On 1/9/2016 1:38 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:26:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Voters determine who leads the government.

Then I guess we are not 90% in favor of the new gun laws because most
of the people in Congress know the voters would crucify them if they
passed them. That is why we have these executive actions ... from a
guy who says he will never face a voter again.
I still remember him telling Putin that.


His/her position on gun laws is certainly not the only criteria by which
a politician is judged.

On 1/9/2016 1:45 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 20:02:30 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 1/8/2016 7:39 PM, wrote:

Sorry, I guess I am old ;-)
The only tome I have had a digital fingerprint was at Busch Gardens
and they had problems with it. I kept being rejected.
Maybe my fingers are a little different than the general public.

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/finger%20wound.jpg

My wife said "good thing you don't have an I phone"


Maybe you shouldn't sandpaper your fingertips. ;-)

Hole saw

It is a lot better now tho but my fingerprint will never be the same.



Just think of what you can get away with now. BTW, I know a guy
who learned not to get a finger too close to a running fan belt pulley.

On 1/8/2016 11:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 7:59 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 4:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 1:24 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 8:30 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody
records
is not technically feasible.

===

Let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion that such a system
could be created, debugged and implemented for 1 billion dollars.
That's a lot of money but very little can be created by the federal
government for less than that.

By your estimation, how many crimes would be prevented or solved with
such a system? My own estimate is maybe a couple of hundred at best,
perhaps much less. That puts the cost/benefit ratio at maybe 5 to 10
million per incident, and quite possibly a lot more since it would
perpetuate yet another bureauracracy.

All that to try and get a handle on drug dealers and rap musicians
killing each other?



First, the system already exists. A new one doesn't need to be
developed. If the IAFIS and now the improved NGI system can handle
not only fingerprint files but also images, criminal records, etc., it
certainly should be able to accept a background check event and a
record
of sale or transfer of a firearm.

The part I think would be beneficial but causes the most angst among
people who distrust government is the record of sale/transfer thing
that
creates a chain of custody. I know you disagree with the concept
and I respect that but from a logic point of view, having those
records
and being able to trace a gun back to the owner who did *not* report
the
sale/transfer or report it as stolen would go a long way towards
thoughtless transfers. It and a universal background check is about
all
you can do and they have absolutely *no* affect on anyone's ability or
right to own or bear arms. Things change over the years and
sometimes
when an issue takes on a different color some modifications as to
how it
is dealt with may become necessary for the general public good.
Again,
these would have *no* negative affect on anyone other than taking five
minutes to fill out a simple form and
record it. I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to
get
you.
The chain of custody exists. The federal government requires the
dealers
to maintain the umpteen thousand records of sales, subject to audit by
the federal government. Make sense?

Those are dealer sales only via FFL. No records of sale or transfer is
required by most states, as far as I know. MA seems to be one of the
few that maintains a record of private transfers, but it's almost
voluntary. You are supposed to report it on-line but there's no way of
determining if everyone does. However, if ever used in a crime and
found, it would be traced back to the original purchaser (via FFL)
unless transfers *have* been reported as required. That is the
motivation to comply.

The good guys will comply with whatever laws exist.
If only they could find a way to track guns in the possession of the bad
guys who really don't want you to know?

Round and round we go. How do the "bad guys" get guns that can't be
traced? From "good" guys, initially. Unless of course they have basic
machine shop skills and can whip one up on a lathe. :-) I don't think
I'd volunteer to be first in line to fire one of those though. Even
major manufacturers have had problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0h9WWFzcVI




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.

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 05:22:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 1/9/2016 1:38 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 16:26:05 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Voters determine who leads the government.

Then I guess we are not 90% in favor of the new gun laws because most
of the people in Congress know the voters would crucify them if they
passed them. That is why we have these executive actions ... from a
guy who says he will never face a voter again.
I still remember him telling Putin that.


His/her position on gun laws is certainly not the only criteria by which
a politician is judged.

