A couple letters on the AWB

[goju]

Food for thought. Each letter puts a fine point on the divide that exists on this issue.




Hard Truths and Myths About Assault Weapons

Re "Bush's Obstructionism," editorial, Aug. 9:
To read that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert are obstructing the vote to renew the assault gun ban pierces me to the core, as a mother who witnessed my two young sons fall victim to a person shooting an assault gun as we sought to leave the park after signing up my 7-year-old for the Youth Winter Basketball League. He was fatally wounded, with bullets having penetrated his right eye, cheek and the center of his forehead. My younger son, 10 months old at the time, sustained bullet fragment wounds to the right side of his nose and his left eye. He survived to endure the removal of his lens and receive a "buttonhole" cornea transplant, taking anti-rejection medication on a daily basis, regular hours of patching his uninjured eye to maintain sight in the left one, and living in the absence of his big brother who loved him so dearly. In spite of what has been dealt him, he is an excellent student. He is now 7.

Tell me, President Bush, Sen. Frist and Rep. Hastert, is this your answer to my son, seven years later, in addressing the gun violence epidemic in our country, that you are now going to open the floodgates for the sale and manufacturing of the very type of weapons that took his brother's life and scarred him?

Rhonda Foster

Inglewood




I know how to get a 99.9% "yes" response on a question about gun control. You merely ask anybody "Are you in favor of a law that will keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals?" I also know a way to silence 100% of the lawmakers, activists and other believers in unicorns. You merely ask them, "Could you please define a law that will keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals?" The response would be universal silence, as there is not, never has been, nor ever will be such a law, and criminals do not obey laws.

Even the most ardent supporters of the assault gun ban admit that it has been totally ineffective, so why does The Times keep pushing the gun control myth?

Jerry Parsons

Long Beach


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-guns12aug12,1,3448388.story?coll=la-news-comment-letters

[MrBenchley]

1. Wow...

So the first letter gives a sane point of view, and in the second a gun nut is whining about the fact that the public doesn't want assault weapons on the street....

[gatlingforme]

13. An anti gun nut would say the same thing you did - only reverse

the semantics. So what is your point.?

[MrBenchley]

21. Gee, but the first letter doesn't contain

a bone-stupid argument and an outright lie...the second one has both....

As for my point...it's thuddingly obvious.

[iverglas]

2. you merely ask them

"Could you please define a law that will keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals?"

Then make the next question "could you please define a law* that will keep people from shoplifting?"
<*whatever "define a law" means ...>

[goju]

3. I think that was the point

Semantics aside, I think the writer was trying to put forth the idea that you cant keep criminals from being criminals, but you can get the poll responses you want.

[MrBenchley]

4. If that was the point...

It was about as idiotic and dishonest as everything else in the RKBA argumentarium...

[gatlingforme]

14. Good point, that is true

[MrBenchley]

16. High praise indeed....

[gatlingforme]

17. Get off my case.

[Vladimir]

6. "Define a law" is indeed beside the point

in this issue. The problem is in enforcement, not definition - after all you could define any law you want but unless there is a mechanism to enforce it, the law can't do a lot. To bastardise a RKBA monicker, "laws don't stop criminals, cops do".

PS Not that I am suggesting for a moment that the answer to America's gun crime is more cops on the street or even higher incarceration rates - that's a separate debate alltogether.

PPS (on edit) Well there is of course a problem of definition with the AWB too, but that problem could be easily fixed if the political will was there.

[Vladimir]

5. By the argument used in the

second letter, we should have no laws at all. Since criminals will break them. Which is ridiculous.

[MrBenchley]

7. Nonetheless that argument is common....

among the RKBA crowd...

[goju]

8. I didnt see that

Where did you find "that" assertion? Maybe I missed it :eyes:

[Vladimir]

9. It would seem so

"You merely ask them, "Could you please define a law that will keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals?" The response would be universal silence, as there is not, never has been, nor ever will be such a law, and criminals do not obey laws."

Th implication obviously being either that:

1) such a law would be impossible to work since criminals do not obey laws

2) gun crime specifically, as opposed to murder, rape, theft, fraud etc. is impossible to legislate against for some undefined reason.

Both arguments are equally inane. I was being kind by selecting the first interpretation...

[goju]

10. Oh, well that clears things up

:crazy:

By the argument used in the second letter, we should have no laws at all. Since criminals will break them. Which is ridiculous.

And you came to that conclusion by deriving "implications" from:

"Could you please define a law that will keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals?" The response would be universal silence, as there is not, never has been, nor ever will be such a law, and criminals do not obey laws."


Hmm, sounds to me like he was referring to gun laws in general, and the AWB specifically (if you read the rest of his post) Nothing in there about anarchy!

Further:

Th implication obviously being either that:

1) such a law would be impossible to work since criminals do not obey laws

2) gun crime specifically, as opposed to murder, rape, theft, fraud etc. is impossible to legislate against for some undefined reason.

Both arguments are equally inane. I was being kind by selecting the first interpretation...

1) Which law. Exactly what law are you referring to, since the poster obviously said no law ever existed, nor would?

AND criminals dont obey laws might have tripped you up there. Yes, No, Maybe?

