Gun sales jump following election

[Glocksman]

It's not so much a gun show loophole as it is a private party sale loophole. Could probably be solved by requiring a buyer and seller to go to a gun shop for a NICS check, and requiring gun dealers to allow NICS checks for private party sales for a nominal fee ($20 or something like that). Gun dealers selling at gun shows are already required to conduct NICS checks on buyers, and otherwise comply with firearm sales regulations, just as if they were at their normal store front.

The only records kept of the transaction under current Federal law would be the 4473 the dealer has to fill out and keep on file.
NICS is prohibited by DOJ regulations from maintaining a database of transactions going back further than 90 days.

The regulation is necessary because the law prohibits the DOJ from using NICS data as a 'de-facto' registration system.

[Edi]

Glocksman, if they talk about AK type rifles, the semiautomatics are easy to modify to full automatic. Ridiculously easy, in fact. So there is nothing to prevent the sale and then smuggling of semiauto rifles which are then converted to full auto with minimal work. The Finnish army uses the rifle model RK-62, which is a total AK-47 clone, just with tighter tolerances and larger parts. You can swap in AK parts to an RK-62 and it works perfectly, but the reverse is not true. I can disassemble and reassemble one of those things blindfolded and I can correctly put together an RK-62 and an AK-47 that have been disassembled and the parts mixed and do so while blindfolded.

In the army we never took apart the spring mechanism of the AK, because that is the only complex bit about it, and that is only relatively speaking. The fire selector system on an AK is dead simple and from what I understand, the automatic fire control is disabled there.

Then there is a factor which I do not know a lot of the specifics about, but the Italian crime syndicates in the Napoli area (the Camorra) are extensively involved in weapons smuggling, with the sources often in Eastern Europe and they do business with a lot of parties in Central and South America and have contacts in the US. It is not at all a difficult proposition that some weapons would be coming in that way and transiting through the US if they have a system set up, but I admit that this is speculation. The weapons trade is touched on in Roberto Saviano's book Gomorra (published in 2006), but rather tangentially, given that the focus is on the Napoli area of Italy. Even if this last paragraph and the speculation there is a non-factor, the rest of my post is not.

[Ender]

Hurt the person? If you are not well trained in martial arts or any self-defense training, an airsoft gun might be better than nothing.

Not really, about the only good an airsoft gun will do is that you have a handy club to smack them with. A baseball bat would do better.

[Glocksman]

Glocksman, if they talk about AK type rifles, the semiautomatics are easy to modify to full automatic. Ridiculously easy, in fact.

It can be done, but the semiauto AK's for sale in the US lack the holes needed to install the needed parts and also have had the trip on the bolt carrier ground off.
Semiauto AR15's have had similar modifications made to make a conversion much harder than just dropping in a military parts set.
Obviously if you have access to the parts and know a competent machinist, however, it can be done as the Hollywood bank job guys proved several years ago.

My question would be why would they go to all the hassle involved in buying a US semiauto and converting it when the third world is awash in real AK's and they are very cheap?
In other words, why sink $700 into a US AK and conversion parts when you can buy the real thing cheap in Central America or Africa and bribe Mexican customs to pass it?

Also, in the US 'Readily convertible' semi autos are illegal to sell or manufacture and have been since the late 1970's or early 80's.
The MAC 10 pistol is a case in point.
The original civilian legal semi auto was an open bolt design that could be converted to full auto simply by grinding off the sear catch on the bolt.
After the ATF banned the manufacture of open bolt semiautos due to the ease of conversion, the civilian semiauto MAC was only available with a closed bolt design that is harder to convert safely.

[Glocksman]

It is not at all a difficult proposition that some weapons would be coming in that way and transiting through the US if they have a system set up, but I admit that this is speculation.

It's entirely possible, but that's much different that the BS in the WaPo piece implying that the Mexicans are buying machineguns and grenades at US gunshows.

[Thanas]

You see these things which are just regular semi-automatic rifles, they don't hide easily, they are expensive, most people inclined to violent crime can't afford them, nor would they serve them any purpose. Such a criminal would be better off with a knife even. These things they are bought for sporting and recreational purpose by people with a disposable income. And hey you can even own them in Canada and most of Europe(France,Germany,Belgium,Norway,Sweden,Finland,etc, etc.), even bloody England allows them(converted to single shot for centerfires, semiauto is allowed for .22lr).

