or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Take all of the guns. All of them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Take all of the guns. All of them. - Page 83

post #1231 of 1722
Can you guys expand upon what's false about it? Obviously the mostly true thing is bullshit, but is it false that in some states, you can buy, albeit illegally, a gun from someone online without being subjected to a background check?
post #1232 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post

Can you guys expand upon what's false about it? Obviously the mostly true thing is bullshit, but is it false that in some states, you can buy, albeit illegally, a gun from someone online without being subjected to a background check?

gun sellers have to ship the guns to a FFL. Before they hand you the gun, they run a background check.
post #1233 of 1722
Under the federal law you could, as the seller, legally sell someone a gun "over the internet" without being required to do a background check (or give it to an intermediary that will do one) -- if they're in the same state. You wouldn't have to do a background check on them if you don't have a federal firearms license.

The problem is that, first of all, that's a very limited scenario, which isn't what Obama said, and second, there is no carrier that will actually ship the gun. So you would have to meet in person to carry out the transaction, making the internet incidental, and the claim completely false.
post #1234 of 1722
Got it.
Obama is being inflammatory as usual, and certainly the left just wants to use this as a stepping stone, but is there an additional reason not to want to clamp down on those face to face buys? Is there a reason we want to make those possible, even if they happen on a very limited basis?
post #1235 of 1722

Quote:

Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post

Got it.
Obama is being inflammatory as usual, and certainly the left just wants to use this as a stepping stone, but is there an additional reason not to want to clamp down on those face to face buys? Is there a reason we want to make those possible, even if they happen on a very limited basis?

 

Why would we want to clamp down on private sellers?  What benefits does it give us?  If you look at mass shootings, as an example, almost all the shooters passed background checks.  Additional background checks wouldn't really help, and my guess is that someone planning a mass shooting, who can't pass a background check, will just acquire a gun illegally anyway.

post #1236 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post

Can you guys expand upon what's false about it? Obviously the mostly true thing is bullshit, but is it false that in some states, you can buy, albeit illegally, a gun from someone online without being subjected to a background check?

 

PolitiFact is allowing itself an atypical amount of wiggle room with the word "can".  In the article they admit that they're being precious about parsing "can" differently from "may", and at least acknowledge that "can" comes with the disclaimer "not legally".  Well, if one applies the same logic to other endeavors:

 

- I can drink a bottle of whiskey and drive my car 95 mph down the highway

- I can have sex with Jennifer Lawrence

- I can vote twice in the upcoming election if I know my neighbor is registered to vote but isn't going to go to the polls

 

Sure these things are, respectively, DUI & speeding, sexual assault, and election fraud, but I can do them.  In fact, every action that is criminal is something that "can" be done.  So Obama's statement is intellectually dishonest in the "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" sense.

post #1237 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Quote:

Why would we want to clamp down on private sellers?  What benefits does it give us?  If you look at mass shootings, as an example, almost all the shooters passed background checks.  Additional background checks wouldn't really help, and my guess is that someone planning a mass shooting, who can't pass a background check, will just acquire a gun illegally anyway.

You're not arguing that background checks are useless overall, are you? If you aren't, then why not apply them in every case? The benefit is that it may stop crime for what seems to be an incredibly minimal cost. Unless I'm not seeing the cost, which is possible.
post #1238 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post

You're not arguing that background checks are useless overall, are you? If you aren't, then why not apply them in every case? The benefit is that it may stop crime for what seems to be an incredibly minimal cost. Unless I'm not seeing the cost, which is possible.

Because it's very burdensome to make every private transfer of firearms go through a licensed firearms dealer (who generally charge $40 or more per gun to do the transfer).
post #1239 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post


You're not arguing that background checks are useless overall, are you? If you aren't, then why not apply them in every case? The benefit is that it may stop crime for what seems to be an incredibly minimal cost. Unless I'm not seeing the cost, which is possible.



The cost is every single gun owner would need to become an FFL to sell a gun they decide they no longer want.  That seems like a pretty high cost to me.

post #1240 of 1722
Once upon a time, lots of people had federal firearms licenses, but in response to BS media outcry "There are more gun dealers than gas stations!," lots of arbitrary restrictions were placed on the licenses. The big one is requiring a damned storefront.
post #1241 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Because it's very burdensome to make every private transfer of firearms go through a licensed firearms dealer (who generally charge $40 or more per gun to do the transfer).

Fair enough, but it's burdensome to do in every instance, isn't it? In your view would it be a good idea to get rid of the FFL background checks all together? $40 and some gas doesn't seem that awful to me, if we agree that overall having the FFL system and background checks makes sense. Of course, you may not think we need those things, and I'd be interested to hear why if so.
post #1242 of 1722
The intention is also to make it illegal to lend a gun to someone, to give a gun to your friend, your wife, your kid, etc., without going through a dealer.

The background checks seem to be completely ineffective in preventing bad guys from getting guns. Their only real purpose is to make guns more expensive for honest people. So, yeah, I would do away with them as the burden exceeds the benefit.
post #1243 of 1722
When you sell a car privately the title still needs to be transferred and there is a fee for that. What's the problem with having a similar process for a private gun sale which includes a background check?
post #1244 of 1722
Because that's required by individuals states so they can tax the cars. And because there's not a anti-car lobby that desperately wants to confiscate everyone's wheels.

ActuallyI'm not sure that second sentence is completely true. At least there's less of an immediate danger from the car-grabbers.
post #1245 of 1722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

When you sell a car privately the title still needs to be transferred and there is a fee for that. What's the problem with having a similar process for a private gun sale which includes a background check?

Because it's completely unnecessary. It doesn't save lives, it doesn't prevent crime, it's just horseshit.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Take all of the guns. All of them.