2) I have NO idea what your intent was there, or where you found this "obvious implication". Reread the post twice, still cant find any assertion that gun crime "is impossible to legislate against for some undefined reason".

Its striking that you make no attempt at addressing the poster's actual conclusion ie, the AWB sympathizers are easily fooled, despite the pathetic performance of that law.

[Vladimir]

12. I could spend my time answering this

or I could refer you to iverglas' post below. I think I'll do the latter, and use the time saved to contemplate why, if criminals don't obey laws, I bother. ;)

[goju]

23. Good plan

[iverglas]

11. for someone so quick to ... uh ... extrapolate ...

... from what other people say, you just don't seem to get how it works, do you?

"Where did you find "that" assertion? Maybe I missed it"

Roll your eyes much more and you'll be seeing out your ears sideways, I'm afraid.

Now, here's what Vladimir said:

By the argument used in the second letter, we should have no laws at all. Since criminals will break them. Which is ridiculous.

Can I take it that the "assertion" you are referring to is we should have no laws at all since criminals will break them?

Now, can you point to where Vladimir claimed to have "found" that assertion in what you posted? or said anything that suggested that he thought he had "found" it there? I'm just not "seeing that", myself.

What I'm seeing is Vladimir examining the text that you posted:

You merely ask them, "Could you please define a law that will keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals?" The response would be universal silence, as there is not, never has been, nor ever will be such a law, and criminals do not obey laws.

and INFERRING the principle or premise that the speaker was applying in order to conclude that Could you please define a law that will keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals? is the appropriate question to be asking.

Vladimir concluded that the only reason that someone would ask that question would be if there are SOME laws that will keep criminals from doing SOME things, by enacting a legal prohibition on their doing those things and providing for them to be punished if they do.

Otherwise, it would make no more sense to ask this question in respect of criminals having guns than it would make to ask it in respect of ... oh, criminals shoplifting, as I was saying. And the reader just has to wonder why anyone would ask such a bizarre question about criminals having guns, unless s/he were also prepared to ask the same question about criminals doing anything else.

The question is obviously rhetorical and loaded, since plainly the only answer that the asker of the question regards as "correct" is "NONE". (Of course we know that the "correct" answer to a loaded question is "mu", but we get the point.)

So *unless* the asker of the question (or, hm, you?) can DISTINGUISH between laws intended to prevent criminals from having guns and laws intended to prevent criminals from doing anything else, we can only conclude that the speaker thinks that ALL laws intended to prevent criminals from doing ANYTHING are useless as deterrents to criminals doing it. And we can, for the sake of argument, agree. (I will add a proviso to this later.)

Now, the asker of the question might respond "yes, but once the criminals do those things and get caught, we can put them in prison". Well ... and without debating the merits of putting people in prison ... can't the same be said of laws about criminals having guns?

The thesis behind the loaded rhetorical question that you quoted was very obviously laws do not stop criminals from doing things. Just as Vladimir said.

The position obviously taken by the asker of that question was that laws should not be made to try to keep criminals from having dangerous guns, and the *stated* reasons for that position are (to paraphrase) "laws don't stop criminals from doing things" and "criminals do not obey laws". (We really need to infer another reason in order to understand why the speaker is even bothering to put pen to paper: there must be some reason not to make the laws, not just no reason to make them. But we don't need to guess at that for our purposes here.)

The obvious question to ask that asker is *therefore* why should laws be made to try to keep criminals from doing anything? If laws don't stop criminals from doing things, and criminals do not obey laws, what purpose is served by making laws?

And Vladimir and I and an awful lot of honest reasonable people would be expecting to hear that "universal silence", acknowledging that all laws are useless. As Vladimir said.

Now, for my proviso. The question asked wasn't actually Could you please define a law that will keep criminals from having dangerous guns?. It was Could you please define a law that will keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals?

And that really is a different kettle of fish. The asker of the question blew it. There may not be laws that keep criminals from doing things, but there are indeed laws that might keep things away from criminals. It really is possible to keep people from doing things by making it impossible for them to do them.

Those would be the laws aimed at NON-criminals, who can reasonably be expected to obey laws, even new ones imposing more onerous restrictions on them than they were previously subject to. People did obey that reduced speed limit down there, didn't they? It really didn't create a great big new class of scofflaws, people who just kept right on doing what had been perfectly legal -- driving at 60 or 65 mph -- until overnight it became illegal. And that's because the class of people the law was aimed at was NON-criminals.

So it is entirely reasonable to think that at least some laws aimed at NON-criminals will attract relatively high levels of compliance. Especially if there are reasonable expectations of getting caught, and appropriate costs associated with getting caught. (Most people, for instance, are quite wary about losing their driver's licences, so there was a good built-in incentive for obeying the new speed limit.)

Let's start at the top -- a law requiring everyone to turn over all his/her firearms to the authorities, and banning the sale of firearms. That would reduce the number of firearms to which criminals had potential access by a huge fraction. Well, we might not expect a high level of compliance, because a lot of people would regard the law as illegitimate, and think there was a really low probability of getting caught, and not be too worried about what might happen if they did.

But ... are large proportions of those people likely to sell their firearms on to the criminal market? There'd be big money to be made -- but then they wouldn't have their firearms anymore, and wouldn't be able to get another one. And if the firearm was used in a crime, and traced to them somehow (criminals do talk in return for deals), they'd be in bigger shit. I don't think a huge proportion of today's law-abiding gun owners would be doing this.

