Facebook Wants To Block Illegal Gun Sales

Nerval's Lobster writes "Most of the time, Facebook allows its users to hawk goods or solicit donations on Pages or Timeline postings, comparing such activity to placing a physical note on a bulletin board at a supermarket. Now it plans on regulating users who rely on this method to sell what it calls 'regulated' items, which includes firearms. 'Any time we receive a report on Facebook about a post promoting the private sale of a commonly regulated item, we will send a message to that person reminding him or her to comply with relevant laws and regulations. We will also limit access to that post to people over the age of 18,' Facebook announced as part of the new rules. The social network will also prevent users from posting any sort of items 'that indicate a willingness to evade or help others evade the law,' which means no offers to sell firearms across state lines or without a background check. Presumably, Facebook will have filters in place that allow it to scan for such content. Facebook is a private network, of course, and not (despite its ubiquity) a public utility — meaning it can do whatever it wants with regard to Terms of Use. But that likely won't stop some people from complaining about what they perceive as the company overstepping its boundaries."

Comments

..or without a background check?

[Pizza]

It's expressly legal for private inviduals to sell to other private individuals (without crossing state lines) without a background check; indeed it's *illegal* for said private individuals to perform such a background check, at least on the federal level.

Now you may have some sort of state/local law that requires checks between inviduals, but sheesh.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have phrased that as:

"It is federally legal for private individuals to sell to other private individuals within the state".

Just to be clear that..you know...it's not necessarily legal...it's just not a violation of federal law, but a violation of state law. It might end up being a violation of federal law though -- in that you are then a felon under state law, and just so happen to be in posession of a firearm.

The law is a bitch that way....

I live in a state where I can buy or sell from another private seller no problem (provided vaguely reasonable assumptions). I have lived in a state and may unfortunately end up moving to a state where it would be wholly unlawful to do so.

But yeah... there is no "illegal private sale" or "gun show loophole". That is what we like to call: "Fuck off with your gun registry."

Re:..or without a background check?

[Lord Kano]

Well yes, Captain Obvious. Facebook would be within its rights to block firearm discussions, included in that would be sales.

Do you think they want to open that can of worms?

They have to do a little math. Will they lose more users by keeping the current policy or by imposing a new one?

This isn't just Zuckerberg's plaything anymore. There are investors to whom they must answer.

LK

Re:..or without a background check?

[jratcliffe]

True, but it's definitely NOT legal to sell a gun to somebody you know, or can reasonably be expected to know, can't legally buy one. So, if your buyer says "I'm a convicted felon," definitely not legal. If your buyer says "you're not going to require a background check, are you?" you're on very shaky ground, since that's very close to an admission that, were there to BE a background check, the buyer wouldn't pass. Remember, willful blindness isn't a defense.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Lord Kano]

That's not necessarily true.

I can pass a background check. I have passed a lot of them.

I still understand how someone could like the idea of the government not having a record that they own a gun.

BTW, that's what opposition to "Universe Background Checks" is about. It would create a backdoor registry.

LK

Re:..or without a background check?

[jratcliffe]

As I said, the fact that someone is trying to avoid a background check isn't per se an indication that the sale would be illegal, but it does raise the risk for the seller.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Lord Kano]

Another question that works just as well is

"No sales tax, right?" private sellers don't charge sales tax either so there's pretty much a one to one relationship between background checks and sales tax.

Solves your dilemma, right?

LK

Re:..or without a background check?

[Bartles]

They are not Liberal. Even though you capitalized it, I feel it is disingenuous to use that term to describe anyone who constantly works to restrict rights and freedoms.

Re:..or without a background check?

[SpankiMonki]

... indeed it's *illegal* for said private individuals to perform such a background check, at least on the federal level.

There is no federal law restricting private individuals from running a criminal background check prior to selling a firearm. I guess what you mean to say is that private individuals can't use the federal NICS system to perform the check unless they are Federal Firearms Licensees registered with the FBI.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Bartles]

How does a database keep someone from shooting up a school?

Re:..or without a background check?

[Bartles]

It's always illegal to purchase a firearm if you are a convicted felon. There is no judgement call or ambiguities involved.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Bartles]

I think we need a federal database of everyone that has had an abortion. How would you like that?

Re:..or without a background check?

[CrimsonAvenger]

There is no federal law restricting private individuals from running a criminal background check prior to selling a firearm. I guess what you mean to say is that private individuals can't use the federal NICS system [fbi.gov] to perform the check unless they are Federal Firearms Licensees registered with the FBI.

Which makes it impossible for a private individual to do a Background Check. Remember, a background check for firearms sale purposes is DEFINED as using the NICS system.

Re:..or without a background check?

[hondo77]

We might like it better if you gave an actual reason for wanting such a thing.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Arker]

Your assumption is that any expression of distaste for a background check is an indication the buyer would not pass one. It's an errant assumption.

No one wants to go through the background check because that creates a paper trail that any future administration could then use as a list of people that need to be rounded up. So quite naturally people are not willing to go through it in a situation where it is not legally required.

You are required to keep a record of the transaction with the serial number. If the weapon you sold were used in a crime later, it will be traced back to you. The original retail sale is on record, that person (if not you) will then produce the name of the person he sold it to, which is either you or will lead to you via reiterating the same process. If you cannot produce the weapon or produce a receipt showing who you sold it to, then you're in trouble. But until and unless there is a criminal investigation to justify the intrusion, that information is no one's business.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Bartles]

So when the Christian Fundamentalists take control, they can round up all the babykillers and send then to work camps. Or maybe just publicly ostracize and shame them. Or maybe even so the database can be leaked to a newspaper, and the names and addresses will be published.

Re:..or without a background check?

[hondo77]

Ah, so you don't have a good reason. Thanks for playing. You can go now.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Obfuscant]

... because that creates a paper trail that any future administration could then use as a list of people that need to be rounded up.

It's not even that. You say it later:

that information is no one's business.

There is/was quite a brouhaha (at least in our area) over the sudden decision that concealed carry permit applications were public records, and that some newspapers were getting the records and publishing maps of the houses of permit holders. Those who filled out the forms had no expectation that the data was a public record, and the form didn't tell them that it was. Some of the local sheriffs went on record as saying they were not going to treat them as public records, and then modified the process so current ones are not.

It is not impossible that anti-gun zealots may try to get background check data covered under public record laws and what used to be a "secret" between a gun buyer and his government would be public knowledge. It's nobody's business, and let's keep it that way.

Re:..or without a background check?

[felrom]

You are required to keep a record of the transaction with the serial number. If the weapon you sold were used in a crime later, it will be traced back to you. The original retail sale is on record, that person (if not you) will then produce the name of the person he sold it to, which is either you or will lead to you via reiterating the same process. If you cannot produce the weapon or produce a receipt showing who you sold it to, then you're in trouble. But until and unless there is a criminal investigation to justify the intrusion, that information is no one's business.

What state do you live in where that is the law?

In Texas, your only responsibility when conducting a private firearm sale is that you must not have any reason to believe that the buyer is a prohibited person. You don't need to know their name, record anything, get a signature, or any of this.

I've sold in this manner the one time I was seeking to get rid of two handguns I no longer wanted. I took them to the gun show, and before I even got into the convention center a guy approached me and asked what I had in the cases. He looked them over. We haggled on a price for about 2 minutes. I asked if he was a prohibited person, to which he responded no. We exchanged goods and parted ways. The whole transaction took less than 5 minutes. 100% legal.

Heck, even assuming he was the head of a drug cartel, what *I* did was still 100% legal.

As far as what happens if those guns are ever used in a crime: I was the original retail purchaser of them, so the ATF will trace the guns back to me, and probably look and see that I live in a normal middle class neighbor hood in a low crime area, have a nice paying job, no debt, and haven't even had a traffic ticket in 13 years. If they even bother to contact me, I'll give them whatever details I remember about the guy I sold the guns to, and that'll be it.