Well, in Germany you can only own them in theory, in practice it is nigh impossible. You have to show a need for self protection or hunting or scientific reasons. If you can demonstrate any of those, you then have to show why a smaller weapon won't do the job, in addition to paying a heavy fee. Plus, the rules are so stringent that being caught in a misdemeanor will disqualify you for life. For example, if the police catch you with 0.3 blood alcohol, you are out for life and all your guns are confiscated by the state, with your licenses for them being pulled retroactively.

[Ryan Thunder]

As for the argument that "guns are designed to kill people", I'd actually like to point out an error in that line of reasoning. Really, guns are meant to inflict damage. The first guns were artillery, and used as siege weapons to knock down castles. It took hundreds of years before they were small enough, and reliable enough, to be used in individual combat. Even then, up until the advent of rifling, they were really little more than area-effect weapons rather than personal-killing weapons.

Modern military firearms, the 'bogeyman' here, are actually designed to wound people, not kill them. The logic is simple: say you're being attacked by 5 guys. You shoot one, he dies, and now you're being attacked by 4 guys who are pissed off you shot their buddy.

Now, suppose you're being attacked by 5 guys, you shoot one and injure him. Now, two of his buddies have to carry him off and give him first aid. So 3 guys are gone, and you're only being attacked by 2 guys... who can hear their buddy screaming behind them, and are probably thinking "fuck this shit" and find reasons not to stand up, lest the same thing happen again.

Of course, guns are so incredibly efficient at doing damage, that death is frequently the result anyway, but no one here ever denied that death can result from all this.

So, to sum up what you took four paragraphs to say, guns are designed to inflict serious injury or death, which has absolutely no effect on the validity of my assertion that they are designed to kill.

Folks here can say what they want about who "needs" what or why one thing is okay, while another isn't because it was "designed to kill". The same thing holds true-- regardless of what my gun was "designed to do" I can also use it for other things, among them target shooting and personal defense it it becomes necessary.

So I guess its alright with you, then, if I, your hypothetical next-door neighbour, decide to use, say, a nuclear warhead as a space heater, then, right? You'd be just fine with that, because even though its designed to cause death and destruction on an unimaginable scale, I'm not using it for that, right?

What if I wanted to build my house out of live artillery shells?

There's a lot of people owning and using firearms in incredibly safe ways, and there are estimates (the most famous one being by University of Florida criminologist Gary Kleck) that have figured there as many as 2.5 million crimes in the USA that are thwarted by individuals protecting themselves legally.

So, you're saying that the police force failed to protect citizens and enforce the law, therefore people should be allowed to own assault rifles.

Any sane person would see that your police forces are obviously not doing a good enough job of protecting you, for whatever reason. Might want to look into improving on that before concluding that its a good idea to hand out firearms to everybody and his dog. Seems to work fine for everybody else.

So again-- we don't live in a society where a person must prove to a government apparatchik what our "needs" are
before we purchase something. We are innocent until proven guilty, and we are also not a society that believes in collective punishment of a group for the wrongs of another person.

Collective punishment? Are you fucking mad?

We aren't talking about toys, here; these are goddamn purebred killing machines, and by your own fucking admission, no less. You don't have a right to the power to kill. That dubious privilege is already granted to police officers and soldiers, who are there to protect you. Why you would want to leave it up to civilians is beyond me.

Besides that, going by your logic, stuff like imposed speed limits are wrong.

[Coyote]

So, to sum up what you took four paragraphs to say, guns are designed to inflict serious injury or death, which has absolutely no effect on the validity of my assertion that they are designed to kill.

No, they are technically designed to wound or incapacitate, but if killing happens, it happens as another potential consequence.

So I guess its alright with you, then, if I, your hypothetical next-door neighbour, decide to use, say, a nuclear warhead as a space heater, then, right? You'd be just fine with that, because even though its designed to cause death and destruction on an unimaginable scale, I'm not using it for that, right?

What if I wanted to build my house out of live artillery shells?