Nope, you also have abortion and gays.
Beyond that they all seem to blur into a version of the Bushes. They
may campaign differently but once they get into office they conform.

The only real exceptions this time are Trump and Sanders and they are
both scary in their own right.

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:49:56 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/8/2016 11:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 7:59 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 4:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 1:24 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 9:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 8:30 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 06:01:47 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

So much for the
argument that maintaining a gun registry with chain of custody
records
is not technically feasible.

===

Let's say for the sake of reasonable discussion that such a system
could be created, debugged and implemented for 1 billion dollars.
That's a lot of money but very little can be created by the federal
government for less than that.

By your estimation, how many crimes would be prevented or solved with
such a system? My own estimate is maybe a couple of hundred at best,
perhaps much less. That puts the cost/benefit ratio at maybe 5 to 10
million per incident, and quite possibly a lot more since it would
perpetuate yet another bureauracracy.

All that to try and get a handle on drug dealers and rap musicians
killing each other?



First, the system already exists. A new one doesn't need to be
developed. If the IAFIS and now the improved NGI system can handle
not only fingerprint files but also images, criminal records, etc., it
certainly should be able to accept a background check event and a
record
of sale or transfer of a firearm.

The part I think would be beneficial but causes the most angst among
people who distrust government is the record of sale/transfer thing
that
creates a chain of custody. I know you disagree with the concept
and I respect that but from a logic point of view, having those
records
and being able to trace a gun back to the owner who did *not* report
the
sale/transfer or report it as stolen would go a long way towards
thoughtless transfers. It and a universal background check is about
all
you can do and they have absolutely *no* affect on anyone's ability or
right to own or bear arms. Things change over the years and
sometimes
when an issue takes on a different color some modifications as to
how it
is dealt with may become necessary for the general public good.
Again,
these would have *no* negative affect on anyone other than taking five
minutes to fill out a simple form and
record it. I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to
get
you.
The chain of custody exists. The federal government requires the
dealers
to maintain the umpteen thousand records of sales, subject to audit by
the federal government. Make sense?

Those are dealer sales only via FFL. No records of sale or transfer is
required by most states, as far as I know. MA seems to be one of the
few that maintains a record of private transfers, but it's almost
voluntary. You are supposed to report it on-line but there's no way of
determining if everyone does. However, if ever used in a crime and
found, it would be traced back to the original purchaser (via FFL)
unless transfers *have* been reported as required. That is the
motivation to comply.

The good guys will comply with whatever laws exist.
If only they could find a way to track guns in the possession of the bad
guys who really don't want you to know?

Round and round we go. How do the "bad guys" get guns that can't be
traced? From "good" guys, initially. Unless of course they have basic
machine shop skills and can whip one up on a lathe. :-) I don't think
I'd volunteer to be first in line to fire one of those though. Even
major manufacturers have had problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0h9WWFzcVI




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'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 11:09 PM, Califbill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/8/2016 1:25 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 1/8/2016 12:02 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 09:28:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I just don't understand what the big deal is ... unless of
course your are absolutely convinced that the "government" is out to get
you.

===

I'm certainly not convinced that the government is out to help me.
Everything they touch becomes a quagmire ruled by special interests.

You aren't alone.


Voters determine who leads the government.


That is funny! If voters determined it, why would we have candidates like
we have in this Presidential cycle?



Because due to the influence of the Tea Party what decent conservative
even wants the job? Without it's blessing he or she doesn't stand a chance.

The result is Trump.






Bovine excrement. The Tea Party may help push some right leaning
candidates, but on the Democrat side, we have a Socialist, a dishonest,
incompetent women and a very few others. You have Koch, et. Al. On the
right, and Soros, et. Al. on the left. Wall Street and banks mostly
running this country. They give us pretty much the same candidates all the
time. Show me the money.

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.

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.

Another good argument against meaningless laws.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

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.

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.