There's no requirement that I have a record of who I sold to.

Re:..or without a background check?

[SpankiMonki]

Which makes it impossible for a private individual to do a Background Check. Remember, a background check for firearms sale purposes is DEFINED as using the NICS system.

A background check is defined that way only for FFL's. IOW, the only way a FFL can legally sell a firearm is by clearing the buyer through the NICS. Private citizens may perform a background check on a potential gun buyer (through the usual private channels) if it suits them. There is absolutely no federal law against doing so. The post I originally replied to suggested otherwise.

But tell you what, if you can show me a federal law that says "the only legal method of performing a background check prior to the sale of a firearm is through the NICS", I'll be happy to change my mind. : )

Re:..or without a background check?

[Charcharodon]

I think in order to keep everybody safe we should prohibit gun sales, so only the people who currently have guns can have guns. then we make a DB of the people who currently have the guns and we'll be all set.

If it's so dangerous for people to have guns why stop at just those who already have them. I would support total disarmament as long as NO ONE in gov't is allowed to have armed guards.

Re:..or without a background check?

[YukariHirai]

I would support total disarmament as long as NO ONE in gov't is allowed to have armed guards.

Why that condition? Do you honestly believe that the moment the general populace is disarmed, armed government officials will start shooting people left right and center? That every civil liberty you have will be trampled underfoot?

Speaking as someone living in a country with pretty strict gun control laws... the former ain't happening. (And even if it did, it's certainly possible to fight back with improvised weapons at least long enough to start seizing guns from the oppressive agents.) The latter is happening to you anyway, regardless of the fact that so much of the population is armed.

Re:..or without a background check?

[AK Marc]

"It is federally legal for private individuals to sell to other private individuals within the state".

It is? Even though the Second Amendment forbids the federal government this sort of power?

So you are objecting, indicating that it's federally illegal for private individuals to sell to other private individuals within the state? If that's not what you are saying, then why are you objecting so strongly to a statement you agree with?

Re:..or without a background check?

[AK Marc]

So you are arguing over what the definition of is is. You point out that it's illegal for a "background check" as done by FFL, the most common kind, to be done by a non-FFL, yet object when someone else points out the exact same thing, using slightly different (and, from my perspective, more accurate) wording.

But tell you what, if you can show me a federal law that says "the only legal method of performing a background check prior to the sale of a firearm is through the NICS", I'll be happy to change my mind. : )

Try "the only legal method of performing a background check prior to the sale of a firearm for an FFL is through the NICS," and that "required" check is not usable by non FFL for checking buyers, so it's illegal for a private seller to do that "mandatory" (for FFL) background check.

Re:..or without a background check?

[reboot246]

He's not saying that. What he's saying is that it's hypocritical for politicians (and their minions) to have armed guards, and for us peons to not have the same means to protect ourselves. Even if all guns were confiscated, criminals would still have guns. That's why they're criminals - they don't obey the law.

I've always thought that somebody who has their own armed guards (politicians, celebrities, sports stars, etc) speaking out against firearms was hypocrisy to the extreme.

Oh, why do nearly all of the Federal agencies have their own armed officers now? Why have they been buying millions of rounds of hollow point ammunition? Why have they been buying sniper ammunition? Why does an FDA agent need a firearm? How long before they decide that they're the only ones who have firearms. Hmmm?

Stay in your country if you like it so much, and stay out of our discussions. You don't vote here.

Re:..or without a background check?

[s.petry]

This isn't just Zuckerberg's plaything anymore. There are investors to whom they must answer.

You think Facebook is worried about investors, or that the investors are any different than the people demanding censorship? Does the current political powers have say in this regardless of the investors desires? Facebook has already stated that they plan to censor. Not only sales mind you but any pro 2nd amendment discussion could be blocked to anyone under 18.

Facebook has already been banning members and hiding discussion regarding pro 2nd amendment rights (as well as other topics the Government does not want people discussing). The bans stick method of censorship has been used for a couple years already. Censorship is not only happening there, Reddit had a nice article about the same thing, and Slashdot could suffer similar problems to Reddit and Digg.

In all of the yelling about 2nd amendment we should not lose sight of the real problem which is censorship and conditioning.

Re:..or without a background check?

[s.petry]

You should read a history book one day, it's kind of interesting how we have this pattern of exactly this thing happening.

Re:..or without a background check?

[x0ra]

It doesn't. The only thing a database provide is for gun confiscation by an authoritarian state. This objective is the real objective of nowadays anti-gun movements, complete disarmament of law abiding citizens. Cf. the behavior of the RCMP in Canada during the High River flood, they used the then-illegal former long gun registry to invade homes an cease guns. They are doing the same now with the recent prohibition of the Swiss Arm Classic Green, and the CZ-859.

It was also rather fun in the intro scene of the original Red Dawn to see the invading force get all the 4473 form to cease gun from citizens.

Re:..or without a background check?

[x0ra]

Yes. I do believe that there will be civil unrest due to authoritarian tendencies of the US government in the next 50 or so years. The second amendment is the very crucial amendment of the Bill Of Rights, it is protecting all the other amendment. Freedom of expression, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure are pretty weak without an armed population. Remember that what is given by the pen can also be taken by the pen.

Re:..or without a background check?

[x0ra]

Then you have no reason to wish for a gun registry as well.

Re:..or without a background check?

[foniksonik]

Yeah but your life would suck hard if those guns were used to kill anyone important. Regardless of your rights you would become a person of interest and potentially slapped with an abetting charge. You have no record of the sale so no proof that you did not supply the weapons specifically to have your alleged accomplice commit the crime. Just imagine the Feds showing up to let you know that your firearms were involved in the killing of a US Senator and the suspected you of belonging to a pro-gun militant group, etc etc.

Enjoy those thoughts.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Goody]

This is the classic flawed "if it's not 100% effective at stopping gun violence, we shouldn't do it at all" argument. It's been beaten to death.

Re:..or without a background check?

[x0ra]

When I was living in Quebec, I refused to buy "non-restricted" firearms from fellow Quebeker because all of them wanted to have the gun transferred/registered, which is, by federal law, illegal. So by your logic, by refusing to endorse the illegal behavior of Quebec's CFO, I am not to be trusted to be properly licensed (which is the only constraint we have for non-restricted firearms), and be seen as "trying to get around the law" ?

Re:..or without a background check?

[x0ra]

So only FFL dealers can ask you to fill a 4473 ?

Re:..or without a background check?

[bigfinger76]

And this is the classic "I don't care about effectiveness. WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!!" line of thinking.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Lord Kano]

I have a great reason.

To fulfill Bill Clinton's vision.

In August 1996, Bill Clinton stated that abortion should be Safe, Legal and Rare.

Medically, it's about as safe as it can be. It's been legal for 41 years. The only way for us to be sure that it's rare is to keep full and accurate records.

LK

Re:..or without a background check?

[Lord Kano]

I would support that wholeheartedly.

I would also support a 7 day "Cooling Off Period" between scheduling and obtaining an abortion.

LK

Re:..or without a background check?

[Bartles]

Are you claiming that a database has ever stopped any percentage of gun violence?

Re:..or without a background check?

[Lord Kano]

Why that condition? Do you honestly believe that the moment the general populace is disarmed, armed government officials will start shooting people left right and center? That every civil liberty you have will be trampled underfoot?

I don't think that anyone suspect *that* scenario to play out but it's a bad idea to give the government a monopoly on force. The level of that government's corruption has a proportional relationship with the danger.

LK

Re:..or without a background check?

[Lord Kano]

Why have they been buying millions of rounds of hollow point ammunition?

Correction: Billions

LK

Re:..or without a background check?

[Lord Kano]

You don't know much about the process do you?

Please don't take that as an insult, I didn't mean it as one. I'll ask a few questions to illustrate my point.

1)Which form?
2)Police have access to NCIC, not NICS so how would they run a NICS check?
3)Which form?