So if they keep their firearms, what then? What's the likelihood of getting caught? Pretty slim, you say. Well, yes -- as long as they don't actually start shooting them. That kind of thing tends to be audible for some distance. So unless they're shooting their guns in the middle of utterly nowhere, they're just keeping them under their beds and never using them. And in either case, we have a huge improvement on the current situation: firearms are taken out of circulation and not being used. Yay.

So, is it really and truly accurate to say there is not, never has been, nor ever will be a law that will keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals? I don't think so.

We might not like the law I hypothesized. (Can you please try to notice that I HYPOTHESIZED it, and I did NOT advocate it?) But there really is a whole lot of ground between "lots of guns everywhere" and "no guns anywhere", when it comes to what a law, or absence of a law, might aim for or achieve.

It's really a fairly simple exercise to look at where criminals get guns and come up with ways of preventing criminals from getting guns from those places. Some of those ways involve making laws that can be expected to be effective, because they target the law-abiding rather than the criminal.

That does not mean that every way that one comes up with will be desirable, or feasible. Or that opinion will be unanimous as to the desirability of any particular way.

It simply means that there are ways. A really obvious one is to require that all transfers of firearms be registered, and to prohibit the transfer of a firearm to anyone not licensed to own one.

And then the question kind of has to be asked of the asker of that original question:

Could you please explain why you are opposed to a law that CAN REASONABLY BE EXPECTED to REDUCE the number of firearms in the hands of criminals?

Now, if the asker of the original question had already agreed to the proposition that keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals was a GOOD objective, s/he would need to be doing some fancy dancing to get out of answering that one. It isn't rhetorical, and unless the person answering can effectively refute the proposition that there ARE laws that CAN reasonably be expected to reduce the number of firearms in the hands of criminals, it isn't loaded. It's just a tough and unpleasant question for anybody who prefers to just make bald and unsubstantiated assertions like there is not, never has been, nor ever will be a law that will keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals.

Care to dance?

[gatlingforme]

15. WOW, that was cool, can I do that? In any case, we all have points

and we all believe in something whether that be for or against guns, we all have opinions, the problem I have is why are people so sardonic about replying to someone's post if they disagree with that poster. ?

[iverglas]

18. yippy-i-o-ki-ay

We all have noses, and we all have toeses, and we all have the naughty bits, and the problem I have here is why people waste their time saying things that are such an utter and total waste of space, when we could all be talking about our noses and toeses and mm mmm our naughty bits instead.

[gatlingforme]

22. yeah sounds good.

[goju]

19. tango!

"Can I take it that the "assertion" you are referring to is we should have no laws at all since criminals will break them?"

Ok, sure. That was the assertion HE made, gleaned from the original letter, I presume.

"Now, can you point to where Vladimir claimed to have "found" that assertion in what you posted? or said anything that suggested that he thought he had "found" it there? I'm just not "seeing that", myself."

Sure, happy to help. "By the argument used in the second letter". I think that was it. Yep, that's what it was! Unless of course the phrase "by the argument" doesnt translate to "found" or "extracted" in your world.?!

"Vladimir concluded that the only reason that someone would ask that question would be if there are SOME laws that will keep criminals from doing SOME things, by enacting a legal prohibition on their doing those things and providing for them to be punished if they do."

....when in fact there are more than one "reasons" why someone would ask such a question, correct? Come on, dont play that game. You are better than that.

"Otherwise, it would make no more sense to ask this question in respect of criminals having guns than it would make to ask it in respect of ... oh, criminals shoplifting, as I was saying. And the reader just has to wonder why anyone would ask such a bizarre question about criminals having guns, unless s/he were also prepared to ask the same question about criminals doing anything else."

Apples, oranges...everywhere!! Of course it would make more sense, especially in light of the letter's conclusion/intent, ie the AWB sympathizers are still easily duped despite any real decreases in gun crime since inception. Gun crime has NOT been reduced by the AWB yet, 70+% of voters are still duped by the propaganda.

"The question is obviously rhetorical and loaded, since plainly the only answer that the asker of the question regards as "correct" is "NONE". (Of course we know that the "correct" answer to a loaded question is "mu", but we get the point.)"

Rhetorical? Loaded? Well, since you bring it up: "By the argument used in the second letter, we should have no laws at all. Since criminals will break them. Which is ridiculous." Ridiculous indeed! Dont know why he bothered writing it.

"So *unless* the asker of the question (or, hm, you?) can DISTINGUISH between laws intended to prevent criminals from having guns and laws intended to prevent criminals from doing anything else, we can only conclude that the speaker thinks that ALL laws intended to prevent criminals from doing ANYTHING are useless as deterrents to criminals doing it. And we can, for the sake of argument, agree. (I will add a proviso to this later.)"

WRROONGGG! Times up. Straw man award for the lady at table 6! How bout this, you aint foolin anyone with your nonsense by the way, the REASON the author asked the question was to highlight the idiocy of poll numbers concerning the AWB and his REAL question was, why the times continues pushing the gun control myth! Hello, did anyone read the letter besides me? Of course the question you referred to was loaded, same as his first question (which has been conveniently sidestepped by our "honest" constitutional controllers): Are you in favor of a law that will keep dangerous guns out of the hands of criminals?" Surely you will find SOMEONE who can answer that affirmatively, ya think? Nice try though.

