Conceited CCW holders

1. You need to read and comprehend the reports and links, not just grab what is suited to your bias.

2. Kleck has published studies since 1997. The field has not remained stagnant.

3. With respect to Koch, if it results in inaccurate studies then its just as faulty as Bloomberg buying Johns Hopkins. There are differences, Johns Hopkins quickly became blatantly biased, the FSU economics dept has not demonstrated a bias so far. Bloomberg essentially bought the entire school for $350,000,000. Koch established a research position for $1,500,000, he did not buy the entire economics department. If Koch's funded scholar is biased, he is still just one of many in the department. You should read links before posting them and commenting on them.

4. The Australia data is quite clear. Crime went up significantly after the gun ban went into effect and it remains high. This is the change in crime (from the AUS crime reports) at the peak of the crime wave which started in 1996:


And in 2009





5.

It sounds so nice and harmless, but that's how banners work. They phrase a procedure in a harmless manner but use them as de fact bans. The problem is that when you have to ask for permission from an anti-gun official, the answer is always no. To the banner, there is never a good enough reason to own a firearm. Safety classes shift from "common sense" measures to encourage safe firearm use to expensive, time consuming, and inconvenient classes which discourage firearm ownership.

Australia doesn't have a "total" gun ban - and I never claimed it did. That's your red herring. AUS did ban the vast majority of firearms owned by the population.

 

If you're saying there should be rules pertaining to firearms passed down as inheritance following a family member's death, I'd agree.
This does not mean that background checks should not be performed uniformly in sales.

 

1) a family member performing a straw purchase is committing a crime. When criminals are found to have firearms, the straw purchaser should also be identified and charged. Once a straw purchaser has a criminal history, they would no longer be able to act as a straw purchaser if background checks were uniformly performed.
2) If criminal access to guns were limited to those they could steal or smuggle in (as opposed to today, where they basically have unlimited access) there would be a dramatic reduction in the number of armed criminals. If you want to talk about the need for safe storage to prevent guns from being easily stolen, we can also address that topic.

 

1) Did anyone say the family member bought it for the criminal?
2) Stealing is unlimited access.

BTW: The only reduction is access would be for law abiding citizens. You seem to think that banning guns would make them hard to get. Evidently you don't know anything about banning drugs. I really wonder about the simplicity of your kind of thinking.

 

Your reply has nothing to do with my question. Its a simple question. You seem to have the answers, why evade now? Try again:

Bob received a valuable handgun that was willed to him when his grandfather died. It has never been registered or recorded in any database. He wants to sell it to Jim, a supposed collector, whom he met via a classified ad.

Can you detail the process, under your proposal, by which these two individuals would transfer ownership of this firearm, and how it would prevent transfer to a criminal?

 

Ditto.

Then please feel free to produce one of those more recent studies.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing that the research department (where these studies come from) is the primary point of interest for the konservative Koch klan - but are you willfully choosing to ignore the fact that all new employees have to be approved by Koch? Depending on staff turnover (which is likely to increase with Koch-dictated study approval), doesn't that mean the majority of the department will be Koch stooges within a decade?

I'm still waiting for your explanation of why homicide (which is the only of these crimes that's directly linked to firearms) has dropped significantly. Clearly, the bulk of the increase is in "blackmail"... Please demonstrate how owning a firearm will prevent someone from blackmailing you.

I might overlook that slippery slope fallacy, but the fact that they currently have more legal firearms in circulation than they did prior to the legislation illustrates that this appeal to motive is pure paranoia.

Right, because constantly referring to a country's "gun ban" while failing to mention that they currently have more guns than they did before passing the legislation clearly isn't falsely implying that they have no access to guns...

 

Actually, what I did is agree that there should be a specific rule relating to inheritance (which has everything to do with your question). What this should look like, I have no firm views on and (unlike many know-it-alls) I'm open to suggestions.

