×

Notice

The forum is in read only mode.
× Feel free to discuss any typical forums accepted topic here, Whateley or otherwise. Let's avoid the usual suspects: politics, religion, and so forth that tend to result in flame wars and angered forums readers. Other topics will be considered fair game unless they prove to be too volatile, at which point we'll use Devisor created anti-flame chemicals on the subject.

Question Vegas

7 years 6 months ago - 7 years 6 months ago #1 by E M Pisek
  • E M Pisek
  • E M Pisek's Avatar Topic Author


  • Posts: 1299

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 24 Apr 1960
    • For those that are in the Know or will Know shortly there has been another mass shooting. Keep those in Vegas in your prayers.

    As we all know, there will be all sorts of speculation in the coming days, weeks and months. There will be those that will subscribe to all sorts of theories, speculation an the book writing to make a buck. But most of all think of the victims and those that lost love ones.

    We all will have our own idea leading up to what happened and why. My only request is to just hug the one closest to you and keep those that lost loved ones in your prayers, for as it was said; They had families - husbands, wives, children, parents.

    :cry: :cry: :cry: For me, I'm tired. I'm tired of the senselessness of it all.
    What is - was. What was - is.
    Last Edit: 7 years 6 months ago by E M Pisek.
    7 years 6 months ago #2 by Anne
    • Anne
    • Anne's Avatar


  • Posts: 1411

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • This may sound a little political and if it does I don't mean to but in my experience you only have peace if the other guy is afraid to attack you. It matters not who makes him afraid to attack you, but if you are perceived as weak and unprotected, eventually someone will attack you. This is life experience from the designated whipping girl.
    Adopt my story: here
    Nowhereville discussion
    7 years 6 months ago #3 by Yolandria
    • Yolandria
    • Yolandria's Avatar


  • Posts: 595

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • Anne your very much correct. " Peace through superior firepower." Is a very true statement. But your always going to have crazies in the crowd no matter what. And here we go with the criminals in Washington going to try and pass another round of gun control. I can feel it already.
    Mistress of the shelter for lost and redeemable Woobies!
    7 years 6 months ago #4 by lighttech
    • lighttech
    • lighttech's Avatar


  • Posts: 584

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Yolandria wrote: Anne your very much correct. " Peace through superior firepower." Is a very true statement. But your always going to have crazies in the crowd no matter what. And here we go with the criminals in Washington going to try and pass another round of gun control. I can feel it already.


    Yep Gifford's did not even wait 12 hours and so did a few congressmen and Hilary of coarse.
    Part of the WA Drow clan/ collective
    Author of Vantier and Shadowsblade on Bigcloset
    7 years 6 months ago #5 by E!
    • E!
    • E!'s Avatar


  • Posts: 262

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • Sometimes the world needs a little more Mr. Rodgers.

    Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]
    Attachments:
    7 years 6 months ago #6 by E M Pisek
    • E M Pisek
    • E M Pisek's Avatar Topic Author


  • Posts: 1299

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 24 Apr 1960

    • lighttech wrote:

    Yolandria wrote: Anne your very much correct. " Peace through superior firepower." Is a very true statement. But your always going to have crazies in the crowd no matter what. And here we go with the criminals in Washington going to try and pass another round of gun control. I can feel it already.


    Yep Gifford's did not even wait 12 hours and so did a few congressmen and Hilary of coarse.


    Please, for this moment I would like for us to hold back and refrain from any sort of opinion, comment concerning who, what or why as for many this would become a political debate easily. My wish was to think of those that lost their lives needlessly and not to start any sort of political debate. Else, as I'm sure on what will happen if it were to continue as this thread will be locked, deleted or both.
    What is - was. What was - is.
    7 years 6 months ago #7 by Anne
    • Anne
    • Anne's Avatar


  • Posts: 1411

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • It was not and is not my intention to push this toward politics. There should be nothing political about mass murder. That means that anyone who is talking about gun control laws is politicizing the issue; (listening now to a tape of the fire [obviously automatic fire]) what new laws would have prevented this? I think that modifying semi-auto to auto is illegal as well... But as stated not the time to discuss any of this. Time to go to the blood bank and give blood, time to wait for the police to do their jobs. Time to grieve for the dead. Please, please, no more political discussion. No speculation on motive. Just terrible what happened. And if I'd been working I might have tried to be at that concert!
    Adopt my story: here
    Nowhereville discussion
    7 years 6 months ago #8 by annachie
    • annachie
    • annachie's Avatar


  • Posts: 597

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • I was going to make a crack about the wall to wall news coverage when we all know What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

    I was thinking of commenting on the weirdly guilty feeling that Port Arthur is now down to #3 and wondering if anybody from Florida felt similar about Orlando.