Most of the rest of your post is simply red herring fertilizer you scattered around hoping it would nurture the original straw man you planted. Thats ok though, its good exercise for the ole melon, aint it? And it surely duped a few around here, pat yourself on the back!

But I would like to tackle this one:

"Could you please explain why you are opposed to a law that CAN REASONABLY BE EXPECTED to REDUCE the number of firearms in the hands of criminals?"

No, its not a loaded question, and it aint tough. Its just leading! Again, nice try. But my answer might be something like, I am opposed to your "law" for the same reasons you oppose the freedoms we are granted in our constitution.

Dance you say? This aint dancing, this is stumbling over fallen arguments just trying to find someone who can tango!

[MrBenchley]

20. Somebody tripped and fell

but it wasn't Iverglas...

[Vladimir]

24. So may I infer

from the following passage:

"No, its not a loaded question, and it aint tough. Its just leading! Again, nice try. But my answer might be something like, I am opposed to your "law" for the same reasons you oppose the freedoms we are granted in our constitution."

That you indeed oppose:

"a law that CAN REASONABLY BE EXPECTED to REDUCE the number of firearms in the hands of criminals"

Law abaiding citizen opposes law to keep guns away from criminals - You hear it here first.

[MrBenchley]

25. You will notice gun industry profits

are a sacred trust to "pro gun democrats"--nothing that might impact them negatively may ever be discussed....

[Vladimir]

26. One is forced to draw the conclusion

that they would rather everyone had a gun, criminals and them alike. They tried that once, I believe it was called the Wild West. Can't imagine why society moved on though...

[MrBenchley]

27. That does seem to be what they consider an ideal...

And it's working out so well in Somalia, too.....

[iverglas]

29. yuppers

Law abaiding citizen opposes law to keep guns away from criminals - You hear it here first.

Exhibit 1, eh?

[goju]

30. No

what you may infer, from my statement, is that leading questions can be easily refuted by pointing out the absurdity in suggesting an answer "within" the question. I chose to do that by making an equally (or less so, considering the poster) absurd statement.

For the record, I would support "a law that CAN REASONABLY BE EXPECTED to REDUCE the number of firearms in the hands of criminals".... I just dont see the AWB meeting that standard.

[Vladimir]

31. Glad we cleared that up

Do you believe that any law could meet that standard? And if not, how do you explain that European countries all have much lower rates of gun crime than the US? If you do, do you not agree that it would be prudent to pass such a law as an ammendment to the AWB as opposed to making a big show of dismantling the AWB?

[slackmaster]

33. I believe that standard can be met

A couple of ideas, stated briefly because I have little time:

- Enforce all of the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Specifically, prosecute more of the hundreds of thousands of people who fail the National Instant Check System background check every year. By the time NICS declares you persona non grata you have already put your signature on a paper form affirming that you are not a member of any of the categories of prohibited people (convicted felons, etc.) IOW you have committed perjury. The law specifies that you can get 5 years in Club Fed for making a false statement on that form, but less than 2% of people who COULD be prosecuted actually are.

- Make NICS available for private-party transfers of used firearms. Right now individuals are prohibited by law from using it even if they wanted to. Motivating people to use it is another subject (carrots and/or sticks may be needed).

- Fix the known deficiencies in the NICS database, e.g. missing records of mental health adjudications, violent misdemeanor convictions, and domestic violence restraining orders.

The laws already in place could be putting a lot more known violent criminals in jail. That would keep guns out of their hands.

QED

[goju]

35. How

How would you make NICS mandatory for private party transfers. I know you said making it "available", but without making it mandatory, who would go through the hassle?

I ask because it begs the question of private transfers becoming illegal without NICS.

[slackmaster]

38. I don't believe FedGov has the power to make it mandatory

I didn't say it would be mandatory, and I believe it need not be.

Briefly once again,

Carrot:

Make use of NICS for a private-party transfer a definitive defense against a charge of transferring a firearm to a prohibited person, if the buyer came up clean on the check and it turns out he or she was in fact prohibited from having a gun.

Stick:

If you elect not to use NICS for a gun sale and it turns out you sold to a convicted felon or whatever, you can and will be charged with providing a gun to a prohibited person in the event that person gets caught with a gun and prosecuted.

Benefits:

- No need for a Constitutional amendment giving the federal government control over intrastate disposition of private, personal property;

- If you transfer a gun to someone you trust e.g. your brother, wife, child, personal friend, etc. you can safely blow off the background check to the extent your trust in that person is justified.

Drawbacks:

Only one AFAIK - People who are hell-bent on national gun registration and banning guns in general always cough up hairballs when they read my proposal. Senator Feinstein has yet to respond to me, even though I identified specific changes that would have to be made to the US Code. (Unfortumately like most replies from DiFi all I've received are extemperaneous form letters about "gun safety" with no sign that a human actually read and understood what I sent.)

The biggest problem with proposals for a comprehensive, mandatory federal gun registry is that their proponents always want to skip the necessary groundwork, i.e. granting the feds the power to regulate private property. Their simplistic ideas invariably deal in 1s and 10s and turn a blind eye to the 100s and 1000s.

