn’t the same as a gun.

The rest of your paragraph is another attempt to avoid reasoned debate by ignoring that fact and tossing of extremes and absurdities. Again, it’s the equivalent of claiming anyone who wants to own a gun is also interested in getting their hands on a Trident missle.

And your ignorance of gun law is just as obvious as your ignorance about the credit card law:

I’m actually quite aware of the credit card laws, that showing ID isn’t required and that merchants who do require it are actually in violation of their agreements with the credit company. So what? The minutia of credit company agreements has got nothing to do with the point I actually made? Asking to see an appropriate ID and noting it’s number adds nothing measurable to a merchant’s costs. You’re off attacking irrelevant side points and neglecting the actual issue again.

Do you actually believe that outlawing private sales would only entail the showing of a driver’s license?

Not what I said. Driver’s license was used as an example of an ID to illustrate my point. Sorry you didn’t get that.

Funny, it seems to me that I didn’t “present [my] opinion as fact” I asked a question. Do you have some information indicating that charges were pursued against these people? I sure haven’t seen any. Can I prove they weren’t charged? No…it’s rather difficult to prove a negative. I’d be happy to entertain any evidence you can provide that they were charged…or even any evidence that Bloomberg’s criminal enterprise even offered their video evidence to the proper authorities for investigation.

And where is the objection to that? In the US you have to register your car. Why to objection to registering your gun. Doesn’t stop a single person legally allowed to own a gun from doing so, so there can’t be any Constitutional objection to it.

And again you tip your hand.

That’s the point of my entire argument. The end goal is not to require background checks at gun shows. The end goal is not to require background checks for all private transactions. Heck, the end goal is not even registration, although that’s another “good first step” that the gun grabbers must go through before reaching their REAL end goal…which is obvious to anyone who’s paying attention.

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.”
-Senator Dianne Feinstein

This discussion thread absolutely demonstrates the intended and inevitable progression. Just in this discussion, we’ve moved from the supposedly “common sense” measure of banning private sales at gun shows, to your advocacy of registration.

In your opinion, there is no constitutional issue with registration of people who desire to exercise a constitutional right. Then I guess you wouldn’t have a problem with registration of…say…everyone who wants to post on a blog? Registration of everyone who wants to freely practice their religion…say…Jews? If you want to enjoy the protections of the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, all you have to do is register with the government, pay a small $100 fee, provide fingerprints, and undergo a background investigation first? Trial by jury? Sorry, you didn’t register for that.

Gun registration will not fly in this country. I’d like to say that it would never fly but I’ve been surprised before so I’ll stay away from that. It won’t fly right now and would be met with massive non-compliance…and for good reason. History demonstrates that gun registration leads to confiscation. It’s even happened here in California and another instance was recently reported in Toronto.

After registration comes banning of certain types of guns, guns that are too small and easy to conceal. Guns that are too large and powerful. Guns that are scary looking. Guns that are too cheap. Guns that are too expensive. It never ends, and once the guns are banned, registration makes it easy for the ban de jour to be implemented through confiscation. You only need to look at the recent case studies of Britain and Australia for real life examples of how it happens. Britain is now working on banning kitchen knives now that banning every kind of gun on the planet (including toy guns and “bb” guns) has only resulted in ever increasing crime rates and an inexhaustible supply of helpless, disarmed victims.

Do it again…only harder.

Your arguments are boiling down to objecting to the extreme case of “gun grabbers want to outlaw all guns” when, in fact, the majority of people in the US support reasonable restrictions on gun transactions. It wouldn’t be legitimate for me to point to the gun enthusiast who wants their own ICBM and say “That’s what we get if we don’t ban all guns!”. Nor is it legit to object to all controls on the grounds they inevitably lead to complete bans.

That’s what’s known as a “straw man argument”.

You point out (correctly) that it wouldn’t be legitimate for me to argue something that I’m not arguing. Nice.

I didn’t say that all gun regulations should go. That’s you putting words into my mouth.

I absolutely support common sense gun laws. We just differ on what constitutes “common sense”.

Oh, utter nonsense. There is no measurable added cost to the grocery store when you have to show them your driver’s license to use your credit card to pay for groceries.

And your ignorance of gun law is just as obvious as your ignorance about the credit card law:

No you do not have to show your id. in fact if a merchant refuses to accept your credit card because you wont show id they are in violation of Visa and Mastercard regulations. They can be fined for a refusing a charge due to no id. [emphasis added -ed]

Do you actually believe that outlawing private sales would only entail the showing of a driver’s license? What do you think is currently required for purchase of a firearm from a licensed dealer? Do you know the typical rates that licensed dealers charge to transfer a firearm between unlicensed individuals (which is required for out of state transfers)?

If you don’t understand the laws as they exist today, how can you expect to be taken seriously when you make ridiculous claims about the potential effects of proposed new laws?

You are arguing from a position of ignorance. Hardly a suitable foundation upon which to build public policy.

Have you looked into more of this specific investigation than was shown in the video? Becuase what did or didn’t happen to those people isn’t mentioned. You presenting your opinion as fact?