LK

Re:..or without a background check?

[Goody]

You know and I know that it's impossible to prove that a database has stopped any instance of someone shooting up a school. But it logically follows that a database can identify someone who is a felon, mentally unstable, has a PFA against them, etc. It raises the barrier and makes it more difficult for any of these people to get a weapon. Could they get one elsewhere? If they tried hard enough, probably. It's likely it has stopped several mass violence events by at least stopping some of the less motivated potential mass killers, the low hanging fruit. But using the logic behind your often cited argument, we should just have gun and ammo stands outside schools, because, hey, these people are going to get a weapon somehow and shoot up a school, right?

Re:..or without a background check?

[Goody]

Outside of a database, how else do you effectively and in a reasonable amount of time identify someone who is unfit to buy a weapon at a point of sale? Give them an ad hoc mental examination? Ask them nicely if they have a history of criminal violence? Lie detector test? A database is more effective than anything else to do this.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Goody]

Actually, I should clarify. I don't agree with the OP's idea of a database to track gun owners. I'm all for databases supporting background checks, like NICS.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Jane Q. Public]

"Just to be clear that..you know...it's not necessarily legal...it's just not a violation of federal law, but a violation of state law."

That's not a "clarification". In my opinion you muddied the waters quite a bit with that statement. Try this instead:

"The exchange of long arms that are otherwise legal to own, does not require a background check under Federal law. (Indeed, the Federal government cannot Constitutionally require one). However, some States may require it."

There. Fixed that for you.

(And that's one big reason I won't live in some states.)

Re:..or without a background check?

[Zordak]

You know and I know that it's impossible to prove that a database has stopped any instance of someone shooting up a school. But it logically follows that a database can identify someone who is a felon, mentally unstable, has a PFA against them, etc. It raises the barrier and makes it more difficult for any of these people to get a weapon. Could they get one elsewhere? If they tried hard enough, probably. It's likely it has stopped several mass violence events by at least stopping some of the less motivated potential mass killers, the low hanging fruit. But using the logic behind your often cited argument, we should just have gun and ammo stands outside schools, because, hey, these people are going to get a weapon somehow and shoot up a school, right?

You seem to be confusing the database for background checks, which most certainly does exist, and which is run on me whenever I purchase a gun, with a national gun registry. The former may be reasonably expected to prevent gun violence at some level, and most gun rights advocates that I know don't object to it. The latter has no logical relation to preventing gun violence, but every possible relation to confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Zordak]

some newspapers were getting the records and publishing maps of the houses of permit holders

I've never understood the logic of this kind of "retribution." Granted, it's done with malice, so that's bad. But what, a bunch of unarmed anti-gun hippies are going to attack the homes of people they know have guns and are serious enough to get a license to carry one at all times? If anything, this seems like a list of "houses not to hit" for potential burglars. "Okay, we know not to go to that house, because if we do, we're gonna get shot. Let's hit the home of his hippie neighbor who posted a retribution list of concealed carry licensees. He's sure to be unarmed."

Re:..or without a background check?

[Zordak]

no proof that you did not supply the weapons specifically to have your alleged accomplice commit the crime

You seem to misunderstand how burden of proof works.

Re:..or without a background check?

[x0ra]

You don't "need" to control who buy gun. If I am a criminal, if I WANT to buy a gun, I can get a handgun easily, and I will not go through an FFL. The point is, criminals are CRIMINALS, they don't care about the law, breaking another one is not gonna bother them. However, if 30% of a society pack a weapon and *train* to use that weapon, criminals will probably think twice before committing a crime.

Re:..or without a background check?

[x0ra]

Btw, if you think a firearm is difficult to make, think twice. With a 3k investment, you can get all the tooling (essentially a mill, a lathe, and a few bits) needed to build firearms, including AR-15 lower receiver. Heck, you can build a single shot 12 gauge shotgun for $30 worth of hardware (steel pipe, cap, nails) from Home Depot, you should even be able to get it for free in construction site scrap.

Re:..or without a background check?

[mjwx]

I have a great reason.

To fulfill Bill Clinton's vision.

In August 1996, Bill Clinton stated that abortion should be Safe, Legal and Rare.

Medically, it's about as safe as it can be. It's been legal for 41 years. The only way for us to be sure that it's rare is to keep full and accurate records.

LK

That wont make it rare, that will only ensure we have accurate accounting.

Even then, you'll still have people who'll want to avoid the clinics because their name will be taken down and recorded forever. So they end up doing it with a coat hanger in a back alley or travelling to countries where they can get an abortion without the stigma. So even then, whilst it appears abortions are rare, they're just outsourced and this happens a lot with young pregnant girls from countries where the government is run by some deeply religious retards... Like Ireland.

What makes abortions rare is proper sex education removing the stigma of contraception (also not throwing up political/medical/religious roadblocks between girls getting the pill). However to do this you need to get rid of the religion that is so perversive in your political system.

Prevention is far better than cure, better contraception education results in fewer unplanned pregnancies leading to fewer abortions.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Lord Kano]

You're missing the point.

My argument was facetious. It would be no more about making abortion rare than "assault weapons" bans, "Universal Background Checks" and gun registration are about preventing gun violence.

The true purpose of tracking everyone who had an abortion would be so that they could be prosecuted if and when the political winds change enough to make it possible, just like those gun control schemes are about hassling,harassing and tracking legitimate gun owners until the political winds allow for banning and confiscation.

LK

Re:..or without a background check?

[guevera]

the sudden decision that concealed carry permit applications were public records, and that some newspapers were getting the records and publishing maps of the houses of permit holders. Those who filled out the forms had no expectation that the data was a public record, and the form didn't tell them that it was.

If it's a government record, it's a public record. That should always be the assumption. Exceptions need to be exceedingly rare.

In the case of concealed carry permits, there's lot of room for malfesance by the issuing authority. You'll never find out about it if those records are exempt from disclosure.

Of course a better solution is to not require a government permit for exercising your second amendment rights.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Arker]

You know, I am not a lawyer, and I cannot give you a specific requirement there. There probably isnt one now that I think about it. The practice among the people I know is to keep a record of when it was sold, and a name and signature from the buyer. Both to cover yourself and, frankly, because in those rare cases where LE does have a legitimate reason to come back looking for it we do want to be able to help. Gun owners are generally pretty law and order people, with natural respect for LE. That respect can be and is strained by bad laws and bad LE practices and people resent over-reaches but end of the day we do want the cops catching real criminals and we are not trying to impede that.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Arker]

"But what, a bunch of unarmed anti-gun hippies are going to attack the homes of people they know have guns and are serious enough to get a license to carry one at all times?"

Obviously that is not expected.

What is expected is a horde of hipsters making a spectacle and attempting to cause pain for the gun owner through his/her family and/or work and livelihood. People organizing maliciously to bully your kids and cause you trouble at work can actually be a lot harder to deal with than a physical assault.

"If anything, this seems like a list of "houses not to hit" for potential burglars."

See it's a double-edged sword that way. It's a house you definitely dont hit on a whim - cause you could get shot. But on the other hand, if you are a serious burglar, this marks it as a high value target. They'll watch for a chance and once sure nobody is home, they want to get in to steal those weapons.

Re:..or without a background check?

[pla]

But what, a bunch of unarmed anti-gun hippies are going to attack the homes of people they know have guns and are serious enough to get a license to carry one at all times?

Nope. More like "Hey, criminals, can't buy a gun? This 80YO snowbird (age and secondary residence listed on the CCW form) probably has a few kicking around her summer home!"

Re:..or without a background check?

[Goody]

I agree. Unfortunately I posted without reading the OP. I support background check databases, not gun registries.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Goody]

So basically criminals don't care about breaking the law, therefore we shouldn't have any laws and should just pack guns.

Re:..or without a background check?

[coinreturn]

False equivalence.

Re:..or without a background check?