On further reflection:

I've passed this idea by hardcore pro-RKBA folks and gotten gas for it too, therefore it must be a moderate postion. :D

An attorney said the fact that it would be possible to check the background of a prospective buyer would render invalid any claim that you had no way of knowing you were selling to a prohibited person. Sale of a gun would no longer be an "arm's-length" transaction. I think that's a valid concern but most of us who own guns sincerely don't want them falling into the hands of dangerous criminals. If you provide a way for us to check up on buyers without much inconvenience and give use of the system some positive payback, some people would use it.

Here in California all private sales must go through licensed dealers, ergo a background check and 10-day wait on every legal sale of a used firearm. It's a hassle, it costs money (background check fee plus whatever the dealer wants to charge), but those of us who wish to abide by the law grin and bear it. The California system would be considered extreme and invasive in a bunch of states where a lot of voters live. An optional system, if designed properly, could make a difference while respecting the wishes of people who want their privacy.

[iverglas]

40. remember mens rea?

If you elect not to use NICS for a gun sale and it turns out you sold to a convicted felon or whatever, you can and will be charged with providing a gun to a prohibited person in the event that person gets caught with a gun and prosecuted

You're proposing an absolute liability standard, are you?

Normally, people may only be convicted of crimes where they had the requisite intent to commit them. In this case, that would involve something like knowing or having reason to believe that the purchaser had been convicted of a felony offence.

A person who had no reason at all to believe that the nice person who answered his/her classified ad had been convicted of a felony offence, and simply elected not to request a background check, would appear to have had no intent, even of the negligence variety, to commit an act that was a criminal offence.

Here's an example of the kind of thing you'd have to be looking at:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/e-14/sec88.2.html
- the Excise Act of Canada
(I've always loved that "horse, vehicle, vessel or other appliance" ...) If you lend or rent a car to someone and s/he uses it to, say, smuggle cigarettes into the country, you lose your car *unless* you satisfy a judge that you shouldn't.

88.2 (1) Where a horse, vehicle, vessel or other appliance has been seized as forfeited under this Act, any person, other than the person accused of an offence resulting in the seizure or person in whose possession the horse, vehicle, vessel or other appliance was seized, who claims an interest in the horse, vehicle, vessel or other appliance as owner, mortgagee, or holder of a lien or other like interest may, within thirty days after the seizure, apply to any judge of any superior court of a province or to a judge of the Federal Court for an order declaring the claimant's interest.

(2) Where, after such notice to the Minister as the judge referred to in subsection (1) may require, it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the judge

(a) that the claimant is innocent of any complicity in the offence resulting in the seizure or of any collusion with the offender in relation thereto, and

(b) that the claimant exercised all reasonable care in respect of the person permitted to obtain the possession of the horse, vehicle, vessel or other appliance to satisfy the claimant that it was not likely to be used contrary to this Act or, if a mortgagee or holder of a lien or other like interest, that before becoming the mortgagee or holder of the lien or other interest the claimant exercised such care with respect to the mortgagor or person from whom the lien or interest was acquired,

the claimant is entitled to an order that the claimant's interest is not affected by the seizure.

The Federal Court here has held that reasonable care means, pretty much at a minimum, expressly asking your cousin whether s/he plans to use your car, which s/he says is being borrowed to move furniture, to move cigarettes across the Canada-US border instead. There is a positive onus placed on people who lend or rent cars to other people to satisfy themselves of something first.

In the case of a stranger about whom one knows nothing, and where the issue is not what s/he is planning to do, but what s/he has done in the past -- i.e. there is a question of fact, not a question of prediction -- I can't think of how any duty of reasonable care could be met, in most circumstances, otherwise than by consulting the NICS system in the US.

And in the Excise Act situation, which does allow for an adverse finding without any evidence of "intent" at all, no criminal proceedings are involved. The matter is purely one of forfeiture. There just aren't a lot of criminal, or even quasi-criminal, offences for which failure to take active steps to investigate something that did not appear to require investigating would found a conviction. The standard that must be met for forfeiture in such cases would never ever pass constitutional muster as the standard for obtaining a criminal conviction -- here. It amounts to a rebuttable presumption of guilt, and that's generally a no-non.

Essentially, from what I could tell, it would be virtually impossible to convict a firearms seller under your proposal unless (and unless it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that) s/he had sold a firearm to someone who had actually said "Hey, nice gun; just what I need for robbing that bank" when s/he came around to buy it.

That's the formal problem. The practical problem lies in the simple fact your proposal leaves too much space and too many contingencies between the crime and the punishment -- like how punishment is only a possibility if the other party to the deal actually gets caught using the gun illegally. That kind of remote punishment possibility just isn't a great deterrent, if any punishment possibility ever is.

In this instance, the plain law-abiding nature of the people targeted by the law is a better incentive for obeying the law than the risk/threat of punishment for breaking the law. But if there ain't a law, then the incentive ain't there.

An attorney said the fact that it would be possible to check the background of a prospective buyer would render invalid any claim that you had no way of knowing you were selling to a prohibited person.

So I give up (although I really don't agree). Why not just make it a requirement by law?

