Your right is not limited at all. You just have to wait 6 days to acquire the weapon. Not to mention all the other expansions of gun rights that you skipped over which i added would be well worth the trade. Secondly states with waiting periods have 51% fewer firearm suicides and 27% overall lower suicides than states that don't according to American Journal of Public Health. For example when South Dakota dropped its 48 hour waiting period in 2009 the states suicide rate jumped 7.5% in one year.
So then you are advocating lifting the restrictions on places like Chicago and California that ban guns then in order to streamline the process and have one law for all people in the country?
Yes. I have no issues with limitations on serious weaponry like grenade launchers, fully automatic guns (there definitely needs to be some sort of regs on modification systems that make semis into fulls), etc, but banning 'assault weapons' is a silly misdirection as many don't even understand what the concept is. A consistent law that covers the entire country would mean that people who haven't proven themselves won't be able to travel the country to the state with the laxest laws. One interesting note about Chicago (since you mentioned it) is that a couple of studies done show that the majority (60% is the cited figure) of guns confiscated by police come from surrounding states with laxer gun laws https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ome-from-out-of-state/?utm_term=.3ce00e29ddd0 (this says the study was by the City of Chicago and the dates taken are from 2013-2016) https://www.chicagocriminallawyerblog.net/2017/09/where-do-all-illegal-guns-from-chicago.html (this is a blog from a lawyer who specializes in Unlawful Use of a Weapon cases but does cite his sources at the bottom of the page) Also I'd recommend that all purchases require a background check (not just the ones from Federally Licensed Gun Dealers) with some possible exceptions (I know one of the bigger arguments against that is the desire to pass guns down through the family) to be worked on.
Even if you could do what you want the stater would ignore the law. It would be sanctuary cities all over again but now Gun safe cities and Gun free cities. As both sides take the Fed to court for over reach. But I have no issue with registration and background checks either.
Yeah, it's unfortunate but I understand that point. I definitely take issue with the Feds allowing such things to happen based on the whims of the current or past Administrations. Anyway, my ideas are generally based on what I think would help the most. Chances of it actually happening are slim-to-none. But thanks for the interest. I always enjoy having to elucidate on my thought process. Helps me define my ideals in a clearer manner Cheers
I love how you make a claim and then prove it wrong in the very next sentence. Post hoc fallacy. Try again. And so, I still await your answers: -How many people buy a gun for the purpose of suicide, and how many of them will only use a gun? -Why should people who already have guns also need to wait? I sell a gun to a stranger; l did not run a background check. Absent one of us talking, how does the state prove I violated the law?
It’s not a post hoc fallacy it’s clearly directly linked as illustrated by South Dakota. Do you even understand what a post hoc fallacy is? According to your number 50 percent of suicides are done by a firearms so that’s your answer. A six day waiting period is not violating your rights at all, and if you can’t wait six days for a gun you probably shouldn’t have one anyways.
You're arguing correlation = causation. Post hoc fallacy. Nonsense. In no way does this illustrate the number of people who buy a gun for the purpose of suicide, and how many of them will only use a gun. Try again. You said "Your right is not limited at all" A 6 day wait is, unarguably, a limit on a right. And so, I still await your answers: -How many people buy a gun for the purpose of suicide, and how many of them will only use a gun? -Why should people who already have guns also need to wait? I sell a gun to a stranger; l did not run a background check. Absent one of us talking, how does the state prove I violated the law?
1. Impossible to quantify without a gun-suicide expressly admitting to only buying the gun for the suicide. But a study has shown that a waiting period can help reduce suicides http://www.pnas.org/content/114/46/12162.full 2. I think that if you have proven to be a safe and responsible gun owner, then a reduced waiting period, up to not having to wait at all. 3. Most laws don't stop people who are dead set on breaking said laws. Their purpose is to entice people not to commit crimes, and to give the Judicial system something to use if/when someone is caught. So in your example, the state would have to find the gun, check the s/n, find the buy/sell chain and (hopefully) end up at you if the person you sold it to broke the law with it.
And thus, there's no demonstrable benefit, necessary to justify the restriction on the right in question. Post hoc fallacy. The stated objective of the waiting period is to reduce suicides. I already have a gun. What justification is there for force me to wait to exercise my rights? You don't understand the depth of the question. Absent the transfer of registration, how does the state prove I sold the gun after the requirement to run the background check?
He knows that he just doesn’t give a ****. You could give him national reciprocity, legal gun ownership of fully automatics and he would still want no wait period despite the fully verified and probable fact that wait periods absolutely reduce suicides. He calls in ad hoc, it’s clearly not. He is what gives gun owners a bad name.
Given your repeated refusal to meaningfully address the points put to you, I accept your concession of same, in toto.