    But then someone had to shit post about politics and gun control.
    7 years 6 months ago - 7 years 6 months ago #9 by Phoenix Spiritus
    • Phoenix Spiritus
    • Phoenix Spiritus's Avatar


  • Posts: 2595

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 20 Jan 1976

    • Anne wrote: That means that anyone who is talking about gun control laws is politicizing the issue


    Sorry, I’m Australian and I truely don’t understand Americans and their hard-on for guns, but comments like this are an insult to people’s intelligence.

    Gun control isn’t a ‘socialital’ issue, poll after poll has said something like 80% of Americans are in favour of sane gun control measures.

    Gun control isn’t a ‘left’ versus ‘right’ issue, even polling people who self identify as supporters of right who own guns shows overwhelming support for laws to prevent people on the terrorist watch list from buying asult weapons!

    How the hell isnt this a political issue? How can it not be politicised? The only fucking problem is bought out politions only concerned where the next trough is coming from who don’t give a damn about the people they represent!

    Fucking politicised this to the heavens! How else it the fucking situation ever going to get fixed? If you don’t make the politions afraid that they’ll loose their gravey trains, they sure as hell aren’t going to listen to the ‘poeple’ when their friends with the money tell them to vote another way!

    Jesus Christ, nobody moans about requiring people to get licenses and pass medical exams to drive a car, nor about requiring them to be sober and fit when using them, and cars are necessary for peoples very survival, getting them to their jobs and giving them the ‘freedom’ Americans are always bleating in about! Why the fuck is it such a big issue to do the same with fucking guns?
    Last Edit: 7 years 6 months ago by Phoenix Spiritus.
    7 years 6 months ago #10 by lighttech
    • lighttech
    • lighttech's Avatar


  • Posts: 584

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Phoenix Spiritus wrote:

    Anne wrote:
    Jesus Christ, nobody moans about requiring people to get licenses and pass medical exams to drive a car, nor about requiring them to be sober and fit when using them, and cars are necessary for peoples very survival, getting them to their jobs and giving them the ‘freedom’ Americans are always bleating in about! Why the fuck is it such a big issue to do the same with fucking guns?


    I would tell you all of the reasons--but starting a S-storm on here is what K did not want?

    If you want some PM time fine by me??

    Part of the WA Drow clan/ collective
    Author of Vantier and Shadowsblade on Bigcloset
    7 years 6 months ago #11 by Bek D Corbin
    • Bek D Corbin
    • Bek D Corbin's Avatar


  • Posts: 849

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • I think that this sums up one of my feelings on not the Las Vegas shootings, but the Media reaction to it
    7 years 6 months ago #12 by E. E. Nalley
    • E. E. Nalley
    • E. E. Nalley's Avatar


  • Posts: 2005

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 10 Mar 1970

    • Phoenix Spiritus wrote:
    Gun control isn’t a ‘socialital’ issue, poll after poll has said something like 80% of Americans are in favour of sane gun control measures.


    Since you're not an American I will presume this question comes from ignorance, not from anger and so I will answer it accordingly. We HAVE 'sane' gun control measures. First we have laws, about forty THOUSAND of them concerning firearms, where they can be made, who can make them commercially, who can possess them, who can sell them, who can ship them, what F-ing parcel service they can use! Then we have back ground checks and if you buy a gun from someone in the business of selling guns for profit then you WILL go through a background check no matter where you buy it, on the internet, in his store or (despite what some folks would have you believe) at a gun show. And finally, if you want to legally own a machine gun you had better have a lot time on your hands, have never had so much as an impure THOUGHT and some very, VERY deep pockets. First you go through a back ground check THREE TIMES that is similar in scope to getting Top Secret Clearance. You give your permission to the BATFE to inspect your home or wherever you plan to keep the machine gun both with and without warning at ANY time. Then you pay a $200 tax, which is the easiest part of this process and then you haunt the auction sites.