[QuantumPion]

We should have laws for things that are inherently wrong, like murder. Owning a gun is not inherently wrong, and therefore should not be prohibited since the attempt to do to won't prevent criminals from getting guns illegally anyway.

Re:..or without a background check?

[MBGMorden]

No - laws should punish things that are actually wrong. Theft, rape, murder, etc. Anything that it is claimed simply facilitates the breaking of another law without causing direct harm itself should not be illegal.

In the terms of this site - the DMCA is wrong, because (as is obvious) the pirates are gonna pirate stuff regardless. The law only prevents legitimate uses.
Banning guns or complicating the process is wrong, because murderers are going to get guns and kill people anyways.

Put simply, laws do not PREVENT crime. Never have, never will. All they do is define what crime is, so that we can identify those that have done society wrong and punish them accordingly.

Re:..or without a background check?

[MBGMorden]

You have no record of the sale so no proof that you did not supply the weapons specifically to have your alleged accomplice commit the crime.

You do realize that guilt must be proven right? Innocence does not have to be proven and is assumed.

Re:..or without a background check?

[jratcliffe]

[a national gun registry] has logical relation to preventing gun violence, but every possible relation to confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens.

Disagree with you here. A national gun registry WOULD be useful for preventing gun violence. It might not be useful enough to justify the intrusion and confiscation risk, but it would be useful. How? By enabling law enforcement to go after the supply chain that gets guns into the hands of criminals. Typically, guns that end up in the hands of criminals (where we all agree they shouldn't be) were legally purchased initially, but then sold on (illegally) to a criminal. If law enforcement were able to say "hey, we seized seven guns last month from criminals that were all purchased by John XYZ," that would allow them to go after illegal distributors like John XYZ, and reduce the ease with which criminals can obtain guns.

Would it be perfect? Of course not, some guns would still end up in criminal hands through theft, etc. Would it be helpful? Definitely. Would it be worth the confiscation risk you cite? That's a debatable issue. I believe it would be, you clearly differ with me on that.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Bartles]

Amazingly, the NRA is in agreement with you.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Bartles]

I gave you three reasons. The last one is actually something that has already happened to gun owners in NY.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Obfuscant]

If it's a government record, it's a public record. That should always be the assumption.

Nonsense. Utter and complete crap. That would make every intrusive census form public. How about your tax returns? The government demands (and collects) a lot of information about us, and assuming it should all be public information is just ridiculous.

The assumption is that forms that become public records say so in no uncertain terms so that the private citizen filling one in can decide in advance if he wants that information made public.

In the case of concealed carry permits, there's lot of room for malfesance by the issuing authority.

So what? You think you deserve to have access to every bit of information the government has about someone on the off chance that someone in the government made a mistake on a form? You think you should have free access to the information people provide on CCH applications so you can do a better job monitoring the government's issuance of permits?

Of course a better solution is to not require a government permit for exercising your second amendment rights.

In a perfect world, the personal information the government collects about someone would never be a public record and the second amendment wouldn't be necessary. But to claim that everything should be a public record because the world isn't perfect is just ludicrous. "If we're going to have a Big Brother state, we might as well let everyone play along and see the information about everyone else...."

Re:..or without a background check?

[Quila]

I've had background checks that barely stopped short of an anal probe, and I'd still rather not have a background check any time I may want to buy a perfectly legal item such as a gun.

In any case, private persons can't require a background check since we're not allowed to initiate one. We would have to go through an FFL to do one, and that is definitely a restraint of trade in a constitutionally protected item. Unless the government can provide a free, instant and private (i.e., it doesn't record transactions) method of a background check for private sales, they shouldn't be required.

Re:..or without a background check?

[operagost]

Do you seriously believe that a person who's afraid to go to a store to buy condoms is not afraid to get an abortion?

Re:..or without a background check?

[operagost]

I assume you meant "seize" when you said "cease".

Re:..or without a background check?

[volmtech]

I'll play. How old were they? Why are they having an abortion? Who is paying for it? Could they be victims of incest, sex slave, coerced by an abuser?

Re:..or without a background check?

[Arker]

Sure, but even so, being under investigation can be quite uncomfortable. It wastes your time and LEs time. Best to avoid it when you can.

Re:..or without a background check?

[QuantumPion]

Even if private individuals could use the NICS system there's no point in making a law requiring it. The honest people will use it whether it is required or not since it protects them from liability, while the criminals will just ignore the law regardless.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Quila]

I would say that anybody who does use such a system should gain criminal and civil immunity from anything resulting from the transfer of that firearm.

Re:..or without a background check?

[YukariHirai]

Freedom of expression, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure are pretty weak without an armed population.

From where I'm standing, they seem pretty weak even with an armed population.

Re:..or without a background check?

[YukariHirai]

Having guns won't help as much as you think; governments and their agents tend to be a lot better armed than their populations. Now, as I said, I live in a country with pretty strict gun laws. Our population is not armed. While our government (especially the current one) have been known to do some shitty things, we're nowhere near the point of "man, I wish we had some weapons so we could fight back against the oppressors".

Re:..or without a background check?

[YukariHirai]

He's not saying that. What he's saying is that it's hypocritical for politicians (and their minions) to have armed guards, and for us peons to not have the same means to protect ourselves. Even if all guns were confiscated, criminals would still have guns. That's why they're criminals - they don't obey the law. I've always thought that somebody who has their own armed guards (politicians, celebrities, sports stars, etc) speaking out against firearms was hypocrisy to the extreme.

That's why law enforcement exists. And sure, they'll have an uphill battle getting guns out of the hands of criminals, but that doesn't mean it's impossible or shouldn't be done. And I think this need "to protect ourselves" is a bit overblown... if no-one has guns, then what exactly is the great danger you need to protect against?

Also, I'd say that while it is hypocrisy, it's not to the extreme. If any nutcase out there can currently get guns and they're a high profile target - particularly to the people with guns because they're against them - it's not entirely unreasonable to have an armed guard.

Oh, why do nearly all of the Federal agencies have their own armed officers now? Why have they been buying millions of rounds of hollow point ammunition? Why have they been buying sniper ammunition? Why does an FDA agent need a firearm? How long before they decide that they're the only ones who have firearms. Hmmm?

Same as above - if the general population is armed and there's a lot of hostility towards said agencies (whether that's reasonable or unreasonable is up for debate), they'd be idiots not to. I live in a country with strict gun laws, and most of our government agencies - ie all the ones that aren't law enforcement, intelligence or the military - are unarmed. And those that are generally have better things to do than go around oppressing random civilians like villains in a bad movie.

Stay in your country if you like it so much, and stay out of our discussions. You don't vote here.

Tell you what, if America stays the fuck out of everyone else's business, we've got a deal. Talk about hypocrisy to the extreme. Besides, nowhere on Slashdot does it say "for Americans only", and different points of view from different backgrounds are good for discussion, which is the whole point of all of this.

Re:..or without a background check?

[YukariHirai]

They'll never have a monopoly on force, but whatever way you slice it they'll always be market leaders.

Re:..or without a background check?

[harrkev]

And I think this need "to protect ourselves" is a bit overblown... if no-one has guns, then what exactly is the great danger you need to protect against?

So, if a 20-year-old man comes after an 80-year-old granny with a knife, no gun = no danger?

An 80-year-old can pull a trigger with the best of them, as long as their eyesight is still good.

Sad that I have to post this, since it is really just common sense. I guess it isn't quite so common as I would hope.

Re:..or without a background check?

[s.petry]

I'm not quite sure you actually stopped to think before posting. Ask the Jewish community in Germany how well they could fight back after losing all their guns. Ask the people Mao killed how it worked out for them, or ask the people Stalin killed, or Pol Pot, or Kim, etc...

Having "a" method is critical for freedom. Read what the founders of the US said about that exact issue.

Our population is not armed. While our government (especially the current one) have been known to do some shitty things, we're nowhere near the point of "man, I wish we had some weapons so we could fight back against the oppressors"

So you are content with your government doing shitty things and you are content to be a servant to them. In addition to a history book, I would recommend that you read "The Allegory of the Cave".