Rationally discussing how these rare instances should be managed doesn't change what should happen with the bulk of transfers (weapon sales). I'm sure you're familiar with the term "Nirvana Fallacy"?

 

I'm not going to hold your hand and do your homework for you. Learn to use your computer (can you spell google?), spend the time to get educated.

Koch provided $1.5million spread over 6 years to fund ONE or TWO positions over a 6 year period. Koch had strings attached - just like many donors require the position to be filled by a minority, woman, expert in a sub-specialty (such as Medieval architecture or free market economics), etc - which required a 3 man university committee to select the hire considering various university criteria and Kock's criteria. That's a far, far cry from taking over or undermining the entire department.

Actually read the crime charts I posted. In typical banner fashion, the data proves you wrong, but in an attempt to distract from the facts you focus on the very low rate crime of blackmail and ignore the violent crimes.

 

So you are talking about firearms stolen from a family member seperate to firearms stolen from anyone else? Why? Stealing is a single issue.

Really? If you had to survive solely on the amount of food you could steal, or drive solely using gas you could steal, do you really believe there wouldn't be a dramatic change in the amount you eat or drive?

When did I say anything about banning guns?! Are guns somehow "banned" by licensed dealers because of background checks?

You keep misrepresenting my position and then disparaging "the simplicity" of thoughts you seem not to be comprehending in the first place! If you do understand that I'm not talking about banning guns, then your position is entirely fallacious as a strawman.

 

Inheritance has NOTHING to do with my question. The only reason I included inheritance at all was to establish that the firearm is legal but unregistered. The question is this: Bob has an undocumented firearm he wants to sell to Jim. How does this transaction happen? And what prevents Bob from selling his firearm to Jim if Jim is a criminal?

This is far from a rare scenario. There are tens of millions of unregistered firearms. They are changing hands every day in transactions just like this.

 

I see, so you want to make reference to recent studies, but expect me to go find evidence to support your position... That's pure onus probandi fallacy, which you've creatively incorporated into an ad hominem. Congrats (I suppose) on your skill at weaving logical fallacies when lacking any rational response.

Yup, preventing the research department of the university from hiring anyone that doesn't meet "your criteria" - and knocking back 60% of applicants that the university would otherwise have considered - certainly doesn't indicate a takeover of who is employed by the department that produces all academic research...

Your reference to anyone who disagrees with you as a "banner" (clearly an ad hominem fallacy) has been duly noted...
More to the point, I take it you would prefer to focus on "violent crimes" in the stats you provided like "sexual assault"?

That means that even making sexually suggestive comments to someone is "sexual assault" if they are made to feel uncomfortable... A bit different to the USA definition, eh?

As for why there was an increase in "sexual assault", perhaps the broadening of the definition in the 1990s (making more acts fall under this broad definition) would have something to do with it, eh?

By all means, remind me who needs to do their research?

 

Sure, now that you've moved the goalposts to something other than a firearm being part of an inheritance, this is a more frequent scenario.

You mean, other than the fact that your question provided the specific scenario of an inheritance?

And performing a background check on someone so you know whether they are legally able to purchase a firearm from you has nothing to do with that weapon being registered.
If you believe that most "lawful owners" will choose to sell a firearm to a criminal, then you don't believe they are lawful.

 

The FSU Economics Dept has 35 full time faculty members. At any one time, at most 2 of the 35 full time faculty are funded by Koch. FSU can hire 33 or 34 in any manner they choose, the remaining 1 or 2 have to meet Koch's requirements. You have no argument here, the FSU econ dept is in no danger of being taken over by Koch.

People can disagree with me on firearms and not be a "banner". There are actually some good researchers who support various forms of gun controls, but they are driven by data and are open to honest debate. A "banner" blindly supports gun controls with the ultimate aim of banning private ownership of firearms, frequently hates gun owners, and refuses to address the data or any item that contradicts the gun control agenda.