    Because there is a finite number of machine guns you can own, and all of them had to be registered with the ATF on or before May of 1986 and since there IS a finite number of them they are HORRIFICALLY expensive. A crappy little Mac 10 will cost you about $10,000 assuming you win the auction. Want an M16? They run $25,000.

    Phoenix Spiritus wrote: Gun control isn’t a ‘left’ versus ‘right’ issue, even polling people who self identify as supporters of right who own guns shows overwhelming support for laws to prevent people on the terrorist watch list from buying asult weapons!


    No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.... Fifth Amendment, Constitution of the United States

    Phoenix Spiritus wrote: Jesus Christ, nobody moans about requiring people to get licenses and pass medical exams to drive a car, nor about requiring them to be sober and fit when using them, and cars are necessary for peoples very survival, getting them to their jobs and giving them the ‘freedom’ Americans are always bleating in about! Why the fuck is it such a big issue to do the same with fucking guns?


    See my previous post vis-a-vis license etc. You want a people obsessed with guns, pick the Swiss which require everyone to own and keep a machine gun in their homes and their crime rates...oh, wait... :rolleyes:

    More to the point until the laws of physics are repealed, guns will be used by bad people to do bad things. And by good people to do good things. This is why we hold the criminal to account, and not people of the same race, color, etc. Or, what tool they used.
    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
    Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791
    7 years 6 months ago #13 by null0trooper
    • null0trooper
    • null0trooper's Avatar


  • Posts: 3032

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 19 Oct 1964

    • Phoenix Spiritus wrote: Jesus Christ, nobody moans about requiring people to get licenses and pass medical exams to drive a car, nor about requiring them to be sober and fit when using them, and cars are necessary for peoples very survival, getting them to their jobs and giving them the ‘freedom’ Americans are always bleating in about! Why the fuck is it such a big issue to do the same with fucking guns?


    Perhaps in Australia a medical exam is required for a driver's license. That is not true for the U.S.

    Perhaps in Australia, no one ever drives unless they are "sober and fit", but I do doubt that. Although driving while impaired by alcohol or other drugs is illegal in the U.S., as it may be in Australia, that does not mean that in practice it never happens.
    Forum-posted ideas are freely adoptable.

    WhatIF Stories: Buy the Book

    Discussion Thread
    7 years 6 months ago #14 by annachie
    • annachie
    • annachie's Avatar


  • Posts: 597

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • Sorry EE, America doesn't.


    But it's not the laws, bad as they are, it's the attitudes as well.
    7 years 6 months ago #15 by Sir Lee
    • Sir Lee
    • Sir Lee's Avatar


  • Posts: 3113

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 08 Nov 1966
    • There's a lot in my mind regarding the subject that I'm dying to say, but... essentially, I don't think the Crystal Hall is the right forum for it. Me being from another country, one that struggles with our own violence problem (different in several important ways from the violence problem in the USA) only makes any point I make less welcome for both sides. So I'll shut up.
    Don't call me "Shirley." You will surely make me surly.
    7 years 6 months ago #16 by Kristin Darken
    • Kristin Darken
    • Kristin Darken's Avatar


  • Posts: 3898

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • One big problem is that many people feel that they are properly informed on the subject. Take E.E. for example. He is correct, there are laws and regulations and all sorts of things in place. He's also wrong. Because the laws and regulations are not consistent. A gun show in one state may not be permitted to sell without background checks. One in another state state may. Some internet sales sites are 100% on top of checks, some don't bother. Some laws and restrictions are federal, some state, some local. The information is gathered by the appropriate authority to gather it, but it is not shared with the ones that would enforce it. As a result, any time people try to discuss the issue; you run up against a brick wall of people who cite regulations and codes and refuse to consider that the people who are pointing out flaws and absences of protection are actually just as correct.

    Another big problem is that laws and regulations mean nothing if they are not enforced. How do you enforce a regulation on private possessions without being intrusive? Sure, its illegal for most people to have automatic weapons. That's already on the books most places. But how do we know who has automatic weapons? We don't. Who monitors that stuff? Well, up to a point it is watched... which is how we know when these big militias get out of control. But private individuals? It's not that hard to keep that sort of thing off the radar.