Re:..or without a background check?

[david_thornley]

Is it your contention that the Holocaust would not have happened if the Jews had had access to individual weapons? Read up on how it was done, and then try to explain how that would have helped.

Individuals with weapons are unable to stand up to a few trained people with weapons. Groups of people with weapons are unable to stand up to low-quality, badly led, inadequately equipped, regular troops - or, at least that's the WWII lesson, and I really doubt it's changed since then.

Re:..or without a background check?

[david_thornley]

In the courtroom, everybody has the presumption of innocence and guilt must be proven. Until you're on trial, that does not apply, and people can be really unpleasant without needing to convict you first.

Re:..or without a background check?

[s.petry]

I refuse to answer an impossible hypothetical question. You can go back in history much further than the few examples I gave and still see that citizens having weapons is an important factor in balancing government powers.

Through recorded history this is a pretty consistent theme, going back to ancient Greece. Governments have soldiers and weapons, citizens get trampled on. It's rarely "instant" but a build up of power into a few hands over time. It gets to a point where people have to revolt every time. When a few thousand pitchforks start ambushing soldiers the balance of weapons starts to tilt the other way. This results in corrupt governments get replaced and corrupt people that built up power and control being pushed out of power or killed.

This is the balance that the founders were worried about and why the 2nd amendment was critical to the US Foundation. The founders wanted a faster easier method of removing corruption, and wanted the populace to have the ability to defend itself from oppression and tyranny. If this is some startling revelation or perceived false claim please go read a history book. I'll warn you that there are many many history books. I have been reading them for half a century and will never, ever be complete with the set.

Re:..or without a background check?

[YukariHirai]

If a 20-year-old man is determined to do harm to an 80-year-old granny, her having a gun will not save her. Unless you are suggesting that gun ownership magically grants the elderly the speed, strength, reaction time and aim of a person 60 years their junior? Doesn't seem very common sense to me. Americans seem to have a common belief that anyone with a gun is able to adequately defend themselves against anyone else, but common sense says otherwise.

Re:..or without a background check?

[harrkev]

Sigh. Please think first.

If granny is at home, the locks on her doors may give her enough time to get ready. Plus the noise of attempted entry will tell her where the criminal is. There are no guarantees in a dangerous situation, but at least there is a chance. Otherwise a young male with a knife vs. an unarmed octogenarian means no chance at all.
In your zeal to tell everybody else how to live, please stop to think about those that you wish to control and have some compassion for them.

Re:..or without a background check?

[YukariHirai]

I refuse to answer an impossible hypothetical question.

Says the person who invited me to conduct a seance to have conversations with people about how they coped with losing things they never had...

This is the balance that the founders were worried about and why the 2nd amendment was critical to the US Foundation. The founders wanted a faster easier method of removing corruption, and wanted the populace to have the ability to defend itself from oppression and tyranny.

And that's working out so brilliantly for you, isn't it? The US government, as an overall institution, is horrendously corrupt. All other democracies do have their own corruption problems too, of course, but the US has it at a ridiculous level. Having guns has not helped you. The only real effect it can be said to have had on corruption, oppression and tyranny is that they're carried out more subtly, indirectly and insidiously, rather than the overt sort enough people know to fight against. Half the population knowing they have to fight and being determined to despite having improvised weapons is worth more than a small fringe with real weapons.

So you are content with your government doing shitty things and you are content to be a servant to them.

Hell no. I hate the shitty things my government does, and speak up about it whenever I'm able to. And it'll be a fucking miracle if they stay in power at the next election. But if I had a gun... the government would still be doing shitty things to people. Doing anything with the gun to try to make a difference would achieve nothing but having some hot lead delivered to my brain at high speed. (For the record, the shitty things my government are doing consist largely of fucking industrial relations and demonising refugees; nothing in the league of rounding up people they don't like and gassing them.)

Re:..or without a background check?

[s.petry]

Says the person who invited me to conduct a seance to have conversations with people about how they coped with losing things they never had...

No seance is necessary and no sarcasm necessary. As stated several times read a book and learn from history. There have been plenty written on the subject and the opinions of the people are pretty clear. They should have fought back and spoken out against a growing tyranny. Those biographies are very unanimous on that part. Niemöller was not the only person to publish this thinking, he was one of countless people in history.

Those people are not speaking about things they never had, these people are speaking about what was lost. Things like family members, relatives, property/heirlooms/valuables/clothing, limbs, peace of mind, personal health, and many lives worth of work.

And that's working out so brilliantly for you, isn't it? The US government, as an overall institution, is horrendously corrupt. All other democracies do have their own corruption problems too, of course, but the US has it at a ridiculous level. Having guns has not helped you. The only real effect it can be said to have had on corruption, oppression and tyranny is that they're carried out more subtly, indirectly and insidiously, rather than the overt sort enough people know to fight against. Half the population knowing they have to fight and being determined to despite having improvised weapons is worth more than a small fringe with real weapons.

We agree on that point, no argument here. I'm one voice in 350 million people and have no control over others. Just like every other country with corruption, people get controlled by the media and propaganda. That said, the reason why they can't push a button and make a tyranny in the US like they have done in other places is because the US population _can_ fight back. As one voice I try and wake people up every day, it works but is a slow process. I don't get paid to wake people up and have to work and take care of my family too. It will get to a tipping point, and all of the harping the awake people have been doing is paying off. This is why the Government is trying to escalate removal of guns from people, gun registration, and making lists of 'who is who'.

Quite honestly it is a bizarre, and disturbing process to live through and watch unfold.

Hell no. I hate the shitty things my government does, and speak up about it whenever I'm able to. And it'll be a fucking miracle if they stay in power at the next election. But if I had a gun... the government would still be doing shitty things to people. Doing anything with the gun to try to make a difference would achieve nothing but having some hot lead delivered to my brain at high speed. (For the record, the shitty things my government are doing consist largely of fucking industrial relations and demonising refugees; nothing in the league of rounding up people they don't like and gassing them.)

This has not worked in so called democratic places without easy access to guns has it? I have no idea where are from and don't honestly need to know. There are too many examples to choose from where democracies are on paper only outside of the US. And before you say it, yes the US has become that same paper democracy but it's not always obvious to people living here. The difference I gave above still holds true. In Mexico the "President" can elect himself back into office as often as he wants and the people can't do anything about it. In the US if Obama did the same people would start hunting down politicians (or at least this is my belief).

If the US candidates for President are Clinton and Bush again, the game will be up because it's too obvious. People's suspicion have been growing for a long time, and that will make it very clear to those on the fence. I have hope that the NWO people are overconfident and make such a big mistake.

Re:..or without a background check?

[guevera]

Democracies die behind closed doors bubba. Your attitude about public records being the exception rather than the rule is unfortunately too wide spread among government agencies. Thankfully, the law usually doesn't share your opinion.

I've never pulled CCW permit lists to look for mistakes on the forms. I did pull 'em to prove that the sheriff, who had a pretty restrictive policy about issuing them, made a habit of approving them to people who donated money to his reelection campaign.

Re:..or without a background check?

[bingoUV]

If the young man is so stupid as to only attack the granny when she is locked up in her home, he isn't much of a threat even without granny having a gun, is he? He'll keep tripping over himself, or something.

Re:..or without a background check?

[bingoUV]

Ask the Jewish community in Germany how well they could fight back after losing all their guns. Ask the people Mao killed how it worked out for them, or ask the people Stalin killed, or Pol Pot, or Kim, etc

Thanks, I'll make it a point to ask an American what they have done about TSA molestations, NSA snoopings etc. with their guns. I hear laws of the US are still being written by corporations - hope the Americans start using the guns for some better purpose than just for school shootings.

Re:..or without a background check?

[YukariHirai]

There are no guarantees in a dangerous situation, but at least there is a chance.

