On 1/9/2016 4:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 15:29:37 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/9/2016 2:09 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:27:18 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Once it's left the hands of the original owner by theft, the trail goes
cold. Does it really matter if the serial number is obliterated.
Guns aren't the problem. The bad guys are. And we haven't figured out
how to catch them or what to do with them if and when they are caught.

If they break a federal law, they should be put in front of a federal judge who may
do a bit more than a locally elected or appointed 'hand slapper'.

===

My personal opinion is that it all comes down to priorities, resources
and political expediency. The feds already have a lot on their plate
trying to prosecute the losing war on drugs. They have limited
resources that have to be used in the most politically expedient way,
i.e., create the most favorable public perception and publicity.
There's just no drama in prosecuting someone who lied on a federal
form and there's a good chance a judge would throw it out rather than
tie up his courtroom. Creating more meaningless laws would probably
result in the same type of lookaside non-enforcement.



I agree with you. The only comment I would make is that if everyone
had to have a background check, more of those inclined to lie on the
form would be discovered and denied. From a priority point of view
that's more important than what punishment they get for lying.


===

The more difficult you make it to legally buy and sell guns, the more
you will accelerate the already budding "build your own gun" movement.
It's easier than you might think and the result can be very credible,
and totally untracable.


Wayne, I guess I am just hung up on the "making it more difficult"
thing. Having to submit to a background check may be a minor
inconvenience for some but if it helps save a few innocent lifes it
seems a small price to pay that benefits our society as a whole. It
certainly can't hurt.

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 17:04:39 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/9/2016 4:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 15:29:37 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/9/2016 2:09 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:27:18 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Once it's left the hands of the original owner by theft, the trail goes
cold. Does it really matter if the serial number is obliterated.
Guns aren't the problem. The bad guys are. And we haven't figured out
how to catch them or what to do with them if and when they are caught.

If they break a federal law, they should be put in front of a federal judge who may
do a bit more than a locally elected or appointed 'hand slapper'.

===

My personal opinion is that it all comes down to priorities, resources
and political expediency. The feds already have a lot on their plate
trying to prosecute the losing war on drugs. They have limited
resources that have to be used in the most politically expedient way,
i.e., create the most favorable public perception and publicity.
There's just no drama in prosecuting someone who lied on a federal
form and there's a good chance a judge would throw it out rather than
tie up his courtroom. Creating more meaningless laws would probably
result in the same type of lookaside non-enforcement.



I agree with you. The only comment I would make is that if everyone
had to have a background check, more of those inclined to lie on the
form would be discovered and denied. From a priority point of view
that's more important than what punishment they get for lying.


===

The more difficult you make it to legally buy and sell guns, the more
you will accelerate the already budding "build your own gun" movement.
It's easier than you might think and the result can be very credible,
and totally untracable.


Wayne, I guess I am just hung up on the "making it more difficult"
thing. Having to submit to a background check may be a minor
inconvenience for some but if it helps save a few innocent lifes it
seems a small price to pay that benefits our society as a whole. It
certainly can't hurt.


===

How much are you (we) willing to pay per "innocent life saved"? One
million dollars each, two million, ten million? It's difficult to put
a price on such things, but my estimate is that there are far more
cost effective ways to save lives. Are drug dealers and gang bangers
innocent lives? Personally I think not. What about the unintended
consequences such as forcing gun sales and ownership further
underground, or further inspiring a nascent "build your own
untraceable" gun movement? And then there's the enforcement issue. We
know that existing laws are not being enforced for various reasons.
What's going to change that? My sense is that you're willing to
inconvenience every single law abiding gun owner, the vast majority,
for some totally intangible, unmeasurable and dubious benefit.

On 1/9/16 5:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/9/2016 4:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 15:29:37 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/9/2016 2:09 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:27:18 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Once it's left the hands of the original owner by theft, the trail
goes
cold. Does it really matter if the serial number is obliterated.
Guns aren't the problem. The bad guys are. And we haven't figured out
how to catch them or what to do with them if and when they are
caught.

If they break a federal law, they should be put in front of a
federal judge who may
do a bit more than a locally elected or appointed 'hand slapper'.

===

My personal opinion is that it all comes down to priorities, resources
and political expediency. The feds already have a lot on their plate
trying to prosecute the losing war on drugs. They have limited
resources that have to be used in the most politically expedient way,
i.e., create the most favorable public perception and publicity.
There's just no drama in prosecuting someone who lied on a federal
form and there's a good chance a judge would throw it out rather than
tie up his courtroom. Creating more meaningless laws would probably
result in the same type of lookaside non-enforcement.



I agree with you. The only comment I would make is that if everyone
had to have a background check, more of those inclined to lie on the
form would be discovered and denied. From a priority point of view
that's more important than what punishment they get for lying.


===

The more difficult you make it to legally buy and sell guns, the more
you will accelerate the already budding "build your own gun" movement.
It's easier than you might think and the result can be very credible,
and totally untracable.


Wayne, I guess I am just hung up on the "making it more difficult"
thing. Having to submit to a background check may be a minor
inconvenience for some but if it helps save a few innocent lifes it
seems a small price to pay that benefits our society as a whole. It
certainly can't hurt.