    And it doesn't help that no one actually discusses THAT side of things. The public is divided down the middle between "pry my fingers off my guns when my body is cold" and "how can we not have laws that protect us from this sort of thing happening." And those two sides are VERY different. They aren't even talking about the same sort of logic or solutions. Yet, everyone reacts as if these are fundamentally opposing concepts from which no one can budge an inch.

    What BOTH sides should be talking about... is the question "What do we do to be better about keeping someone from taking a dozen firearms into a public place and start shooting people with them?" Obviously, doing nothing is unacceptable. And while we might argue that more consistent regulations nationwide 'might' help... having regulations doesn't inherently stop something like this happening.

    For example... better health care, including mental health (as well as a change in societal perspective on preventative care in mental health just as much as in physical) could actually go further to solving America's gun problems than more gun regulations. Unfortunately, we seem to have just as much problem getting people on board with mental health as we do with any discussion of gun regs. The important thing is that we DO need to move forward with ideas that can give people hope and a sense of safety... because the "we aren't going to budge and allow any change at all" mentality of NRA is actually more likely to result in greater regulation/limitations than an open minded effort to guide the direction of changes in both mindset and laws around firearm ownership and use. They can take action now while they can lead it... or eventually we'll hit that proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. And the results of that won't be good for any of us.
    Fate guard you and grant you a Light to brighten your Way.
    7 years 6 months ago #17 by Anne
    • Anne
    • Anne's Avatar


  • Posts: 1411

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Kristin Darken wrote:
    For example... better health care, including mental health (as well as a change in societal perspective on preventative care in mental health just as much as in physical) could actually go further to solving America's gun problems than more gun regulations. Unfortunately, we seem to have just as much problem getting people on board with mental health as we do with any discussion of gun regs. The important thing is that we DO need to move forward with ideas that can give people hope and a sense of safety... because the "we aren't going to budge and allow any change at all" mentality of NRA is actually more likely to result in greater regulation/limitations than an open minded effort to guide the direction of changes in both mindset and laws around firearm ownership and use. They can take action now while they can lead it... or eventually we'll hit that proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. And the results of that won't be good for any of us.


    One of the big issues with mental health is that people are terrified to get treatment. Part of that is because the brain is such a 'black box' to us. we simply don't understand how it works and when it goes off line (or wonky) it scares everyone around us and the immediate higher primate reaction is to kill the scary thing (your neighbor whose brain is going wonky) So no one wants to admit to having issues with brain function because they understand at an almost instinctive level the fear that others have of them if they think that they may not have a brain that is functioning like the brains of everyone else. Not that all of us are not faking the bit about actually fitting into the monkey troop. But we definitely don't want to paint ourselves with pokadots of the wrong color. If everyone else is brown with yellow spots so to speak, we had best not be purple with brown spots and we will do almost anything to convince our neighbors that we love being brown with yellow spots even if it makes us sick. And it does!
    Adopt my story: here
    Nowhereville discussion
    7 years 6 months ago #18 by lighttech
    • lighttech
    • lighttech's Avatar


  • Posts: 584

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • Kristin Darken wrote: One big problem is that many people feel that they are properly informed on the subject. Take E.E. for example. He is correct, there are laws and regulations and all sorts of things in place. He's also wrong. Because the laws and regulations are not consistent. A gun show in one state may not be permitted to sell without background checks. One in another state state may. Some internet sales sites are 100% on top of checks, some don't bother. Some laws and restrictions are federal, some state, some local. The information is gathered by the appropriate authority to gather it, but it is not shared with the ones that would enforce it. As a result, any time people try to discuss the issue; you run up against a brick wall of people who cite regulations and codes and refuse to consider that the people who are pointing out flaws and absences of protection are actually just as correct.

    Another big problem is that laws and regulations mean nothing if they are not enforced. How do you enforce a regulation on private possessions without being intrusive? Sure, its illegal for most people to have automatic weapons. That's already on the books most places. But how do we know who has automatic weapons? We don't. Who monitors that stuff? Well, up to a point it is watched... which is how we know when these big militias get out of control. But private individuals? It's not that hard to keep that sort of thing off the radar.

