It Never Ends

[Gumbo4x4]

Although he used Finland as an example to attempt to prove a point, I'm betting Gumbo wouldn't really agree with these restrictions.

BTW, you've hassled me many times to suggest some changes to the purchasing process & I do have some thoughts.

First, it's important to understand the current process.

*If you purchase a new gun, it must come from a dealer, and you must get a background check.
*If you purchase a used gun from a dealer, you must get a background check.
*If you purchase used gun from an online source, it must be shipped to a licensed dealer, and before you take possession, you must get a background check.
*If you purchase a used firearm from a private party and meet them face to face, you are not required to have a background check UNLESS local or state law requires it. Federal law does not.

This 4th category is the only group that under any circumstance may make a purchase without a background check. Without registration (which I & most gun owners do not want), there is almost no way to enforce a background check under these circumstances, save for "sting" operations which would capture a tiny fraction of these transactions. Most private sellers are in favor of the background check, they just don't want to be forced into a registration process. So, my approach is 2-pronged:

1) The president needs to open the NICS to private sellers on a voluntary basis NOW.

2) National Firearms Owners card, but with a twist. Rather than have owners & prospective owners submit for background checks & special fees, we do it for ALL Americans. Make it part of the driver's license renewal program. Your ID would indicate "yes" or "no" to firearm ownership whether you want one or not. There were ~20 million background checks performed last year, probably about the same # of license renewals. So, do it for everyone. Within 6 years, we would all have new licenses with this info available. In the event you've done something to get your license or gun rights revoked, you would need to go back to the DMV for a new license with "no" on it. For those who are not permitted to drive, they can still get a state ID.

Make it a requirement after 6 years that all private party sales do a check of the license before sale. Failure to do so would be a misdemeanor for the first & second offense, a felony thereafter.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

You can't use something as an example to support your point and then ignore the things that don't fit.

You brought up Finland as a country with high gun owner ship and low crime. Great, but when you really look at it (if the info posted is accurate), they do have restrictions and it appears somewhat harder to not only obtain a gun, but keep a gun. You want to use them to support your point but dismiss the fact that their laws are designed to keep gun ownership in check and keep the owners responsible and appear to do that given the low crime.

There are no exact apples to apples comparisons, so it's going to be impossible to find any example that is EXACTLY like ours save for ONE thing. But, the vast majority of firearms related crimes in the US are performed with guns that were obtained illegally. Obtaining an illegal gun should be relatively the same in Finland as in the U.S. Per the stats listed, a safe isn't even required until you reach 5+ guns which would make potentially stolen guns quite easy to access. So, why no problem? Why aren't there gangs running around with stolen guns? Why aren't kids swiping mom & dad's guns and going on sprees? The guns may be legally harder to obtain, but the guns ARE there. So, what ELSE are they doing differently to prevent these guns from becoming involved in crimes?

And clearly, it's much easier to own a gun in Finland than the U.K., yet there are no more shootings in Finland than in the U.K. Why?

 

[sunshinehighway]

Meh, some of them we ready have. Most of the others really have no impact on crime. I mean, if I have gun and I have ammo, and I want to do harm, no law requiring me to carry my gun unloaded would stop me from doing otherwise.

edit: I guess one might question why with so many opportunities to break these laws in Finland, it just doesn't happen. We can point to stats showing it's slightly harder to get a gun, and ownership is somewhat lower. But, crime is DRASTICALLY lower. The vast majority of the difference cannot be attributed to the differences in the laws.

The only real question is whether or not their background check is more strigent than ours, and I don't know that it is. We don't have background checks on private party sales of used guns here (ALL new guns have been sold with a background check for nearly 2 decades), but the vast majority of private sellers would run a check on their buyers were they even allowed to. The president could sign an EO today to open the background check up to private party sales and I would support that. I do not support registration.

the list mentions very stringent background checks. I believe it even uses drunk driving and speeding as reasons for denial.

 

[sunshinehighway]

There are no exact apples to apples comparisons, so it's going to be impossible to find any example that is EXACTLY like ours save for ONE thing. But, the vast majority of firearms related crimes in the US are performed with guns that were obtained illegally. Obtaining an illegal gun should be relatively the same in Finland as in the U.S. Per the stats listed, a safe isn't even required until you reach 5+ guns which would make potentially stolen guns quite easy to access. So, why no problem? Why aren't there gangs running around with stolen guns? Why aren't kids swiping mom & dad's guns and going on sprees? The guns may be legally harder to obtain, but the guns ARE there. So, what ELSE are they doing differently to prevent these guns from becoming involved in crimes?

And clearly, it's much easier to own a gun in Finland than the U.K., yet there are no more shootings in Finland than in the U.K. Why?

Here's the thing when you talk about illegally obtained guns here vs. Another country, it's comparing apples to oranges too.
With gun laws varying from state to state and even county to county, the general term illegal purchase can be easily manipulated and it has less meaning.

As far as why aren't kids swiping mom dad's guns and going on shooting sprees, perhaps you should go back and read the last again. Pay attention to the requirements for storage of guns.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

the list mentions very stringent background checks. I believe it even uses drunk driving and speeding as reasons for denial.