Yes, the old canard that "sexual assault" statistics in Australia are driven by men making cat-calls to women. Let me guess, the sexual assault stats went up so much after the gun ban because gun owners turned to sitting on the sidewalk whistling at women who then call the police and press charges. Grow up. Read the reports.

 

The ONLY way you will limit access is by banning guns. There is no way around that. You will not make guns any less easy for a criminal to get if you force law abiding citizens to jump through more hoops.

 

It is obvious you are being evasive and purposefully obtuse to avoid answering the question.

INHERITANCE HAS NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE TO DO WITH MY QUESTION. There is no moving of the goalpost. Go back and read it again.

The scenario is this: Bob wants to sell a legal but undocumented firearm to Jim, whom he met via a classified ad. How do they complete the transaction under your proposal?

 

Do you understand that as people leave (quit, retire, etc) they are to be replaced by Koch-approved members, right? That means that, depending on turnover (which may increase as objectivity goes out the window), they are set up to ensure an increasing percentage of faculty is made up of kochsuckers.

So now your assertion is that I have "the ultimate aim of banning private ownership of firearms".
Please point out a quote that supports that appeal to motive.

Really? You can claim that the number of reported crimes increasing around the same timeframe as gun control legislation was passed is evidence of causation, but when I point out that the definition of those crimes being broadened around the same timeframe must also be a factor, you claim I'm the one who "refuses to address the data or any item that contradicts" an agenda?!
Thanks again for more evidence that hypocrisy is a conservative trait.

 

That's a great bumper-sticker piece of rhetoric, but is totally counter-intuitive...
Would you knowingly sell a firearm to someone who is a criminal? Then why shouldn't you check whether a private buyer is a criminal?
Wouldn't fewer criminals being able to purchase firearms through private sales from otherwise law-abiding citizens automatically "limit access" by cutting off a source?

 

Do background checks without a backdoor gun registration and I would consider supporting it.

 

Obviously not since I did answer your question... It is obvious that you are being purposefully obtuse to avoid recognizing my answer.

Really?

I now get your question refers to the transfer between "Bob" and "Jim", as opposed to "grandfather" and "Bob".
Why would the gun's existance (or lack thereof) in a database make any difference to whether a background check can be performed on "Jim"?

 

You mean like we already do with licensed sellers? Isn't that exactly what I previously said?

 

Koch provides $1.5million spread over 6 years to fund a total of 8 man-years of researchers over that 6 year period. Thats slightly more than 1 person per year.

Yes, I assert that you have the ultimate aim of banning all firearms from Citizens. It is based on your numerous anti-gun comments (and no pro gun comments) which lead me to classify you as a "banner". It is irrelevant for you to claim otherwise, I won't believe you.

Doesn't work that way. Significant changes in crime definitions result in a step change in the trend and data, not a gradual buildup (or drop) of crimes. And when those changes do make a significant difference, then in post-change reports the pre-change data is corrected to reflect those changes so that trends can be accurately tracked. AUS has a national standard which does vary from state/territory standards but the national reports correct for those differences as well. Thats why if ( *IF* ) you read the actual reports you will sometimes find notations explaining why a particular historical data point has changed - but those changes are rare, not systematic, and small, and generally due to corrections from old reporting errors and simple typos.

Try again.

 

So glad to see someone else come to the same conclusion I have.

 

Nothing like more bureaucracy to make a lib happy. Who would pay for it?

 

I don't know what your proposal is, that is my question. I was just trying to give you enough background on the scenario to be able to answer the question. If a database is not necessary to your proposed solution, then you can ignore that aspect of the scenario. Why would you focus on an aspect of the scenario that is irrelevant to the proposed solution? Now can you stop evading, and answer the question? How would this undocumented firearm, under your proposal, be legally transferred from Bob to Jim?

 

If you're basically just asking how a private sale should take place, I'm suggesting it should resemble the current process for sales by licensed dealers.