View Thread

Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Guns in America, no background check needed
Bob of QF
Hypatia wrote:
Stolen guns seem to be a huge business in America.

Does anyone have any idea whether or not stolen guns pass through gun shows and if so perhaps background checks maybe are not performed in association with that?

I would think there'd be few gun dealers worth their salt who would knowingly sell stolen merchandise at shows, but then I wouldn't doubt there are some who are either stupid enough, or some how don't know a weapon is stolen, who try it from time to time. It would be sellers, of course, who know a weapon is stolen who would happily skip background checks.

Does that happen much at the shows?


Oh, yes.... I well imagine that stolen guns appear frequently at gun shows...

Again?

If you could put into place-- *cheap* methods of verifying the serial numbers of the gun? And quick? I don't think you'd get any opposition. I've been to gun shows, and talked to the dealers/sellers -- they *hate* stolen guns. They undercut their legitimate business, and give the whole shebang a bad name.

Unfortunately, the politicos seem constitutionally unable to implement something that is quick, cheap and effective.

I imagine a kiosk with a series of computers. Or a website or similar. You key in the manufacturer's ID (or go to a drop-down list). Next, you key in the serial number of the potential sale. Click. In seconds, you get an "all clear" or a "red flag". No muss, no fuss. No fee. No further questions asked of the website.....

If that was it? You'd get high participation rates. Why not? What legitimate citizen wants a gun that can be confiscated at a moment's notice, if it turns out to be stolen? Or worse, was used in a crime, which would implicate the new "owner"? None that I've ever talked to.

But-- the idiots in Washington won't make such a simple system-- they seem to see it as an opportunity to make some $$ or worse.... to "big brother" the whole thing.

And so the unintended consequences: no one will touch it, unless forced to.

....usually at the point of a gun....

<eyeroll>
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
JohnH
I was not sure where to put this but the tread here seems interested in guns and so I choose it.

Got one of those annoying unsolicited phone calls moments ago. The NRA wanted me to participate in a survey regarding the UN wanting to ban guns in America. My immediate response was "ban guns in America you are out of your fucking mind" and hung up.

Where in the fevered imagination of the NRA did this come from. I frankly do not agree with the NRA on much and probably should have told the survey taker that I was all for it. I just found the opening statement so absurd I could not resist the comment I made. I would like to know if any one out there has any idea what proposal of the UN they could have based this clearly ridiculous statement on.

Edit

I spent some time on the NRA site. The only thing I found there that mentioned the UN was a news item from late this week that the US has decided to enter into international talks regarding regulation of arms sales. If this is the source of the ridiculous survey I was asked to participate it is one more example of why I generally have a knee jerk negative response to the NRA.

So many of their actions use hyperbole and fear mongering among gun owners that perfectly sane laws like the assault rifle ban are overturned. There is one use for assault rifles and that is killing lots of people fast. As a defensive weapon it is at best a tiny amount better than a semi-auto weapon. The probability of that making a difference in a defensive situation is so small as to be insignificant, very much outweighed by the risk of mass murder by deranged people. Ask mexican authorities how much they enjoy going up against drug cartels armed with assault rifles from the US.
Edited by JohnH on 10/17/2009 18:11
 
catman
I might point out that the so-called "assault rifle" is a semi-automatic rifle and, in spite of its military appearance, is scarcely more than any other one. A REAL assault rifle has full-auto or "burst" capability. I own two of the semi-auto civilian versions and find them to be perfectly useful. I see no good reason for them to be banned. The full-auto military versions require a lot of jumping through hoops to be legally owned, and few people have them.
Edited by catman on 10/17/2009 19:42
 
JohnH
Catman, Thank you, my apparent misconception should be rectified. I will say that some 10-15 years ago a coworker bragged about how easy it was for him to find parts to convert his AR-15 to full auto. Perhaps this is more difficult now.
Edited by JohnH on 10/18/2009 01:05
 
catman
JohnH: I took the liberty of deleting one of your posts. Hope you don't mind.

It is fairly easy to convert an early AR-15 to full-auto, but the newer models have been mofidied to make it more difficult. The parts may not be as easy to find now either. I haven't looked lately.

I cannot imagine doing that, given the outrageous cost of ammo these days. I can hardly afford to fire a .223 one shot at a time. (I have a "Ruger Ranch Rifle" with a scope.)
Edited by catman on 10/18/2009 02:02
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
An intelligent, respectful response NEEDED, Part 2 Christianity 10 08/27/2012 23:03
AbFab marathon on BBC America today! T.V. Shows 3 01/08/2012 19:48
My favorite X Factor Britian/America/Australia's Got Talent auditions [MEGAPOST] T.V. Shows 13 08/25/2011 07:48
PBS: Review: God in America The Lounge 6 10/13/2010 02:15
America in Color from 1939-1943 The Lounge 6 08/18/2010 17:26