There is only one way to enforce the proposal above: registration. Without registration, how will you know how many guns I have and whether I’ve sold one or not?

And where is the objection to that? In the US you have to register your car. Why to objection to registering your gun. Doesn’t stop a single person legally allowed to own a gun from doing so, so there can’t be any Constitutional objection to it.

Guns can be dangerous. Guns can be easily misused. GUns have been misused. What reasonable objection is there to having some common sense controls in place to make sure they can’t get into the hands of those who are most likely to misuse them?

Sales to minors are not allowed, something with a higher legitimacy for Constitutional challenge (2nd ammendment doesn’t mention age) than requiring buyers to present ID.

Your arguments are boiling down to objecting to the extreme case of “gun grabbers want to outlaw all guns” when, in fact, the majority of people in the US support reasonable restrictions on gun transactions. It wouldn’t be legitimate for me to point to the gun enthusiast who wants their own ICBM and say “That’s what we get if we don’t ban all guns!”. Nor is it legit to object to all controls on the grounds they inevitably lead to complete bans.

Spoken like someone truly ignorant of the laws and regulations governing the sale of firearms in this country (and basic economics if you think there will be no added costs to the seller).

Oh, utter nonsense. There is no measurable added cost to the grocery store when you have to show them your driver’s license to use your credit card to pay for groceries.

Or like Mexico, Jamaica, Russia, Thailand or any number of other countries that ban guns but have a much higher rate of gun homicide than we do?

How many shootings did those countries have every year BEFORE they banned guns? What impact on THEIR society did the gun bans have?

Your argument is specious.

The US crime rate has been steadily declining since the early ’90′s even though gun restrictions have been relaxed and gun ownership has expanded dramatically.

I wonder what’s been going on in France:

France has a similar crime rate to most other European countries and in common with them crime has increased considerably in recent years; the number of reported crimes has almost doubled in a decade

Surely Japan is faring better:

In this trusting country, where people once left their doors and windows open and their car keys in the ignition, things have changed.

Break-ins are up, but more disturbing to most Japanese is the increase in break-ins involving violence. Earlier this year a family of four was murdered during a break-in.

Of the three you mentioned, only Canada can report a decrease in overall crime…but with a caveat:

Canada’s crime rate falls, but murders up

Incidentally, Canada’s violent crime rate, as of the last year Official US statistics are available (2006) was higher (962.4) than the US Rate (474 by about a factor of two.

Hmmm…Maybe crime rates don’t have much to do with gun control after all.

They have. They’ve said 2% is too high.

It is a serious question, and you’re trying to dodge again. You used as part of your argument that 2% isn’t significant. It’s fair and appropriate to then ask you to clarify what is significant.

You object because it’s “only” 2%. OK. Would you object if it was 5? 10? 14? Where is your line?

Really? Like in Canada and France and Japan where they ban guns and have close to zero shootings every year?

Violent crimes account for about 10-12% of crimes. Your statement implies that about 20% of violent crimes are committed using guns acquired at gun shows.

That seems pretty high to me.

“clearly wrong that that is the goal?” I don’t think there’s anything clear about that at all.

You’re entitled to your opinion (which, as insistent that you may be that it is “clearly” factual, your opinion is all it is), and I’m entitled to mine…which is that this is simply another of the measures continually touted by gun grabbers as “a good first step”. Funny…I’ve never heard one of their proposals touted as a “good last step”.

This is the “we can’t fix it perfectly so why fix it at all” objection.

No…this is a “this is a stupid idea that has no hope of having any impact whatsoever” objection.

There’s a difference between imperfect and completely ineffective.

Now if you’re going to complain it isn’t a perfect solution, then fine. but follow up with a proposal that makes it better. Don’t just argue that nothing should be done.

I didn’t argue that nothing should be done. Completely ignoring my suggestion doesn’t make it magically disappear, as inconvenient as you may find it to address. Clearly what needs to be done, as is demonstrated by the video evidence of criminal activity, is actually enforce current law.

Every incident documented in that video is already illegal. Why are those people not in jail? Because it’s much easier to harass the law abiding than to go to the trouble of investigating and prosecuting actual criminal behavior, now isn’t it?

So how about we don’t make it a special case tied to gun shows. What if we make it a requirement that guns can’t be sold in any location to someone who hasn’t passed a background check. You want to buy a gun? Fine. Get your background checked to verify you aren’t someone and then present that certification to the person selling the gun when you buy it. Gun dealer in their shop, gun owner at a show, neighbor in their garage. Ask to see the buyer’s certification and away you go.

Ahhh, and now we get to the heart of the matter because that’s what the gun grabbers really do want. They only couch this in terms of some nonexistent “gun show loophole” because it’s easier to sell.

There is only one way to enforce the proposal above: registration. Without registration, how will you know how many guns I have and whether I’ve sold one or not?