How dare you even suggest inconveniencing America's ammosexuals...just
for the possibility of saving some lives. You should be ashamed of
yourself!

On 1/9/2016 5:44 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 17:04:39 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/9/2016 4:33 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 15:29:37 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/9/2016 2:09 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:27:18 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Once it's left the hands of the original owner by theft, the trail goes
cold. Does it really matter if the serial number is obliterated.
Guns aren't the problem. The bad guys are. And we haven't figured out
how to catch them or what to do with them if and when they are caught.

If they break a federal law, they should be put in front of a federal judge who may
do a bit more than a locally elected or appointed 'hand slapper'.

===

My personal opinion is that it all comes down to priorities, resources
and political expediency. The feds already have a lot on their plate
trying to prosecute the losing war on drugs. They have limited
resources that have to be used in the most politically expedient way,
i.e., create the most favorable public perception and publicity.
There's just no drama in prosecuting someone who lied on a federal
form and there's a good chance a judge would throw it out rather than
tie up his courtroom. Creating more meaningless laws would probably
result in the same type of lookaside non-enforcement.



I agree with you. The only comment I would make is that if everyone
had to have a background check, more of those inclined to lie on the
form would be discovered and denied. From a priority point of view
that's more important than what punishment they get for lying.


===

The more difficult you make it to legally buy and sell guns, the more
you will accelerate the already budding "build your own gun" movement.
It's easier than you might think and the result can be very credible,
and totally untracable.


Wayne, I guess I am just hung up on the "making it more difficult"
thing. Having to submit to a background check may be a minor
inconvenience for some but if it helps save a few innocent lifes it
seems a small price to pay that benefits our society as a whole. It
certainly can't hurt.


===

How much are you (we) willing to pay per "innocent life saved"? One
million dollars each, two million, ten million? It's difficult to put
a price on such things, but my estimate is that there are far more
cost effective ways to save lives. Are drug dealers and gang bangers
innocent lives? Personally I think not. What about the unintended
consequences such as forcing gun sales and ownership further
underground, or further inspiring a nascent "build your own
untraceable" gun movement? And then there's the enforcement issue. We
know that existing laws are not being enforced for various reasons.
What's going to change that? My sense is that you're willing to
inconvenience every single law abiding gun owner, the vast majority,
for some totally intangible, unmeasurable and dubious benefit.


I have serious doubts as to the cost/life you suggest. It's a
computerized, automated system that already exists. All that is
required is for the 40 percent who currently don't fill out a
simple form that takes all of five minutes to do and have the info
electronically sent to the system. Wait a couple of minutes and
you have a return. Sorta like sending an email. How is that so
"inconvenient" or expensive?

The real reason some object (and it's the minority) is the mindset
established mostly by the NRA to resist *anything* that could be
deemed "anti-gun", "slippery slope", "infringement on rights", etc, etc,
ad ad nauseam. I certainly don't think a background check is
"anti-gun" or contributes to a "slippery slope". 60 percent of gun
buyers already *are* subjected to a background check and nobody is
confiscating guns. Why not the other 40 percent?

On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 14:09:11 -0500,
wrote:

On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:27:18 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Once it's left the hands of the original owner by theft, the trail goes
cold. Does it really matter if the serial number is obliterated.
Guns aren't the problem. The bad guys are. And we haven't figured out
how to catch them or what to do with them if and when they are caught.

If they break a federal law, they should be put in front of a federal judge who may
do a bit more than a locally elected or appointed 'hand slapper'.

===

My personal opinion is that it all comes down to priorities, resources
and political expediency. The feds already have a lot on their plate
trying to prosecute the losing war on drugs. They have limited
resources that have to be used in the most politically expedient way,
i.e., create the most favorable public perception and publicity.
There's just no drama in prosecuting someone who lied on a federal
form and there's a good chance a judge would throw it out rather than
tie up his courtroom. Creating more meaningless laws would probably
result in the same type of lookaside non-enforcement.

One of the significant comments in the forum after the CNN show was
that Rudy cleaned up New York by going after minor violators before
they became serious violators.

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 18:23:57 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I have serious doubts as to the cost/life you suggest. It's a
computerized, automated system that already exists. All that is
required is for the 40 percent who currently don't fill out a
simple form that takes all of five minutes to do and have the info
electronically sent to the system. Wait a couple of minutes and
you have a return. Sorta like sending an email. How is that so
"inconvenient" or expensive?

The real reason some object (and it's the minority) is the mindset
established mostly by the NRA to resist *anything* that could be
deemed "anti-gun", "slippery slope", "infringement on rights", etc, etc,
ad ad nauseam. I certainly don't think a background check is
"anti-gun" or contributes to a "slippery slope". 60 percent of gun
buyers already *are* subjected to a background check and nobody is
confiscating guns. Why not the other 40 percent?


I have doubts about the 40% number but how many of the clearly illegal
black market sellers would ever do this?
I already put out the suggestion that they open up the system to the
people who want to do the right thing?