Oh, boy, the old "if you want guns, then I have a right to a bomb!!!111" argument. No, sir, a bomb and a gun are not comparable. A bomb (grenade, nuclear, RPG, artillery shell, 500kg, etc etc etc) unleashes its destructive energy in an omnidirectional ball of destructive power. There is no reasonable way for a person to claim the ability to control an explosion; it would be impossible to defend oneself or one's home without also facing the possibility of inflicting additional damage or casualties. It is a silly, childish strawman argument that crops up over and over again.

So, you're saying that the police force failed to protect citizens and enforce the law, therefore people should be allowed to own assault rifles.

No, you're saying that, distorting my point once again with your emotionally-charged hyperbole. My point is that guns in the hands of private citizens can be used to stop crime before the police get involved, and estimates as high as 2.5 million legal uses of guns for self-defense have been calculated. You seem to forget that the police typically do not "stop" crime, they show up after the crime is over and take reports, filter the information up to detectives, who hopefully can figure out what happened and prevent the crime from happening again. The presence of police at any given time in an area may stop crime from happening; but only until the police are gone, at which point crime may, or may not, happen again. But police due not "cure crime" and more than the presence of doctors can "cure accidents". People still trip and fall, despite the presence of hospitals.

Any sane person would see that your police forces are obviously not doing a good enough job of protecting you, for whatever reason. Might want to look into improving on that before concluding that its a good idea to hand out firearms to everybody and his dog. Seems to work fine for everybody else.

Well, actually, I never once advocated "handing out firearms to everybody and his dog", you dishonest little bastard. Some people choose to own firearms; these people aren't breaking any laws; sometimes those people are able to prevent crime or defend themselves when criminals strike and cops aren't around. The cops are generally quite professional, but they cannot be everywhere at once, and they actually are tasked with protecting society as a whole, not any individual person or people.

So again-- we don't live in a society where a person must prove to a government apparatchik what our "needs" are
before we purchase something. We are innocent until proven guilty, and we are also not a society that believes in collective punishment of a group for the wrongs of another person.

Collective punishment? Are you fucking mad?

We aren't talking about toys, here; these are goddamn purebred killing machines, and by your own fucking admission, no less. You don't have a right to the power to kill. That dubious privilege is already granted to police officers and soldiers, who are there to protect you. Why you would want to leave it up to civilians is beyond me.

Collective punishment. A thousand people are doing something legally, but one person does something wrong. So you'd strip away certain rights from all thousand people because of one guy. That is called "collective punishment" and it is against the law and typically frowned upon. I never once said these were "toys" or implied such, and again you are being dishonest by implying otherwise. Every gun comes with a manual that very clearly spells out "this is not a toy, it is dangerous and misuse can cause serious injury or death".

A gun is a tool, I'm sure you've heard that before and I think I hear your head exploding now. But you hear that a lot because it is true. It is a tool and it is a most excellent tool for defending oneself if necessary, and if it is not necessary to defend oneself, then it is also a fun tool for target shooting, hunting, or just plain collecting for fun. All your histrionic screeching won't change that, and we still haven't come to any justification for punishing millions of law-abiding people because of the actions of a few.

Clearly you would prefer a world of non-violence and peace, where guns are un-necessary. Believe it or not, so would I. But that day is unlikely to come any time soon, because some fundamental things about human nature have to change first.

Besides that, going by your logic, stuff like imposed speed limits are wrong.

No, stuff like speed limits and traffic lights take something that could be inherently dangerous, like guiding a ton-and-a-half steel block down a street at high speeds, and organizes it so that it makes sense. Same thing with gun laws: don't murder people, don't rob people, displaying a gun in a threatening manner is cause for alarm and questioning by police, selling or giving guns to criminals is actionable by the law as well, use only in certain safe, approved areas and under proper supervision, do not use while intoxicated, fire only in a safe manner and know what you are shooting at (ie, don't just fire off into the fog, or the dark, or a forest without knowing WTF you might hit).