But I still can't imagine that a law that required someone to prove that s/he "had no way of knowing" something would meet due process requirements. It really is a presumption of guilt, and reverse-onus offences, while not absolutely unheard of, require some pretty good constitutional law tapdancing.

<M>ost of us who own guns sincerely don't want them falling into the hands of dangerous criminals. Here in California all private sales must go through licensed dealers, ergo a background check and 10-day wait on every legal sale of a used firearm. It's a hassle, it costs money (background check fee plus whatever the dealer wants to charge), but those of us who wish to abide by the law grin and bear it ... .

There you go; now you can be my Exhibit 2.

People who are genuinely "law-abiding" abide by the law. And those are the people it is actually worth targeting in any effort to stop firearms getting from law-abiding transferor to non-law-abiding transferee.

I've passed this idea by hardcore pro-RKBA folks and gotten gas for it too, therefore it must be a moderate postion.

Indeed. And as it stands -- without a *requirement* that the background check be done (and, of course, a record of the sale kept by a public authority, else what would be the point) -- it would be virtually entirely ineffective for its stated purpose.

Just one more illustration of the mythical nature of the "centre". "Moderate", to me, generally means "trying to make it look like we're compromising by doing something we don't really want to do, when in point of fact nothing will change at all".

I'm not saying that your heart might not be a little to the good side of centre; I'm just saying that your proposal is

- unworkable because of the due-process type problems, and

- insufficiently effective because of the lack of any serious incentive to obey / disincentive to disobey.


The biggest problem with proposals for a comprehensive, mandatory federal gun registry is that their proponents always want to skip the necessary groundwork, i.e. granting the feds the power to regulate private property.

Well hey ... maybe they could tag it onto that recent bit of rot in which the US fed govt purported to exercise jurisdiction over who is allowed to carry concealed firearms in the various states. Anybody who didn't object to that obvious constitutional nonsense would look pretty silly objecting to the other.

[slackmaster]

44. One More Time With Feeling

So I give up (although I really don't agree). Why not just make it a requirement by law?

Because, IMO and IANAL and all that, the US federal government lacks the Constitutional authority to make it a requirement. All current federal gun laws are based on the interstate commerce clause. That authority has been stretched nearly to the breaking point already, by covering some activities that are neither interstate nor commerce. The Constitution and its amendments specify everything the federal government CAN do. Amendments IX and X explicitly state that rights and powers not explicitly granted to the federal government belong to the states or to the people. Among those is the right to privately give or sell your used personal property to another individual who resides in the same state.

Just read the bills that would "close the gun-show loophole". Every one contains a lame attempt to justify itself as addressing activities that might "reasonably" be assumed to include interstate commerce - a "gun show" is invariably defined as an event with a minimum number of vendors and a minimum number of guns. One could ask a question parallel to yours: Why don't they just set both numbers at one (1) and be done with it, IOW every private-party transfer would qualify as a "gun show"? Clearly the authors know such a law would not pass a federal court challenge.

Fudd's First Law of Opposition - "If you push something hard enough it will fall over."

Well hey ... maybe they could tag it onto that recent bit of rot in which the US fed govt purported to exercise jurisdiction over who is allowed to carry concealed firearms in the various states. Anybody who didn't object to that obvious constitutional nonsense would look pretty silly objecting to the other.

I agree that is a violation of states' rights (although personally I don't care); I'm more concerned about the blatant political pandering to police unions.

[iverglas]

45. but I sang the chorus!

That adding a stanza to the cop/concealed firearms bill part. ;)

I was speaking more philosophically than technically when I asked "why not". This is a problem that does not exist where I'm at, since criminal law is a head of federal jurisdiction here -- and the Supreme Court of Canada has expressly held that firearms regulation falls under that head.

I really do recognize that this is a barrier, in the US, to a lot of things *I* would consider reasonable and necessary, but you'll have to forgive me if occasionally such things slip my mind.

So I guess my question might better be framed as Why not just make it a requirement by state law and aim for relative uniformity across states?

But apart from my solution being utopian when applied to the US because of the division of powers situation, I wonder about your response to the rest of what I said. If we posited state laws, there would be the additional problem of the ineffectiveness of one jurisdiction's efforts to regulate things within its boundaries when those efforts can be largely obviated by the lack of efforts outside those boundaries. But the other problems would be common to both state and federal regulation:

- without a statutory requirement that a background check be done, it would (in my submission) be virtually impossible to convict anyone for improperly transferring a firearm, since this would require a presumption of guilt;

- without a statutory requirement that a background check be done, the disincentive for law-abiding persons to transfer firearms without a background check would be inadequate to deter many of them from doing so.



Just in case you're interested (not as being relevant to you or as being my recommendation for a constitutional amendment or anything ... although I have to say that the idea of different bits of a country having different criminal law just seems weird to me ;) ):

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2000/vol1/html/2000scr1_0783.html

The Firearms Act constitutes a valid exercise of Parliament's jurisdiction over criminal law. The Act in "pith and substance" is directed to enhancing public safety by controlling access to firearms. Its purpose is to deter the misuse of firearms, control those given access to guns, and control specific types of weapons. It is aimed at a number of "mischiefs", including the illegal trade in guns, both within Canada and across the border with the United States, and the link between guns and violent crime, suicide, and accidental deaths. The purpose of the Firearms Act conforms with the historical public safety focus of all gun control laws. The changes introduced by the Act represent a limited expansion of the pre-existing gun control legislation. The effects of the Act also suggest that its essence is the promotion of public safety. The criteria for acquiring a licence are concerned with safety. Criminal record checks and background investigations are designed to keep guns out of the hands of those incapable of using them safely. Safety courses ensure that gun owners are qualified.