Plenty of people who have no record of such things here go "off". And we have no idea of knowing exactly how "stringent" such checks are. And we all have seen numerous instances of people who showed NO reason to be doubted going "off" here.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Here's the thing when you talk about illegally obtained guns here vs. Another country, it's comparing apples to oranges too.
With gun laws varying from state to state and even county to county, the general term illegal purchase can be easily manipulated and it has less meaning.

The vast majority are stolen. There's the same opportunity to steal here as there.

As far as why aren't kids swiping mom dad's guns and going on shooting sprees, perhaps you should go back and read the last again. Pay attention to the requirements for storage of guns.

Perhaps YOU should go back & reread. There is no requirement for ownership of a safe until you reach 5+ guns. To date, I don't recall any of the shootings that have taken place utilizing more than 5 guns at a time. "Locked up" could mean almost anything since it specifies a safe for the next step up. BTW, the Newtown shooter's guns were all stored in a safe.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Plenty of people who have no record of such things here go "off". And we have no idea of knowing exactly how "stringent" such checks are. And we all have seen numerous instances of people who showed NO reason to be doubted going "off" here.

But that doesn't change the fact that you example of Finland has fairly strict background checks. Perhaps one thing Finland is doing right, which keeps their crime rate low, is regulate who owns a gun, why and what those people need to do to continue owning those guns. People always spout off about responsible gun owners, yeah OK nobody actually as a clear definition of what that means. There are very few people who think they are irresponsible gun owners, yet they are. It appears that your example, Finland, at least as a guideline for what it takes to be a "responsible" gun owner. Maybe that is part of the difference.

 

[sunshinehighway]

The vast majority are stolen. There's the same opportunity to steal here as there.



Perhaps YOU should go back & reread. There is no requirement for ownership of a safe until you reach 5+ guns. To date, I don't recall any of the shootings that have taken place utilizing more than 5 guns at a time. "Locked up" could mean almost anything since it specifies a safe for the next step up. BTW, the Newtown shooter's guns were all stored in a safe.

I didn't say they had to be locked in a safe.

Firearms must be locked up or separated into pieces when not in use.

 

[sunshinehighway]

The vast majority are stolen. There's the same opportunity to steal here as there.



Perhaps YOU should go back & reread. There is no requirement for ownership of a safe until you reach 5+ guns. To date, I don't recall any of the shootings that have taken place utilizing more than 5 guns at a time. "Locked up" could mean almost anything since it specifies a safe for the next step up. BTW, the Newtown shooter's guns were all stored in a safe.

Right, a safe that his mother made easy access for him. You know him, her son that she knew wasn't exactly on the up and up mentally. She probably thought she was a "responsible"gun owner too.

 

[luvsJack]

Right, a safe that his mother made easy access for him. You know him, her son that she knew wasn't exactly on the up and up mentally. She probably thought she was a "responsible"gun owner too.

And if our laws were more strict about guns being in safes (and I think guns should be stored that way), do you not think she still would have given him access?

Most people would give others in the house access to the gun safe. A stricter law isn't going to change that.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

And if our laws were more strict about guns being in safes (and I think guns should be stored that way), do you not think she still would have given him access?

Most people would give others in the house access to the gun safe. A stricter law isn't going to change that.

He was willing to kill her(his own mother) to gain access to them, that tells me he was going to gain access to them no matter what.

 

[sunshinehighway]

And if our laws were more strict about guns being in safes (and I think guns should be stored that way), do you not think she still would have given him access?

Most people would give others in the house access to the gun safe. A stricter law isn't going to change that.

If we had stricter laws about who could own guns and what that person needed to do to keep them, perhaps the mother wouldn't have had them in the first place.

Look, Gumbo brought up Finland so I'm taking about their regulations (as listed up thread).

How can we bring up Finland as an example of high gun ownership and low crime but not talk about how their regulations on who can own a gun are also very strict?

 

[sunshinehighway]

He was willing to kill her(his own mother) to gain access to them, that tells me he was going to gain access to them no matter what.

Um, he didn't kill her to gain access to her guns. That's twisting things. Besides he shot her so he already had access to a gun.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Um, he didn't kill her to gain access to her guns. That's twisting things. Besides he shot her so he already had access to a gun.

I believe he had his own gun that he used to kill her, and then access her guns.

 

[Domo]

I feel so privileged to live in a country where no-one feels the need to enable the brandishing of firearms, bar for the military and certain branches of the police. As a result, gun crimes are pretty darn rare over here.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

I feel so privileged to live in a country where no-one feels the need to enable the brandishing of firearms, bar for the military and certain branches of the police. As a result, gun crimes are pretty darn rare over here.

I feel privileged to live where a 125# woman isn't told she has to limit her ability to defend herself from a 200# man, or even worse 2 men, to the use of a knife or pepper spray.

 

[luvsJack]

If we had stricter laws about who could own guns and what that person needed to do to keep them, perhaps the mother wouldn't have had them in the first place.

Look, Gumbo brought up Finland so I'm taking about their regulations (as listed up thread).