Not entirely. As I said, if the statistical analysis can show an improvement (and i'll address your Post Hoc note below) in these areas, then a restriction can be justified. But more data is required. I never said it was an absolute, I noted that studies have shown to reduce suicides, expressly because for a lot of mentally ill people, the idea of suicide can be momentary. If a gun is freely available in that moment, then the chance of suicide goes up. If their is a waiting period then the chance of that passing increases. None of this is concrete, as I said above, more data is required. But neither does it make the idea moot. It's one of the objectives. If you already have a gun, then as I said, the reduction in time spent waiting can be addressed. What if you want to kill your wife/ex-wife because she kicked you out and all of your guns are inside the house that you can't enter? I do understand it. I also understand that your giving it a narrow view. To answer your specific question, they won't be able to 'Prove' (absent any evidence) you sold it. Hence the need to have transfer paperwork to go alongside the background check. Otherwise, the trail would end with you, and you will have to explain how the next individual who committed the crime ended up with Your gun.
"Not moot" is insufficient to justify the restriction on a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution.. No. It's the full, stated objective of the proposal I responded to. A "narrow view" in that the state has to prove a crime was actually committed, sure. And so, as I said, universal background checks requires universal registration. You apparently agree. Thank you. I don't have to explain anything - the state has to prove it.
No, but's more then enough to justify studying the issue further so that concrete numbers can be then used to decide either way. Cool. I didn't see the original post for this comment-chain. Well, for some gun crimes, it's not that difficult to prove. Person found dead, with 3 bullet wounds to back. Proving who did it is the fun part. Not necessarily. Doing a background check on a person is seperate from the registration of a gun. The point of a BG Check is to make sure the person you are selling to is allowed to have guns, doesn't have a criminal background etc..etc.. The gun registration notion is more to track a gun as it passes from person to person. The two aren't inexplicably linked. Yes. And usually part of that is to ask you questions. Not answering them, while constitutionally protected, tends to raise flags with the authorities, which only means they will spend more time digging into you and your life. Plus, and while I'm not sure about this so please take it as a Canadian who isn't very well versed in US Laws, you might open yourself up to obstruction of justice charges if the person you 'sold' the gun to uses it, they find the gun, end up at you and you don't tell them who you sold it to.
I dont't have any issue with studying it Roger that. Right.. but the point is, if the state cannot prove when the transfer took place - indeed. that the transfer took place at all - it cannot prove the law requiring a background check was broken. This goes back to my previous response - to prove I broke the law, the state has to prove I sold a particular gun, and I sold it after the law took effect. Without the record of when it passed from person to person -that is, registration - this is impossible.(assuming of course that one or both parties do not implicate themselves) That's all well and good - but I still don't have to explain anything. "How'd he get this gun?". "I don't know, officer -- how"? "I think you sold it to him illegally" {My lawyer] "Oh.. so you can't prove he sold it illegally. I guess we're done here" Worst case, I can plead the 5th. Point is, the only way I can be traced as the last legal owner is through registration.
Glad to hear. I think more work in this area needs to be done. Well, if they find the gun on that person, and you didn't report it stolen...... Yeah, one issue with gun control in general with the states is the shear magnitude of how many guns are actually posessed by the populace. It's staggering. Laws aren't designed to create slam-dunk cases. They are simply made to intimidate people into not committing crimes, and to be able to punish those they catch and can prove against. Or you purchased it from a Federal Dealer who will have the guns s/n and then it ended up in the hands of someone who committed a crime. Again, if it isn't reported stolen, and you have a withdrawl for a certain amount on a given day and the other person has the same amount deposited. People have been found guilty via circumstantial evidence before. But we are simply thinking of scenarios to argue against at this point. I understand your POV
Absent registration, how can the state prove he bought it from me? And so, a law that cannot be enforced is a law that will not be obeyed. Which proves only I bought the gun from the dealer, and nothing else. Thank you
What of those that do not have the luxury of waiting six days before they can legally take ownership of what is legally their property? What of those who need the firearm the day they purchase it, because they have been threatened with violence, or otherwise great bodily harm? The cited study is false. It utilizes words that show it is nothing more than guesswork and speculation, devoid of anything resembling scientific legitimacy.
This supposed study has already been addressed previously. It is loaded with words that indicate it is nothing more than guesswork and speculation, devoid of any scientific legitimacy.
Oh, how so? And if that isn't good enough, there are 3 studies here that show the same thing, 2 from the American Journal for Public Health, and 1 from ScienceDirect https://arcdigital.media/tougher-gun-laws-could-dramatically-reduce-suicide-rates-d15ca5730564 All showing that states with longer wait times have reduced suicide by gun levels then states with shorter/no wait times. Now, to be fair, these don't correlate with change in overall suicide rates unfortunately, as determined individuals will simply find another way. But these studies do show (and if you have any studies that show the opposite, i'd be glad to read them) that wait times do impact gun-related suicides in a positive way.