A pretty bloody slim chance, and honestly not enough of one for it to be worth the societal costs of having so many guns out there. And Americans love to bring up this home invasion scenario to justify firearm ownership, but it's just not something that happens at all commonly, even here where we don't have guns.

In your zeal to tell everybody else how to live, please stop to think about those that you wish to control and have some compassion for them.

I might say the same to you. The result of having guns so readily available to people is that a lot of innocent people have been shot dead.

Re:..or without a background check?

[harrkev]

not enough of one for it to be worth the societal costs of having so many guns out there.

Too bad facts are not in your favor. Guns (even the evil black ones) are still on sale, and selling like crazy. Yet the violent crime rate in general, and the murder rate specifically, have dropped significantly over the last few decades. What is wrong? Don't you LIKE dropping crime rates? No, you get worked up into a tizzy over the few high-profile crimes, but completely ignore the everyday common crime that has dropped. There are other posts in this article that have the numbers, but since Australia make it very difficult to buy guns, the overall violent crime rate has gone UP by almost 40%. During almost the same time period (1993 to present), the murder rate in this country has dropped by 49%. Now, if the facts actually backed you, then you might have a case.

A pretty bloody slim chance

Yes, a very slim chance, as long as you ignore the many cases where an honest citizen actually managed to stop murder. Just calling it "bloody slim" is easy. Proving it is the hard part. Sorry, CNN does not generally report "woman shows her gun and scares off attacker without firing a shot." Not very news-worthy, as nobody was hurt. Yet that does not mean that it does not happen. Dog-bites-man is not news. Man-bites-dog is. The reason that mass shootings get so much media attention is because they are relatively rare. "Five people killed by gunman" is news. "Five people killed by five gunmen in five separate incidents" is not news, but it happens. By the way, if you are in a dangerous situation, would you rather have a "bloody slim" chance or "no chance at all?" Just wondering.

The result of having guns so readily available to people is that a lot of innocent people have been shot dead.

The statistics in Australia actually DO back you up in this one. Murder with guns has gone down a lot. Murder by other means (clubs, knives) has gone up quite a bit. So, if people are stabbed to death, that is OK? Or maybe you thing that being beaten repeatedly with a baseball bat is a very fine way to expire indeed?

Do you have any proof that banning guns has actually done anything? Remember the "assault weapons ban" that Clinton signed? Large-capacity magazines were banned for 10 years. Didn't stop Columbine. In fact, if gun control worked, crime should have dropped after the ban, and then risen after the ban expired. Nope, didn't happen. How about Chicago, Washington DC, and New York. Those SHOULD be among the safest places on Earth. Too bad the facts prove otherwise.

Simply stated, I hear from people against guns lots of emotion, but no facts at all, or at least no facts that stand after even a cursory glance at them. I can give you facts: history of murder rate in the US. Crime rates in Australia. Where are your facts? Do you have any?

Re:..or without a background check?

[YukariHirai]

Those people are not speaking about things they never had, these people are speaking about what was lost. Things like family members, relatives, property/heirlooms/valuables/clothing, limbs, peace of mind, personal health, and many lives worth of work.

I notice guns aren't on that list. From an earlier post:

Ask the Jewish community in Germany how well they could fight back after losing all their guns. Ask the people Mao killed how it worked out for them, or ask the people Stalin killed, or Pol Pot, or Kim, etc...

Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't believe they had guns in the first place, which was the point I was trying to make there.

That said, the reason why they can't push a button and make a tyranny in the US like they have done in other places is because the US population _can_ fight back.

Doesn't mean it's not happening anyway, just more slowly and with more subtlety. Even if you've got guns throughout the whole process, that's not going to prevent it happening. By the time enough people finally decide it is time to fight back with the guns, it'll be too late.

This has not worked in so called democratic places without easy access to guns has it? I have no idea where are from and don't honestly need to know. There are too many examples to choose from where democracies are on paper only outside of the US. And before you say it, yes the US has become that same paper democracy but it's not always obvious to people living here. The difference I gave above still holds true.

It works well enough in actual democracies without easy access to guns. For whatever faults our electoral system has (and they are certainly there), it is an actual functional democracy.

In Mexico the "President" can elect himself back into office as often as he wants and the people can't do anything about it. In the US if Obama did the same people would start hunting down politicians (or at least this is my belief).

Well, that's a nice and comforting belief to have, but it won't happen. People will complain, there will be some protests, and maybe even the odd attack on government buildings, but the people as a whole will not fight back in any meaningful way. Maybe some time down the line when there's a lot more abuses going on, but "President gets third term" won't be the tipping point.

Re:..or without a background check?

[s.petry]

Those people are not speaking about things they never had, these people are speaking about what was lost. Things like family members, relatives, property/heirlooms/valuables/clothing, limbs, peace of mind, personal health, and many lives worth of work.

I notice guns aren't on that list. From an earlier post:

I believe that you are attempting to cherry pick for your opinion, which is unbecoming at best.

Ask the Jewish community in Germany how well they could fight back after losing all their guns. Ask the people Mao killed how it worked out for them, or ask the people Stalin killed, or Pol Pot, or Kim, etc...

Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't believe they had guns in the first place, which was the point I was trying to make there.

A history book will show that you are wrong. Not just with recent tyrannies but follow that back to ancient Greece and you can see the same thing.

That said, the reason why they can't push a button and make a tyranny in the US like they have done in other places is because the US population _can_ fight back.

Doesn't mean it's not happening anyway, just more slowly and with more subtlety. Even if you've got guns throughout the whole process, that's not going to prevent it happening. By the time enough people finally decide it is time to fight back with the guns, it'll be too late.

I told you I don't argue the point it's been happening, I'm arguing that we have hope that other countries without an armed populace does not. That is not to imply that a revolt in the US would not be bloody, but less innocent people would be killed than in a place that also has to fight to find arms to fight with.

It works well enough in actual democracies without easy access to guns. For whatever faults our electoral system has (and they are certainly there), it is an actual functional democracy.

I doubt this is true very much. The US does not have a monopoly on having a few people with money push certain people into politics without the public noticing. Only certain people get advertisements, favorable spots on the 'news' channels, TV time, body guards so that they can visit locations, banners and flyers that are not defaced, etc... I can see why many people believe their democracy is better than the US. "The Allegory of the Cave" is a wonderful vehicle.

Well, that's a nice and comforting belief to have, but it won't happen. People will complain, there will be some protests, and maybe even the odd attack on government buildings, but the people as a whole will not fight back in any meaningful way. Maybe some time down the line when there's a lot more abuses going on, but "President gets third term" won't be the tipping point.

Well, people are already openly questioning a president acting like a dictator. It may take more, but it may take less. Both are speculating, I simply pointed out that people are slowly waking up. Lots can happen between now and the next election. For example the debt based economy that's been created may break before then, forcing a faster change.

Re:..or without a background check?

[cwsumner]

Outside of a database, how else do you effectively and in a reasonable amount of time identify someone who is unfit to buy a weapon at a point of sale? Give them an ad hoc mental examination? Ask them nicely if they have a history of criminal violence? Lie detector test? A database is more effective than anything else to do this.

Keep a database of the Criminals, fine. Keep a database of the honest citizens, very dangerous. If you can't see the difference, then you have your eyes closed...

Re:..or without a background check?

[cwsumner]

So basically criminals don't care about breaking the law, therefore we shouldn't have any laws and should just pack guns.

You miss the point. Laws give the police the right to arrest the criminals, after the crime. But laws do not stop any crimes.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Reziac]

Am I thinking of John Lott? the fellow who set out with a study to prove more guns == more crime, and found it was actually the opposite -- and was big enough to change his tune.

Re:..or without a background check?

[Reziac]

Years ago, one of the first times this topic came up here, someone from Denmark posted a cautionary tale:

According to him, pre-WW2 Denmark had universal gun registration at the local level. When the Nazis came to town, guess where they looked to discover who might be armed/inclined to resist.