How can we bring up Finland as an example of high gun ownership and low crime but not talk about how their regulations on who can own a gun are also very strict?

I have been following the conversation.

Finland's law requires guns owners with over 5 guns to lock them in a safe. Gumbo said that the guns in this case were in a safe and you said that his mother gave him access. And, again, a stricter law on how guns are stored would not have prevented that.

Unless the shooter's mother had things showing up on her background check, there is nothing in Finland's laws that would have kept her from having guns. The "showing reason for owning a gun" may have been a stop but if that many people in Finland own guns, there must be a number of things that cover that.

You are right, to say if we are going to use Finland as an example on one side, we have to use it on the other. But we cannot assume that each point in their laws are the things that are making a difference.

The guns used in Columbine were purchased at a gun show for the boys, were they not? So obtained legally?

How many school, mall or theater shootings were done using guns that were obtained legally and by people that did pass our background checks and possibly would have passed those in Finland? If many were people that passed ours but would not pass their's, then perhaps there is the problem. If they would have passed both, then we need to look at something else.

IMO, we would also need to look at other differences in Finland. Their culture vs our's; their mental health plans vs our's and whatever else goes in to making a shooter a shooter.

For school shootings, we need to look at the whole thing, not just what gun laws are. Most school shootings are students, Newtown being an exception. Students that go into their own schools and shoot people that they have known for years--not just random strangers, shoot teachers that they have sat in their classes. Why? There has to be a point where these kids were failed in someway. That, imo, is where we need to look as well as and maybe instead of whether they could have gained access to a gun.

The boy in Pearl stabbed his mother. I don't know if he got the gun from her or if that was to get the car but either way, he accomplished the same thing without a gun.

There was a situation recently where a boy went into school with a knife and stabbed several people. Gun laws wouldn't have stopped him, but I think we need to figure out what happened here as well. The problem is too many don't talk about that because it doesn't follow the "get rid of the guns" statement that too many think will stop the problem.

Maybe instead of "how do we stop the shootings" the question should be "how do we stop the killings" and figure out what is happening to make too many too willing to kill.

 

[mommasita]

What justification do you need me to rethink?

What part of my post makes you think I didn't read the article?

I posted a link to an article that corrected previously posted mis-information.

I guess when I see only, I read it differently.. KWIM?

 

[Domo]

I feel privileged to live where a 125# woman isn't told she has to limit her ability to defend herself from a 200# man, or even worse 2 men, to the use of a knife or pepper spray.

I guess I just feel happier like this... after all, said little old woman is less likely to be attacked and even less likely to be killed... our homicide rate is a fifth that of the USA you see. However, negating gun laws, we can still buy air guns and knives if you are over 18, which can both do damage.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I have been following the conversation.

Finland's law requires guns owners with over 5 guns to lock them in a safe. Gumbo said that the guns in this case were in a safe and you said that his mother gave him access. And, again, a stricter law on how guns are stored would not have prevented that.

Unless the shooter's mother had things showing up on her background check, there is nothing in Finland's laws that would have kept her from having guns. The "showing reason for owning a gun" may have been a stop but if that many people in Finland own guns, there must be a number of things that cover that.

You are right, to say if we are going to use Finland as an example on one side, we have to use it on the other. But we cannot assume that each point in their laws are the things that are making a difference.

The guns used in Columbine were purchased at a gun show for the boys, were they not? So obtained legally?

How many school, mall or theater shootings were done using guns that were obtained legally and by people that did pass our background checks and possibly would have passed those in Finland? If many were people that passed ours but would not pass their's, then perhaps there is the problem. If they would have passed both, then we need to look at something else.

IMO, we would also need to look at other differences in Finland. Their culture vs our's; their mental health plans vs our's and whatever else goes in to making a shooter a shooter.

For school shootings, we need to look at the whole thing, not just what gun laws are. Most school shootings are students, Newtown being an exception. Students that go into their own schools and shoot people that they have known for years--not just random strangers, shoot teachers that they have sat in their classes. Why? There has to be a point where these kids were failed in someway. That, imo, is where we need to look as well as and maybe instead of whether they could have gained access to a gun.

The boy in Pearl stabbed his mother. I don't know if he got the gun from her or if that was to get the car but either way, he accomplished the same thing without a gun.

There was a situation recently where a boy went into school with a knife and stabbed several people. Gun laws wouldn't have stopped him, but I think we need to figure out what happened here as well. The problem is too many don't talk about that because it doesn't follow the "get rid of the guns" statement that too many think will stop the problem.

Maybe instead of "how do we stop the shootings" the question should be "how do we stop the killings" and figure out what is happening to make too many too willing to kill.

Maybe she wouldn't have passed the background check, maybe she wouldn't have had a good enough reason to own the guns she wanted, maybe she wouldn't have allowed him the access he had if she new she could lose those guns for being irresponsible.
I don't know what makes these shooter's or any shooter act. I don't think the problem is people don't want to talk because it doesn't follow "get rid of guns" I really don't. I think the problem is the loudest voices on both sides are extremists and they drown out any productive talk.