It actually takes just a little bit of education and instruction for the average person to know how to use a gun, when to use a gun, and what to do with a gun and what their legal rights are. Where do you think cops and soldiers come from? They are recruited from among the populace, which you seem to think is too stupid and stumbletyfuck to be able to handle a firearm. A serious person who takes the time to learn can, in fact, be an asset to the community. Mike Wong himself, also a resident of Canada, considered undergoing the process and found the concept quite simple, he just didn't want to spend the time to do it, which is his perogative.

[Formless]

So, to sum up what you took four paragraphs to say, guns are designed to inflict serious injury or death, which has absolutely no effect on the validity of my assertion that they are designed to kill.

So what if they are designed to injure or kill? the next question is, is that a problem? Is there never a reason to kill? Is there never justification to kill? Or are you just a pacifist?

So I guess its alright with you, then, if I, your hypothetical next-door neighbour, decide to use, say, a nuclear warhead as a space heater, then, right? You'd be just fine with that, because even though its designed to cause death and destruction on an unimaginable scale, I'm not using it for that, right?

What if I wanted to build my house out of live artillery shells?

Strawman. Nukes are designed to blow up countries, artillery are designed to blow up battlefields, so obviously they must be equvelent to guns which can just put a hole in a human!

He is talking about a weapon that can defend a person. You are talking about weapons that can defend nations.

So, you're saying that the police force failed to protect citizens and enforce the law, therefore people should be allowed to own assault rifles.

Any sane person would see that your police forces are obviously not doing a good enough job of protecting you, for whatever reason. Might want to look into improving on that before concluding that its a good idea to hand out firearms to everybody and his dog. Seems to work fine for everybody else.

Actually, I believe it is a matter of court record that the California courts said that the police can not always be there to protect you. If a person invades your home, even if there are plenty of police in the area, it can take dispatch a much longer time to get a cop to the scene then you have time for, and the guy gets away. You need a defense immediatly, but the cops simply can't be there. Then there is rural situations like Broomstick pointed out: how can you expect the police to protect you when there is only the local sheriff and he is a god ten miles away?

Collective punishment? Are you fucking mad?

You don't call a blanket ban "collective punishment?"

We aren't talking about toys, here; these are goddamn purebred killing machines, and by your own fucking admission, no less. You don't have a right to the power to kill. That dubious privilege is already granted to police officers and soldiers, who are there to protect you. Why you would want to leave it up to civilians is beyond me.

You ingoramus. He made a very long point that guns are NOT pure killing machines! They are designed to wound, or they don't do their job properly.

Also, I would like to see you back up this pacifist bullshit that it is never right to kill someone. The government does not say so, or there would not be the death penalty. Ethically, there is nothing wrong with defending yourself if your own survival is at stake. Or even better, when other peoples lives are at stake! Why does everyone assume that a self defense situation only ever means defending your own self sentered self?

Besides that, going by your logic, stuff like imposed speed limits are wrong.

Bullshit. He never argued against reasonable restrictions, he argued against motions to ban them outright, dumbass.

[Formless]

Ghetto edit: could someone fix that horrid quote box error? I'm not used to posting in a forum that doesn't have an edit function yet.

[Darth Wong]

Ghetto edit: could someone fix that horrid quote box error? I'm not used to posting in a forum that doesn't have an edit function yet.

Done.

[Darth Wong]

It actually takes just a little bit of education and instruction for the average person to know how to use a gun, when to use a gun, and what to do with a gun and what their legal rights are. Where do you think cops and soldiers come from? They are recruited from among the populace, which you seem to think is too stupid and stumbletyfuck to be able to handle a firearm. A serious person who takes the time to learn can, in fact, be an asset to the community. Mike Wong himself, also a resident of Canada, considered undergoing the process and found the concept quite simple, he just didn't want to spend the time to do it, which is his perogative.

Agreed on most points, but minor nitpick: the money was at least as big a problem as the time. Even once I got past the training course costs, the cost of the weapon itself, the ammo, the range time, and the locking gun storage cabinet required by our laws would all add up to some fairly hefty coin. Not that I have an issue with any of that; the cost is what it is and nobody can be blamed for that, and the locking storage cabinet is just good sense: I have two kids.

Still, I suppose it says something that I actually bothered to find out what all of that would cost. I want to keep my options open after all, and it's nice to know exactly what I would need to do.