The Firearms Act possesses all three criteria required for a criminal law. Gun control has traditionally been considered valid criminal law because guns are dangerous and pose a risk to public safety. The regulation of guns as dangerous products is a valid purpose within the criminal law power. That purpose is connected to prohibitions backed by penalties.

[goju]

34. Indeed

"Do you believe that any law could meet that standard?"

Yes, I do. But it depends on the law. Remember that reducing gun crime must focus on the criminals, not the guns. If guns were the problem, 20,000 gun laws should have solved it by now. We dont need gun control, we need crime control. Toward that end, I think we could indeed enact legislation that would reasonably reduce gun crime through prisoner rehabilitation, drug and alcohol counseling, legalizing drugs, and various social services geared toward keeping people out of poverty and gainfully employed.

"And if not, how do you explain that European countries all have much lower rates of gun crime than the US? If you do, do you not agree that it would be prudent to pass such a law as an ammendment to the AWB as opposed to making a big show of dismantling the AWB?"

European countries with the most intrusive gun control are seeing yearly increases in crime and violent crime. Urban population density, organized crime, gangs, drugs, substance abuse... those are the factors that, in the US, FAR exceed other countries. That is the causal relationship we should be looking at. Its also interesting to not that some European countries, having a higher per capita gun ownership rate, have LOWER, gun crime.

I do not agree that passing a law regulating the "tools" of violence will have any effect on violence itself. Look at prisons for wisdom. No weapons allowed yet, they always seem to manufacture the tool and always seem to have the motivation to committ violence. I wonder why? Drugs, gangs, substance abuse......

[Vladimir]

36. OK bear with me

I sense we are about to have an intelligent discussion...

Imagine a country with no gun laws at all. A criminal can acquire a weapon from a store, a private sale, anywhere they like. Now what happens if instant background checks are introduced? Well, the first time criminal with a clean record still has no problems. But any convicts are going to find their gun suppliers reduced. They can still buy it from private persons, but not from mainstream stores anymore. Hence, it becomes more difficult for them to get a gun. No impossible but harder. Next, consider if one slaps a waiting period on as well. Then the criminal, if they need the gun urgently, is required to go private or buy illegaly. Once again, their job is made more difficult. Ultimately, of course, if they really want a gun they will get one. But by reducing the market and increasing the risks and costs to them of getting a gun, you will reduce the number of criminals in posession of one.

Of course then one can have an argument over where the line is drawn, and I have not even begun to address the issue that a lot of gun crime and gun related accidents involve legal guns and normally law-abiding owners. And I will heartily agree with you, that rehabilitation, education, and so on are extremely important elements in fighting crime. But so is, IMO, legislating to make it harder for a criminal to get a gun.

[goju]

37. Almost there

I was right with you until:

"Ultimately, of course, if they really want a gun they will get one. But by reducing the market and increasing the risks and costs to them of getting a gun, you will reduce the number of criminals in posession of one."


Allow me to reverse the order of those sentences:

But by reducing the market and increasing the risks and costs to them of getting a gun, you will reduce the number of criminals in posession of one. Ultimately, of course, if they really want a gun they will get one.

You see where Im headed?

I think you are right that making it more difficult for criminals to acquire guns SHOULD be an objective in crime control. But it shouldnt be the END of the discussion. And, Im just not sure that we are currently headed down the right path. You cited waiting periods and background checks which have proven minimally effective, but HAVE made it more difficult to buy weapons (criminal or not). The problem is, we are still not addressing the real issue.

The tools are not the problem. Its the violence in our society that we should be focused on. Naturally, any step we make toward preventing "criminals" from acquiring guns will be met with approval from all sides. But that is simply treating the symptoms, not the disease.

Effective gun laws?....Im all ears and fully supportive. But throwing money at the problem or needlessly saddling law abiding citizens with conditional ownership or some other scheme invented by the gun control crowd just wont fly.

[Vladimir]

42. I do see

As a prelude, I remember hearing a lecture about a study done with drug addicts once (i think heroin), where the cost and risk of obtaining their habit was increased and their consumption measured. After a certain point, the addicts stopped buying, because they couldn't afford it (and by afford I mean that the risk/cost of getting hold of the money became too high)! So maybe I was too pessimistic when I said:

"Ultimately, of course, if they really want a gun they will get one."

I will look up a reference on this issue if I can for you. Anyhow...

I do agree that merely tightening gun control, while adressing none of the other issues, is an incomplete way of dealing with the problem. But on the other hand, a criminal with a gun and one without are two different animals - I would rather have ten gunless criminals than one armed with a pistol, in the same way that I would rather be mugged ten times than shot once. Well, ok, actually I would rather neither. And to that end, any effective gun control must be backed up by the things you have talked about. But just because its only part of the solution does not mean that one should disregard it completely.