Registration will not fly in this country at this time…and the gun grabbers know it. So they settle for this incremental step toward their goal…the “good first step”…even though they know as well as anyone that it will be completely ineffective. In fact, they COUNT on it being ineffective because that sets the stage for their next “good first step”.

No gun control law ever enacted has been demonstrated to have any effect on crime whatsoever. So, what’s the solution? To the gun grabbers, the solution is always “do it again, only harder”.

What’s more…the gun grabbers oppose laws that have been demonstrated to, at worst, have no detrimental impact on crime rates and, at best, actually reduce crime…because those laws make it easier for law abiding citizens to obtain or carry firearms for self defense.

They support the laws of cities with the highest crime rates and oppose the laws of cities with the lowest.

Why would that be?

Simple: Because it isn’t about crime. Heck, it isn’t even about guns.

It’s about control.

Nope. Just hinders only those who are legally prohibited from buying guns. No cost added to the seller. No additional paperwork other than ticking a box “certification checked” and probably noting down a number.

Spoken like someone truly ignorant of the laws and regulations governing the sale of firearms in this country (and basic economics if you think there will be no added costs to the seller).

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/08/gun.soccer.mom.dead/index.html?iref=topnews

2ND AMENDMENT!!! 2ND AMENDMENT!!!

Sean, don’t be naive. That is precisely the goal of many on the anti-gun side. We saw that with the Heller decision. Even though DC was required to allow people to register firearms and keep them in their home, their initial requirements were so convoluted and absurd that Dick Heller had no choice but to take the District back to court because they were not following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Really? “Because people have been making private transactions with regard to guns for a long long time.” Sounds like tradition to me.

It was not the reason I object to it. I said it in the context that people seem to think there is a compelling reason to change the current law and there really isn’t beyond hyperbole.

Nice dodges, Jay. First you avoid answering the question I did ask

Because your question was nonsense. “What is the threshold?” Please. That’s not a serious question. I am not the one that supports this legislation. Again, those who do are the ones that need to provide some compelling reason to do so.

Ok, so if the buyer in this video was indeed prohibited from purchasing a firearm, then the seller violated federal and most likely, state law.

Actually, from what you say, the seller is guilty ONLY if they had reason to believe the buyer was a felon. And why would they have reason able cause to believe that? The buyer looked felon-y?

Really? “Because people have been making private transactions with regard to guns for a long long time.” Sounds like tradition to me.

Well Sean, if the interest is in savings lives, then why doesn’t the government force auto-makers to build cars that don’t go faster than 10 miles per hour? … I mean, if the percentage is needs to be 0%, what are we waiting for?

Nice dodges, Jay. First you avoid answering the question I did ask. Then you claim I said something I specifically didn’t (I didn’t say it had to be 0%. I actually noted it never could be) so you can complain about what I didn’t say to avoid responding to what I did say.

That’s actually a good idea. Some kind of renewable background check ID is something I think is reasonable.

Common ground! Lets go with this.

Any objection to having purchasers required to show they are legally allowed to get guns, and sellers required to ask to see it before making a sell?

No, that wasn’t the objection Jay was making. He clearly stated the basis for his objection was tradition.

Your objection (different than Jay’s) isn’t accurate. It is not designed to make things more difficult to law abiding folks. Now if you want to say that will be the result, then do so and we can debate that. But don’t start off with something clearly wrong that that is the goal.

If we create a special case in the law that requires private citizens to get government permission before selling their personal property but only at a specific location and time known as a gun show, what’s to stop them from going across the street and selling it in the parking lot of the McDonalds? Or selling it from their garage? Or the trunk of their cars?

This is the “we can’t fix it perfectly so why fix it at all” objection. Now if you’re going to complain it isn’t a perfect solution, then fine. but follow up with a proposal that makes it better. Don’t just argue that nothing should be done.

The objection, at it’s root, isn’t really that guns can be sold to felons at gun shows, but that guns can be sold to felons at all. So you’re right to the extent that perhaps we shouldn’t be focusing on gun shows.

So how about we don’t make it a special case tied to gun shows. What if we make it a requirement that guns can’t be sold in any location to someone who hasn’t passed a background check. You want to buy a gun? Fine. Get your background checked to verify you aren’t someone and then present that certification to the person selling the gun when you buy it. Gun dealer in their shop, gun owner at a show, neighbor in their garage. Ask to see the buyer’s certification and away you go.

The only people who will be hindered are the people who are actually concerned about following the law … It will add costs to the sale of the property, add inconvenience and add time as well as requiring additional paperwork for licensed gun dealers

Nope. Just hinders only those who are legally prohibited from buying guns. No cost added to the seller. No additional paperwork other than ticking a box “certification checked” and probably noting down a number.

It IS regulated. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold broke like a dozen state and federal laws before they even fired a single shot.

Missed it. My bad.

And my point is that we should look in to this. Maybe regulate it. Hmm?

I did. You apparently missed it.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/10/07/video-exposes-the-gun-show-loophole/#comment-183387

at 1:01 pm:

This is not a measure designed to catch criminals…heck, if the ATF wanted to do that…

Once again you reveal your issues with context.