[Count Chocula]

Give in to the Dark Side, Mike! Recreational shooting is wayyy more fun than golf or sitting around watching football, which is what most of my coworkers do. If you start out with a $120 gun cabinet rather than a safe, and get a matched set of Ruger MkII .22 pistol and Ruger 10/22 .22 rifle, you can start having fun for a modest expenditure. A brick of .22 Long Rifle is surprisingly inexpensive, and you meet good people at ranges.

[Darth Wong]

Give in to the Dark Side, Mike! Recreational shooting is wayyy more fun than golf or sitting around watching football, which is what most of my coworkers do.

Yes, but it's less fun than sex, which costs nothing

If you start out with a $120 gun cabinet rather than a safe, and get a matched set of Ruger MkII .22 pistol and Ruger 10/22 .22 rifle, you can start having fun for a modest expenditure. A brick of .22 Long Rifle is surprisingly inexpensive, and you meet good people at ranges.

I have two kids; I would not get a firearm under any circumstances unless both the ammo and the gun could be locked up securely and separately. You don't know me in real-life, but I'm a bit of a safety fanatic. Always have been.

[Broomstick]

Agreed on most points, but minor nitpick: the money was at least as big a problem as the time. Even once I got past the training course costs, the cost of the weapon itself, the ammo, the range time, and the locking gun storage cabinet required by our laws would all add up to some fairly hefty coin. Not that I have an issue with any of that; the cost is what it is and nobody can be blamed for that, and the locking storage cabinet is just good sense: I have two kids.

pssst! You forgot cost of maintenance and supplies!

Even in gun-crazy Indiana the cost of those items - guns, ammo, etc. - can be significant to an individual, even when entering on the low-end of the ownership spectrum. We also have a cost for licensing the fire arm owner to consider, which Mike didn't mention and I don't know the rules on that for Canada. As you must show up in person during business hours for some of the paperwork and procedures add the loss of at least one day's pay. Training courses and safety classes are heavily promoted in every gun shop I've ever been in. Locking gun storage is not required by our laws, but again secure storage is heavily promoted.

Owning a gun is not without cost.

Keep in mind, too, that US gun laws are far from uniform. My state has some very generous gun ownership and carry laws, but 15 km west of my home you have some of the strictest gun laws in the US, more restrictive any in Europe, Australia, and Canada. If you get pulled over for speeding in the city of Chicago and the cops find your gun in the trunk of your car you likely will wind up losing it for good, saying "oops, I forget the law changed when I crossed the city limit" will not protect you from penalty. It adds another layer of complication to the whole thing.

(It is anticipated that Chicago's gun laws will be thrown out due to a supreme court decision but it hasn't happened yet. Until it does, the cops are enforcing the law)

[Count Chocula]

Ah. That's easy. Keep the rifle and pistol in a rifle cabinet, and store the ammo in a smaller pistol cabinet. Readily available (I bought mine at KMart but in Canada YMMV), built of heavy gauge steel, with cylinder keys and wall stud attachments.

My pieces and ammo are locked in cabinets in a locked closet, since I don't want my 4-year-old playing with them. Toy lightsabers and blasters are sufficient for him, at his age.

[Beowulf]

Give in to the Dark Side, Mike! Recreational shooting is wayyy more fun than golf or sitting around watching football, which is what most of my coworkers do.

Yes, but it's less fun than sex, which costs nothing

If you start out with a $120 gun cabinet rather than a safe, and get a matched set of Ruger MkII .22 pistol and Ruger 10/22 .22 rifle, you can start having fun for a modest expenditure. A brick of .22 Long Rifle is surprisingly inexpensive, and you meet good people at ranges.

I have two kids; I would not get a firearm under any circumstances unless both the ammo and the gun could be locked up securely and separately. You don't know me in real-life, but I'm a bit of a safety fanatic. Always have been.

My dad kept his guns locked in a filing cabinet, with the ammo stored in a separate room. You could store ammo in a fairly standard plastic crate that has provisions for being locked. Or there's a locking ammo can.