Encryption...

[canadiannomad]

So if I were to try to promote the use of encryption in private communications, would that be "a willingness to evade or help others evade the law?"
Nothing to hide, and all that...

Selling assult weapons

[Lumpy]

I can sell assault weapons for cash all day long in my state to private people without even getting their name. and "GASP" most of my "DANGEROUS ASSULT WEAPONS" are unregistered as well..

Oh the horror....

That said, the last place I would sell them is to twits on Facebook. Cripes even ebay twits are not worth dealing with. There are plenty of great private gun selling sites that have people that understand the values and have clues...

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Lumpy]

Yes, I love selling to criminals, you know most gangbangers love buying $1500 AR-15's and $4500 AR-50 sniperrifles, you see them all over the place with these guns in the street. They paint Converse logos on them, and get them gold plated to match their spinner rims YO! The Gangers love big guns that attract attention and are expensive as hell!

Why do you think they wear big baggy pants, that is the only way to hide a 6 foot long gun while you walk the streets looking for targets. I now offer to sellers getting them engraved with "thug life" and gold plating the Uppers.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[harrkev]

First, how do you even define an "assault weapon." An "assault rifle," as defined by Wikipedia is capable of select-fire (AKA machine gun). Those are 100% not OK to just sell, as you need a $200 federal permit, and the approval of a local law-enforcement agency.

However, the term "assault weapon" is more fuzzy, at least according to Wikipedia.

What I absolutely love is how the definition (to borrow from Wikipedia again) includes:

In discussions about firearms laws and politics in the U.S., assault weapon definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and one or more cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively.

Wow. Adding a safety feature and cosmetic features changes the categories. This makes as much sense as taking a street-legal car, painting it red, adding a rear spoiler, roll bars, and suddenly it is a race car that is not legal for street use.

Seriously, all of this talk about assault weapons gets tiresome. If somebody was shooting at me, the color of the rifle and the presence or absence of a pistol grip would be the last thing on my mind.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[x0ra]

By the same logic, any firearm manufacturer is "a link in the chain" for the sheer /legal/ manufacturing of the firearm in question...

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Lumpy]

I use the liberal definition. It's scary and black.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[harrkev]

I use the liberal definition. It's scary and black.

That definition did not work out so well when applied to people. Nothing makes me think that it will work much better here.

After a shooting, the government tries to make us safer by restricting the rights of the 99.999% of the people who did nothing wrong.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Obfuscant]

Why do you think they wear big baggy pants, that is the only way to hide a 6 foot long gun ...

I don't think even the worst gangbanger is so physically deformed that he has a 6 foot long gun. Or am I the only one who remembers drill sergeants correcting their "pupils" when they refer to their M16 incorrectly by having them recite "this is my rifle, this is my gun, one is for shooting, the other's for fun", with the associated crotch-grab?

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Lord Kano]

Liberals find every black person terrifying if they are not actively pandering to said black person at that moment.

LK (A big black guy)

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Ungrounded Lightning]

However, the term "assault weapon" is more fuzzy, at least according to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has it right, in its own "being unbiased in the wording" way.

"Assault Rifle" is a technical term in warfare. It first applied to a particluar select-fire rifle short enough to avoid getting hung up when popping up through the hatch of a tank to fire at surrounding infantry (or otherwise going through tight spaces), and since has been applied to others with simiilar characteristics. This trades away some accuracy for rapid fire and rapid movement.

"Assault Weapon" is a term invented by antigunners and defined in particular laws, to confuse the population about proposed gun control laws by making them appear to be banning military design Assault Rifles when they actually ban a hodge-podge of civilian guns based on some arbitrary (and juristiction-specific) set of characteristics typically unrelated to any objective standard of danger or functionaity.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[PPH]

A quick review is in order.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[DaHat]

It's scary and black.

Racist!

I guess this means that my wife's pink AR-15 variant with Hello Kitty stickers isn't an assault weapon... wheew!

Re:Selling assult weapons

[cold fjord]

You may find this interesting, both the C-SPAN program and books, if you aren't familiar with them.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[gman003]

The simple definition:
An assault rifle is an automatic (including select-fire and burst-fire) rifle in a small caliber (either a short 7mm-class round like the AK47/M14, or 5mm-class round like the AK74/M16, although really anything below 12.7mm is an assault rifle). They are similar, but distinct, from the light machine gun (a squad-level weapon designed for sustained fire, using rifle-type ammunition usually from a drum or belt), the sub-machine gun (fires pistol rounds, usually smaller than an assault rifle), and the personal defense weapon (an overpriced SMG with proprietary ammunition, developed mainly for lucrative defense contracts).

An assault weapon is any gun that looks scary to uninformed people, generally defined based on some "points" system involving forward pistol grips, folding stocks, and the like. I'm pretty sure one could modify a Lee-Enfield No. 4 to be an "assault weapon", despite it's maximum rate of fire being under 40 rounds per minute.

To put is simpler:
An assault rifle is a military weapon. An assault weapon is a gun that looks like a military weapon.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[cold fjord]

my wife's pink AR-15 variant with Hello Kitty stickers

You need to document things like that otherwise people will think you're kidding.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[cold fjord]

Yes, I love selling to criminals, you know most gangbangers love buying $1500 AR-15's and $4500 AR-50 sniperrifles,

Not in my neck of the woods. Here it's mainly muzzle loading flintlocks. They're cheap, deadly, double as a club, and provide an excellent excuse to have large containers full of mysterious powders. They also provide a nice smokescreen for escaping from drive-by shootings.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[hondo77]

Liberals find every black person terrifying if they are not actively pandering to said black person at that moment.

That would be so funny if it wasn't so moronic.

h77 (A big liberal guy)

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Obfuscant]

They also provide a nice smokescreen for escaping from drive-by shootings.

Doesn't it scare the horse and make it pull the buggy into the ditch?

Re:Selling assult weapons

[CrimsonAvenger]

What's really pathetic about the definition of "assault weapon" is the "exception list" that the assault weapon ban(s) included.

For instance, an AR-15 clone is an evil assault weapon.

A Mini-14 is on the exempt list, so it's not. Even if you modify the Mini-14 to have a pistol grip, a large capacity magazine, a flash suppressor, a tac-rail, it is STILL EXEMPT!

So even if it looks just like the AR-15 clone from more than five feet, the AR-15 is an EVIL ASSAULT WEAPON!!1!1, and the Mini-14 is a prefectly legal varmint rifle....

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Lord Kano]

Pride, when poked becomes petty.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[gman003]

I believed him without pictures. They'll slap Hello Kitty on EVERYTHING.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[shutdown -p now]

I use the liberal definition. It's scary and black.

Well, the conservatives in Canada have just banned a green one, so it looks like we'll need to broaden it a little bit.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Scarletdown]

Obligatory Full Metal Jacket link.

But, didn't that chant have a second part as well? I thought it was something like "This one's for women. This one's for tanks. This one shoots bullets. This one shoots blanks."

Re:Selling assult weapons

[s.petry]

The military does a lot to get people to conform, and that's a good example (I'm a veteran and have much more extreme examples if you like). That said, many people outside of the military refer to rifles as "long guns". I'm fine with that.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[x0ra]

NOT the conservatives, the RCMP did. They have their own agenda, as well as authoritarian power to decide whether or not to prohibit a firearm. The minister of public safety, Steven Blaney, issued an amnesty, but it still did not change the loss /enjoyment/ of property for thousand of law abiding canadians....

Re:Selling assult weapons

[x0ra]

There is no such thing as "large capacity magazine". The AR-15 has been DESIGNED to work with a 30-round magazine. This is its STANDARD capacity.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[s.petry]

To be pedantic a 7mm would not include an AK47 unless you fail to round properly. 7.62mm rounds to 8mm, not 7mm. You correct that later by mentioning a 50 caliber size round.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[gman003]

True - I originally had it written as ".30" but decided to use metric and didn't think it through all the way. Although to be pedantic I never defined "7mm-class", which could very well mean 7.00-7.99mm (Wikipedia provides precedent here - it seems the people in charge of gun classification *do* fail to round properly).

