Putting Things In Perspective

The primary argument I've seen in the anti-gun debate is basically "I don't see any reason for these types of weapons so they should be banned."

Why do some people feel that because they don't enjoy something, nobody should have it?

Tobacco kills MILLIONS of people every year through direct use and second-hand smoke. Millions more are living with serious ailments due to tobacco use. I don't smoke, I hate the smell of smoke, and I hate being around someone right after they've smoked. However, millions of people enjoy the use of tobacco so I would never push for a ban on a substance just because I don't like it and can't fathom why anyone would want to use it just because I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

From the CDC:

-Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death.
-Worldwide, tobacco use causes more than 5 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030.
-In the United States, smoking is responsible for about one in five deaths annually (i.e., about 443,000 deaths per year, and an estimated 49,000 of these smoking-related deaths are the result of secondhand smoke exposure).
-On average, smokers die 13 to 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.

-Cigarette smoking costs more than $193 billion (i.e., $97 billion in lost productivity plus $96 billion in health care expenditures).
-Secondhand smoke costs more than $10 billion (i.e., health care expenditures, morbidity, and mortality).

Put plainly: Why do you want to ban something that millions of people enjoy simply because it's been used nefariously to kill a total of 60 or so people (total of Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings)?

reply to post by Answer


Look, it's your job to police your own crazies. I smack down the effing granola-crunching tree huggers down all the time with pleasure because they can be CRAZY.

So on that note, if you legally want to go through a gun dealer, get the required background checks and the like to get your weapon, which has no other common use other than to kill, so be it.

I do have a problem, however, when anyone can walk into a gun show in Pennsylvania, walk up to a "private" dealer, buy military-grade weapons and weapon paraphernalia, and walk out in under 30 minutes without any background check, or even an adverse question from the seller. If you don't see the problem with that, then I don't know what to tell you.

Originally posted by DarkKnight76
reply to post by Answer

 

Look, it's your job to police your own crazies. I smack down the effing granola-crunching tree huggers down all the time with pleasure because they can be CRAZY.

So on that note, if you legally want to go through a gun dealer, get the required background checks and the like to get your weapon, which has no other common use other than to kill, so be it.

I do have a problem, however, when anyone can walk into a gun show in Pennsylvania, walk up to a "private" dealer, buy military-grade weapons and weapon paraphernalia, and walk out in under 30 minutes without any background check, or even an adverse question from the seller. If you don't see the problem with that, then I don't know what to tell you.

You are mistaken, and I don't mean that in any sort of attacking way... just factually.

There is no such thing as a "private dealer" at a gunshow. There are dealers with booths set up who are required to do all the normal paperwork and background checks and there are private owners who pay admission to the show that are walking around with their privately-owned firearms looking to sell them. The same person could sell their firearm in the newspaper classifieds, on internet websites, a garage sale, or just by sitting in a parking lot with a "gun for sale" sign on their car. I want to make sure that you're not mixing things up thanks to the "gunshow loophole" propaganda.

If you're saying that all private sales should require a background check, I can tell you from experience that the background check is almost worthless. I worked behind the gun counter at a Bass Pro Shop and did many MANY firearm sales. The paperwork relies on the honor system and the phone call to the FBI Instant Check system only verifies that they don't have a felony record. Mental health records aren't even in the system and many states don't report their crime data to the system.

What's needed is a more effective system. However, a determined individual will ALWAYS be able to buy a gun if they want it so you're only scratching at the surface of the real problem, which is mental health... not guns.

reply to post by Answer

I can tell you from experience that the background check is almost worthless.

Doesn't anything mandated by government at any level usually end up being almost worthless?

Well, I suppose that's not 100% accurate, either, if you're gauging the effect on how much a given mandate handicaps the people's ability to come and go unmolested by the mandaters.

reply to post by DarkKnight76


Answer is right...

The sellers at a gunshow are FFL holders (federal firearms license) which is required to own a gun shop.

FFL holders are also allowed fully automatic weapons. I wouldn't fret about this too much, the process of obtaining an FFL is quite thorough.

Anyway FFL holders run a FBI background check on you before you can leave with a firearm. They don't want to risk selling to a felon and loosing their FFL (which is their livelihood).

Personally I think this whole thing is more an issue of mental help and protection...

On one hand school systems should be able to enact some measure that would allow for security personnel in schools.

and on the other (which actually one of the only things the president has ever said that I agree with) mental health care should be equally as easy to obtain as a firearm.

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by DarkKnight76

 

FFL holders are also allowed fully automatic weapons.

Actually not true. I hate to nitpick but with all the incorrect information being thrown around, we don't need more.

Regular 01 FFL holders can not sell or own fully automatic weapons. The VAST majority of dealers are standard 01 FFL holders.

In order to sell fully automatic weapons, an FFL holder must go through a more rigorous and expensive process to obtain a special stamp. This also requires proper zoning and extra security measures at their place of business, interviewing with the ATF, etc.. They also must prove that they are doing enough business every year or their ability to sell NFA restricted firearms may be revoked and they would have to turn in all of the fully-automatic firearms if they lose that part of their license.

If a dealer wanted to privately own a fully automatic firearm, they'd have to go through the paperwork, registration, background check, $200 tax, waiting period, etc. just like everyone else.

reply to post by Answer


I am with on this one, Answer!
I also see Darknight76's point about FFL's being "allowed" fully auto weapons - but again you're right, that's only Class 3 dealers.
Your argument about tobacco is well taken, although I've heard the argument more often when referring to other bans on certain smoking materials than about gun control.

ganjoa

Originally posted by ganjoa
reply to post by Answer

 

Your argument about tobacco is well taken, although I've heard the argument more often when referring to other bans on certain smoking materials than about gun control.

ganjoa

Yeah, tobacco makes even less sense because there is literally no upside to smoking cigarettes. At least marijuana has several benefits and practically zero harmful effects. Good example of an item that is heavily regulated based purely on emotion and ignorance.

You'll never hear me calling for an outright ban on smoking, though.

reply to post by Answer

Yeah, tobacco makes even less sense because there is literally no upside to smoking cigarettes.

Well, back in the day when everybody was lighting up, at least one person in ten wasn't hooked on antidepressants like they are now. And what if its true that people are being killed by second hand prescription drug addicts like a lot of people are claiming?

Besides, back in the day the tax on tobacco was minor and the tobacco companies made their money selling a product at a reasonable price. Now the tax is through the roof and the tobacco companies can sell one heck of a lot less product to make bigger profits. Its a win win. Follow the money.

At least marijuana has several benefits and practically zero harmful effects. Good example of an item that is heavily regulated based purely on emotion and ignorance.

Uh uh. Again, follow the money.