    And it doesn't help that no one actually discusses THAT side of things. The public is divided down the middle between "pry my fingers off my guns when my body is cold" and "how can we not have laws that protect us from this sort of thing happening." And those two sides are VERY different. They aren't even talking about the same sort of logic or solutions. Yet, everyone reacts as if these are fundamentally opposing concepts from which no one can budge an inch.

    What BOTH sides should be talking about... is the question "What do we do to be better about keeping someone from taking a dozen firearms into a public place and start shooting people with them?" Obviously, doing nothing is unacceptable. And while we might argue that more consistent regulations nationwide 'might' help... having regulations doesn't inherently stop something like this happening.

    For example... better health care, including mental health (as well as a change in societal perspective on preventative care in mental health just as much as in physical) could actually go further to solving America's gun problems than more gun regulations. Unfortunately, we seem to have just as much problem getting people on board with mental health as we do with any discussion of gun regs. The important thing is that we DO need to move forward with ideas that can give people hope and a sense of safety... because the "we aren't going to budge and allow any change at all" mentality of NRA is actually more likely to result in greater regulation/limitations than an open minded effort to guide the direction of changes in both mindset and laws around firearm ownership and use. They can take action now while they can lead it... or eventually we'll hit that proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. And the results of that won't be good for any of us.


    Kristin, I might as a 2nd amd person be fine with all laws between states being the same?

    But when you see the other side (gun baners) sliding all over the map as to what they want and then actually making laws...and PASSING them in California. Ones that are not technicality possible or logical??? How can I sanely deal with anything they say???
    the example I am using is the California for now only "micro-stamping law" Look it up it does not work ..can't work ..will never work! But since it is on the books and 'law' no new guns can be added to the infamous 'safety' list of the cali DOJ (and the list is a whole other discussion!)

    that micro-stamping law is like saying --"cars must all fly by 2019 or no cars"

    when I hear a sane deal, I will listen and only if I believe that the 'deal' will stick and not get changed by some emotional person in a few years into something far worse.
    Part of the WA Drow clan/ collective
    Author of Vantier and Shadowsblade on Bigcloset
    7 years 6 months ago #19 by Valentine
    • Valentine
    • Valentine's Avatar


  • Posts: 3121

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: 17 Aug 1966

    • Bek D Corbin wrote: I think that this sums up one of my feelings on not the Las Vegas shootings, but the Media reaction to it


    I agree completely. Also I'd rather see a 44 min retrospective on the cop that helped a bunch of people to safety, or the man that covered two women he didn't know with his body to shield them, or the people who stayed and tried to save lives, than to hear .44 seconds on who the shooter is.

    If John 15:13 says "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." What does that say about the guy that tried to shield those women he had never met before?
    Don't Drick and Drive.
    7 years 6 months ago - 7 years 6 months ago #20 by annachie
    • annachie
    • annachie's Avatar


  • Posts: 597

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • My wife asked earlier, what happens to those 500 or so if they don't have insurance.

    Which kind of leads to the comment about mental health.

    Affording it. If you can't afford it then improvements in treating mean diddly squat, and generally those in need are the least able to afford it.


    Just learned, literally minutes after posting, that the mayor of Los Vegas has started a gofundme campaign for the victims.
    Last Edit: 7 years 6 months ago by annachie.
    7 years 6 months ago #21 by E. E. Nalley
    • E. E. Nalley
    • E. E. Nalley's Avatar


  • Posts: 2005

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 10 Mar 1970

    • Kristin Darken wrote: One big problem is that many people feel that they are properly informed on the subject. Take E.E. for example. He is correct, there are laws and regulations and all sorts of things in place. He's also wrong. Because the laws and regulations are not consistent. A gun show in one state may not be permitted to sell without background checks. One in another state state may. Some internet sales sites are 100% on top of checks, some don't bother. Some laws and restrictions are federal, some state, some local.


    Unfortunately, Kirstin, you are incorrect. It is a matter of federal law and thus the same in all fifty states: if you buy a gun on the internet it MUST be shipped to a Federal Firearms License Holder (IE someone who sells guns professionally) and before you take delivery they MUST preform a back ground check on you. Further, No FFL can sell a fire arm at a gun show in ANY state with running a background check on the purchaser. Failure to do so incurs fine of $10,000, a ten year prison term and permanent loss of their FFL.