Of course, the issue isn't only gun control for criminals, its also gun control for law abiding gun owners. And statistically, you are more likely to be the victim of crime perpetrated by your family and friends as opposed to an unknown third party, so its not a point that should be forgotten. But that is getting off the topic of the AWB...

[iverglas]

41. now here, we have a dog's breakfast

If guns were the problem, 20,000 gun laws should have solved it by now.

Once again: funny. Aren't those the laws that we are always being told would solve all your problems if they were only enforced? Aren't they the laws that criminals don't obey, but could somehow be expected to obey if some of the criminals were tossed in the clink for 400 lifetimes?

Exhibit 1, folks; shows himself up again.

Remember that reducing gun crime must focus on the criminals, not the guns.

You can "remember" that if you like. I'll just remember that it's balderdash, if it's all the same to you.

Which would I rather have ...

- criminals without guns, or
- criminals with guns

?

Hmm. Criminals without guns, criminals with guns. Criminals without guns, criminals with guns ...

[iverglas]

28. take a course

"Could you please explain why you are opposed to a law that CAN REASONABLY BE EXPECTED to REDUCE the number of firearms in the hands of criminals?"

No, its not a loaded question, and it aint tough. Its just leading!

Here's a leading question for you now:

On the night of September 29, at about 8:00 p.m., were you on your way home from the drycleaners and did you notice the two short men hanging around the bus stop looking at the old lady on the bench clutching her purse?

A leading question is a statement with a question mark, to which the answer will most often be "yes" or "no". An open-ended question asking for a statement that is not contained in or suggested by the question just ain't a leading question.

Now, you know a funny thing?

I mean, apart from the hilarity of you tossing such a smelly fish into the ring anyhow, since it is of the most supreme irrelevance here.

The funny thing is that in legal proceedings, parties are quite free to ask the other side leading questions. In fact, it's an excellent tactic. Compound leading questions with double negatives are especially splendid.

Here ya go (google offers this up but without a working link, for "leading question" definition):

A question which suggests an answer; usually answerable by "yes" or "no". For example: "Did you see David at 3 p.m.?" These are forbidden to ensure that the witness is not coached by their lawyer through his or her testimony. The proper form would be: "At what time did you see David?" Leading questions are only acceptable in cross-examination or where a witness is declared hostile.

Damn, I'm good.

What parties may not do is ask leading questions of themselves and their own witnesses. Are you a witness for my cause?

Well, funny I should ask. Can I just call you "Exhibit 1" now?


But my answer might be something like, I am opposed to your "law" for the same reasons you oppose the freedoms we are granted in our constitution.

You oppose the potential law, about which you were told nothing, because "mu". I see.

Exhibit 1, ladies and gentlemen.

[goju]

32. been there, done that. You?

"Could you please explain why you are opposed to a law that CAN REASONABLY BE EXPECTED to REDUCE the number of firearms in the hands of criminals?"

No, its not a loaded question, and it aint tough. Its just leading!

Here's a leading question for you now:

On the night of September 29, at about 8:00 p.m., were you on your way home from the drycleaners and did you notice the two short men hanging around the bus stop looking at the old lady on the bench clutching her purse?

A leading question is a statement with a question mark, to which the answer will most often be "yes" or "no". An open-ended question asking for a statement that is not contained in or suggested by the question just ain't a leading question.

Now, you know a funny thing?

I mean, apart from the hilarity of you tossing such a smelly fish into the ring anyhow, since it is of the most supreme irrelevance here.

The funny thing is that in legal proceedings, parties are quite free to ask the other side leading questions. In fact, it's an excellent tactic. Compound leading questions with double negatives are especially splendid.

Here ya go (google offers this up but without a working link, for "leading question" definition):



A question which suggests an answer; usually answerable by "yes" or "no". For example: "Did you see David at 3 p.m.?" These are forbidden to ensure that the witness is not coached by their lawyer through his or her testimony. The proper form would be: "At what time did you see David?" Leading questions are only acceptable in cross-examination or where a witness is declared hostile.
Damn, I'm good.

What parties may not do is ask leading questions of themselves and their own witnesses. Are you a witness for my cause?

Interesting. You refute that it was a leading question, then went on to justify your use of a leading question, with examples and references even! Hmmm, ok if it works for you! ;)


"You oppose the potential law, about which you were told nothing, because "mu". I see.

Exhibit 1, ladies and gentlemen."

So then, YOU "oppose the freedoms we are granted in our constitution"?

See, we can all play "dumb" too!


But permit me to respond in kind...

Your silly attempt at pinning me to that "Exhibit 1" crap will NOT fly because it is grounded in incorrect and/or purposely false assumptions about the "intent" of the passage. You remember intent, dontya? I know you know how to "tease" meaning from a sentence.

[iverglas]

39. "Pinning <you>"?

Your silly attempt at pinning me to that "Exhibit 1" crap ...

Dog knows what yer on about. Pin you to Exhibit 1?

My dear -- you ARE Exhibit 1. Didn't you get it?

How about now? Do you get it now?

Have you got it yet?

How about if I stand over here? Are you getting it?

[goju]

43. Oh I get it

Regrettably, your whole argument is based in fallacy so Im not sure how much there is to "get". But dont let that stop you from pretending you actually said something meaningful.