[erik_t]

Collective punishment. A thousand people are doing something legally, but one person does something wrong. So you'd strip away certain rights from all thousand people because of one guy. That is called "collective punishment" and it is against the law and typically frowned upon. I never once said these were "toys" or implied such, and again you are being dishonest by implying otherwise. Every gun comes with a manual that very clearly spells out "this is not a toy, it is dangerous and misuse can cause serious injury or death".

Is it okay to "collectively punish" the owners of some hypothetical item in which 50% of the owners do something wrong? How about 999/1000? There is presumably a point at which it is sensible and legitimate, right?

About 57 million US adults own at least one firearm, and about 400,000 crimes were committed with guns in 2006. Someone earlier in this thread suggested that it would be equally valid to lock up all men's penises due to rape. The rape rate in the US is about 0.5 per thousand. This is more than a factor of ten lower than the rate of firearm crime. Note that I have not taken into account repeat murders, nor repeat rapists. Don't have the data, unfortunately, since a lot of reported crimes are never solved.

I think it's vitally important that people be conscious of the rate of crime compared to the total ownership (of guns, penises or something else) before making asinine off-the-cuff analogies.

[Darwin]

Does that historical inaccuracy become more accurate when you state it so emphatically? Canada started registering firearms 13 years ago, and there was never a move to start confiscating them all.

I suppose you'll say "just wait"? Must be nice to state a 100% historical rule where you can just handwave away exceptions.

Canada is fairly unique in that the attempts to register guns there basically failed, as gun owners simply refused, and nobody bothered to enforce it.

[Darth Wong]

Does that historical inaccuracy become more accurate when you state it so emphatically? Canada started registering firearms 13 years ago, and there was never a move to start confiscating them all.

I suppose you'll say "just wait"? Must be nice to state a 100% historical rule where you can just handwave away exceptions.

Canada is fairly unique in that the attempts to register guns there basically failed, as gun owners simply refused, and nobody bothered to enforce it.

Don't lie to me. I live here, remember? People here do generally get their licenses and register their guns.

[Count Chocula]

Mike, this site offers a contrary viewpoint to your own. My guess is that the highest rates of noncompliance are in the hinterlands, i.e. 30 miles outside Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, this site offers a contrary viewpoint to your own. My guess is that the highest rates of noncompliance are in the hinterlands, i.e. 30 miles outside Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.

Do you have an actual credible source, as opposed to an obscure political advocacy site which uses the word "LIE-BERAL" in bold red print on the front page?

[Count Chocula]

Would The National Review count? The author, Dave Kopel, in this and other writings, backs up his conclusions with concrete, verifiable data.

[Darwin]

Registration doesn't look that bad on the surface, but historically has lead to bans Every. Single. Time.

Do you have a source for this statement? It sounds like material generated pasted together by people who define gun rights as absolutely zero supervision.

New York 1996
Canada 1997 (legally registered handguns of .32 or 25 caliber or barrel length under 105mm)
California 2000 (legally registered SKS rifles)
Illinois 2002 (Chicago illegally registers guns of anyone with an Illinois FOID card)
New Orleans 2005 (led to passage of bill denying state confiscation of guns during an emergency)

Australia, Bermuda, Cambodia, China, Cuba, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Guatemala, Ireland, Jamaica, Soviet Georgia, Uganda

It may take 50 years, but eventually someone in a system that has gun registration uses this list to turn people into criminals, or disarm them and take away their rights.

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms
is the goal"--(Janet Reno)

""This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. The street will be safer, the police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future."--(Adolph Hitler)

Fuck, did I just Godwyn?

[Kar Kar]

This website offers comparison statistics between Canada and the US for gun related crimes and suggests that availability of firearms does influence their use in crimes.

Guns per capita: Canada .25 US .82 US/CAN 3.3x
Murders with Firearms: Canada 0.5 US 4.4 US/CAN 7.9x
Murders with Handguns: Canada 0.23 US 3.3 US/CAN 14.5x
Overall Homicide rate per 100,000 Canada 1.83 US 6.62 US/CAN 3.6x
% of homicides with firearms: Canada 27.3% US 66% US/CAN 2.4x

I really don't care how much you want to satisfy your kill boner at the range or shooting up things in your backyard. Guns simply don't prevent crime, they don't deter criminals, and they don't protect you.