    No one can buy a gun 'through the mail' or the internet and have it delivered to their door and that has been true since the Gun Control Act of 1968.
    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
    Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791
    7 years 6 months ago - 7 years 6 months ago #22 by MM2ss
    • MM2ss
    • MM2ss's Avatar


  • Posts: 291

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • They only area where background checks are inconsistent is when it involves two private parties from the same state. Some states still require a background check to transfer a firearm between two private parties while other states require the seller to take "reasonable precautions". The reason for that inconsistency is because it is a matter of intrastate commerce instead of interstate commerce, which removes it from federal jurisdiction. But even then you have to verify the person is a legal resident of the state and ask if they are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms.

    People like to mention things like "common sense gun laws". I collect weapons of all types, firearms included. I favor common sense rules and regulations, but what I view as reasonable may not match what some other person or group views as reasonable. I would not object to a requirement for every transfer, even between private parties to require a background check. I do not want to see convicted violent criminals allowed to purchase firearms. I do not want someone who is mentally unstable to have a firearm. That to me is "common sense". I disagree with requiring every firearm to be registered with the government (though some people/groups want that). I disagree with long waiting periods to purchase a firearm unless there is a reason (Background check can't be finished? Fine, I will wait. Background check was good but it is a "policy" to make people wait 3 or 7 days as in some states, not cool.)

    The problem with "common sense" gun laws is that people don't agree what is common sense and what is overly restrictive.
    Last Edit: 7 years 6 months ago by MM2ss.
    7 years 6 months ago #23 by annachie
    • annachie
    • annachie's Avatar


  • Posts: 597

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown

    • E. E. Nalley wrote:

    Kristin Darken wrote: One big problem is that many people feel that they are properly informed on the subject. Take E.E. for example. He is correct, there are laws and regulations and all sorts of things in place. He's also wrong. Because the laws and regulations are not consistent. A gun show in one state may not be permitted to sell without background checks. One in another state state may. Some internet sales sites are 100% on top of checks, some don't bother. Some laws and restrictions are federal, some state, some local.


    Unfortunately, Kirstin, you are incorrect. It is a matter of federal law and thus the same in all fifty states: if you buy a gun on the internet it MUST be shipped to a Federal Firearms License Holder (IE someone who sells guns professionally) and before you take delivery they MUST preform a back ground check on you. Further, No FFL can sell a fire arm at a gun show in ANY state with running a background check on the purchaser. Failure to do so incurs fine of $10,000, a ten year prison term and permanent loss of their FFL.

    No one can buy a gun 'through the mail' or the internet and have it delivered to their door and that has been true since the Gun Control Act of 1968.


    Unfortunately E.E, you are actually wrong.
    What you are saying is true, essentially of businesses. Not private sales that are within the state. Even if that sale takes place over the internet or via an auction site or forum.
    State laws apply and 32, or so, states don't require background checks in that situation.
    7 years 6 months ago #24 by E. E. Nalley
    • E. E. Nalley
    • E. E. Nalley's Avatar


  • Posts: 2005

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 10 Mar 1970

    • annachie wrote:
    Unfortunately E.E, you are actually wrong.
    What you are saying is true, essentially of businesses. Not private sales that are within the state. Even if that sale takes place over the internet or via an auction site or forum.
    State laws apply and 32, or so, states don't require background checks in that situation.


    Actually, Annachie, you are wrong.

    Any sale through an internet website that sells guns MUST be delivered to an FFL regardless of in or out of state.
    ANY sale through an auction website MUST be delivered to an FFL regardless of in or out of state. Any in person public auction of fire arms MUST be handled through an FFL who is required to preform a back ground check.

    If you are aware of any site, auction house, or other person which sells guns by some other means, I urge you to contact your regional BATFE office and report them. You can also do so anonymously via the ATF website at www.atf.gov/contact/atf-tips

    That said, these laws do not affect private sales of one citizen to another, nor can they. Such is beyond the scope of what law enforcement can enforce as we have seen with the on going efforts vis-a-vis the ongoing 'war on drugs'. THAT SAID any person who knowingly sells a firearm to a prohibited person is guilty of a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison. 18USC § 922(d).
    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
    Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791
    7 years 6 months ago - 7 years 6 months ago #25 by MM2ss
    • MM2ss
    • MM2ss's Avatar


  • Posts: 291

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • There are exceptions to the private transfer rules.

    On the mailing aspect. A private individual may only mail a long gun (shotgun or rifle) to a FFL or to a private person in their own state. You may not mail a handgun through the USPS. Some private carriers may allow you to do so.

    Automatic weapons... Even transfers between in state private individuals must be first approved by the ATF and the person selling the weapon must pay a $200 tax.

    There are other restrictions as well.

    Of greater interest to me is where the firearms used in crimes come from. Most are not from "straw purchases" or from private transfers between citizens of the same state. They are not buying them at stores, gun shows, via private transfers or even online...most don't even steal their guns. They get them from friends and family. Places where there is no paperwork at all. I have purchased over 30 firearms in my years of collecting, from both dealers and private persons. I have never had a transfer where I did not have to show my ID and sign an affidavit saying I was legally permitted to own a firearm at a minimum (private transfers).

    But these friends and family that are transferring firearms that are used in crimes? How many of them are doing any documentation? Do you write out a bill of sale when you give your old car to your 16 year old kid? No, you add them to the insurance and carry on. Do you write out a bill of sale when you give them that new smart phone you paid $500 for? No, you add their name to the plan and carry on... But if you sale that car to some guy from down the street, you get a bill of sale...

    Now, I mentioned I would be fine with every transfer requiring a background check. I stand by that. However, there is one HUGE weakness in the background check system. It only covers criminal background. That is a good start, but what about the mentally unbalanced? (differently rational, insane, whatever you want to call it) Why does the background not touch on mental health? Because organizations like the APA and ACP have made that one of their causes. I am not saying the background check response should say, "No sale, that guy is crazy", but rather, as with any other transfer with a check, "No sale" should be the response and the person can then contact the ATF to find the reason for the hold. Right now, the only way a mental health issue causes you to fail a background check is if you have been "adjudicated as mentally defective" which is a legal process, not a medical diagnoses.

    Lastly, let us recall something of an old saying... If gun laws prevent crime, we should make drunk driving illegal... Sometimes the answer is not more laws. Sometimes the best answer is fewer laws, that are clearly written and fully enforced. We need to disentangle the gun laws in the USA, make them clear to the public and then enforce them without exception. We do not need to make even more laws that will also be unenforced.
    Last Edit: 7 years 6 months ago by MM2ss.
    7 years 6 months ago #26 by E. E. Nalley
    • E. E. Nalley
    • E. E. Nalley's Avatar


  • Posts: 2005

  • Gender: Male
  • Birthdate: 10 Mar 1970
    • And on that note I think we call all agree with E M Pisek's hopes for a speedy recovery and solace to the victims of this horrible crime and am locking this thread so we can focus back on the purpose of this website.
    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
    Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791
    7 years 6 months ago #27 by elrodw
    • elrodw
    • elrodw's Avatar


  • Posts: 3263

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • One quick thought on the subject of guns.
    Of the laws being proposed in the aftermath, would ANY of them have stopped the Vegas shooter?

    The gun control laws I've heard being run out would not have stopped the Vegas shooter. Period and stop. So new laws (and we have thousands already on the books) would have made zero difference.

    A healthy attitude about government is to ask yourself that about ANY law proposed by ANY government in response to a problem. Would the new law, rule, or regulation have stopped or alleviated the situation? But then again, perhaps our foreign friends are more trusting in the benevolence of government that most of us Americans.
    Never give up, Never surrender! Captain Peter Quincy Taggert
    7 years 6 months ago #28 by Kristin Darken
    • Kristin Darken
    • Kristin Darken's Avatar


  • Posts: 3898

  • Gender: Unknown
  • Birthdate: Unknown
    • Hmm.. possibly, El... possibly. But you'll never know if you don't even allow the discussion and development of ideas to take place.
    Fate guard you and grant you a Light to brighten your Way.
    Moderators: WhateleyAdmin, Kristin Darken, E. E. Nalley, elrodw, Nagrij, MageOhki, Astrodragon, NeoMagus, Warren, Morpheus, Wasamon, sleethr, OtherEric, Bek D Corbin, MaLAguA, Souffle Girl, Phoenix Spiritus, Starwolf, DanZilla, Katie_Lyn, Maggie Finson, DrBender, JG, Bladedancer, Renae_Whateley
    Powered by Kunena Forum