However, we are quickly approaching recto-cranial levels of pedantry, so perhaps it's best if I just stop now.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[cold fjord]

Nah, the Amish War Masters have acclimated them.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Zordak]

I use the liberal definition. It's scary and black.

Dude, you're behind the times. Barrack Obama issued an executive order to stop the unthinkable practice of importing scary assault weapons from scary foreign places to be sold to American citizens. What he meant was he stopped the re-importation of American-manufactured M-1 rifles that were shipped to allies overseas and were then being sent back to the CMP for sale to American citizens. M-1s are brown and have no pistol grip. The internal magazine accommodates 7 rounds, plus one in the chamber. And as you probably know, they have been involved in approximately 0% of shooting rampages by disturbed people. Gotta keep those bad boys off the streets.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[x0ra]

Thanks for correction, though, the same argument applies. The now-defunc Federal Assault Weapons Ban was classifying 20-rounder as "large capacity" (with a cutoff for "normal" at 10-round).

Re:Selling assult weapons

[s.petry]

As a gun owner and Veteran I have never heard of this classification (probably because it does not exist). Guns and ammo are referred to with the manufactured size as the description. According to this link, a .306 is the same thing as a .30 caliber, 7.62 NATO, and a .308 which is absolutely false. If you have doubts, go ahead and mix rounds at the range. Make sure you are recording a video to submit as a Darwin Award candidate.

The source listed in this Wiki page is "Barnes, Frank C., ed. Amber, John T., Cartridges Of The World (3rd Edition), (DBI, 1978), ISBN 0-695-80326-3" and later versions of the same book. This is not a standards body, but rather someone who made up an easy naming method for organizing their book.

I'm sure you can see a problem claiming "precedent" which implies a recognized classification, when it is simply an authors simplified organization method. The only people I have known to use this method is you. I was trying to think of an analogy, but I can't think of anything this bad. No offense intended, I give points for creative thinking.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[mjwx]

Wow. Adding a safety feature and cosmetic features changes the categories. This makes as much sense as taking a street-legal car, painting it red, adding a rear spoiler, roll bars, and suddenly it is a race car that is not legal for street use.

Erm, roll bars and spoilers (proper spoilers) change the performance characteristics of a car. So yes, they can turn an ordinary car into a race car that's legal for street use. In fact, if you're going rallying, an upgraded roll cage is a must (unless you're not to attached to this life) and spoilers create downforce (which is quite important at high speed).

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Bananenrepublik]

restricting the rights of the 99.999% of the people who did nothing wrong.

You might want to check your percentages. More than 12000 people died due to gunfire in 2013. Roughly 20% of americans own guns, i.e. some 60 Million. I.e. the fraction of gun owners abusing their guns: roughly 12000 / 60 Mill = 2e-4 = 0.02%, which is an order of magnitude more than you claimed.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Bananenrepublik]

Sorry about the double post. I did something weird when posting, so I checked my user page, the post didn't (and still doesn't) appear there, and it didn't appear when I first reloaded this article page.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Lumpy]

I have an M-1 garand that has a 20 round magazine. Later variants had an external magazine with a very small kit to add the capability.
Also if you are deranged, you can remove the nice wooden stock and install composite scary looking parts to make an M-1 look like a modern rifle. Problem is only a complete deranged fool would do such a thing and destroy the value of the rifle.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[harrkev]

So, if you take a Corolla, add roll-bars, 5-point-harness, a spoiler, and a cool flame paint job, it is ready for NASCAR? Therefore, no longer street-legal?

Ohhhh, Right. NASCAR requires lots of stickers for tobacco products. Then it is ready.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Talderas]

I thought Charles Whitman used a M-1.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Obfuscant]

Amish Mafia. Levi is in it for the money, Caleb is a repressed bully acting out and "kicking the dog" after he got beat up, John is just sad (and a rott), but Merlin is crazy scary.

I still can't figure out why the cops don't just haul the whole bunch off to the clink. They've got the evidence on video. They can charge stupid kids who make cell phone videos of themselves speeding down the freeway, why can't they use professionally shot HD quality video showing someone extorting money from someone?

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Zordak]

I thought Charles Whitman used a M-1.

Well, we're reaching WAY back here, but according to Wikipedia, he used an M-1 carbine, which may as well be an M1911 for all the similarity it has to an M-1 Garand.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Zordak]

I have an M-1 garand that has a 20 round magazine. Later variants had an external magazine with a very small kit to add the capability. Also if you are deranged, you can remove the nice wooden stock and install composite scary looking parts to make an M-1 look like a modern rifle. Problem is only a complete deranged fool would do such a thing and destroy the value of the rifle.

Is that the .308 variant? I've never seen an extended mag for the .30-06. A .308 with a 20-round mag is basically an M-14 (minus selective fire). And you're right, only a deranged moron would jack up an M1 by putting a black composite stock on it. That would be like letting your kid fingerpaint over an original Rembrandt.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[carbonates]

Yes, and even your source says you are wrong. "because roughly 60 percent of deaths by gun are due to suicides" Last time I checked it was not illegal to commit suicide in the USA. That reduces your number to 7200/60,000,000 which by my calculation means 99.99988%, which is a little more than 99.999% did nothing wrong. So the original poster was actually being conservative and you may be confused about the meaning of an order of magnitude.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Bananenrepublik]

You may want to check the meaning of the '%' symbol, then your number would be 99.988%

Re:Selling assult weapons

[david_thornley]

Both are semi-automatic rifles; the difference is that the carbine fires a much lower-powered bullet than the rifle. I don't see that as much of a difference in committing a crime.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Zordak]

Both are semi-automatic rifles; the difference is that the carbine fires a much lower-powered bullet than the rifle. I don't see that as much of a difference in committing a crime.

There are many, many differences between an M1 Garand and an M1 carbine. The Garand is larger and heavier. The carbine shoots a less powerful round, but has a larger magazine. It was designed specifically for soldiers who wanted a lighter rifle than the M1, like paratroopers and radio specialists. They have something like one butt plate screw in common. The fact that an M1 carbine was used in a crime once 50 years ago---and granted, it was a truly horrific crime---hardly seems like a compelling case for banning the import of a completely different weapon that happens to have a similar name.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[david_thornley]

I agree that banning the import of items with "M1" in the name, or banning M1 carbines, is ludicrous. I am perfectly aware of the differences between the M1 carbine and M1 rifle, and none of that is of any practical difference in a legal sense.

Re:Selling assult weapons

[Lumpy]

The problem is that facts dont stop the uneducated from imposing their made up beliefs on others.

The biggest problem in America is not guns, it's people electing idiots. Until we have an IQ and education requirement for government office, we will continue the downward spiral into oblivion.

WE would do better with a random lottery every 4 years for our leaders to be chosen.

FB is lying, yet again

[Cammi]

FB is lying, yet again. They are currently deleting ALL firearms for sale/buy posts.

Re:FB is lying, yet again

[x0ra]

Not all of them, unless it does not address ammunition. I have 7 rounds of 7.62x39 for sale, and it's still up.

Re:FB is lying, yet again

[bill_mcgonigle]

They are currently deleting ALL firearms for sale/buy posts.

That's definitely not true. You must not be in the right groups.

... And Nary a Thing Will Change

[CanHasDIY]

So, Facebook will start harassing people who sell guns... and people will just go somewhere else to buy and sell guns.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if a number of sites cropped up for just that purpose - the legal transfer of a firearm from one private citizen to another.

You can't stop the signal.

Re:... And Nary a Thing Will Change

[oodaloop]

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if a number [armslist.com] of sites [slashdot.org] cropped up for just that purpose

Forgive my stupidity, but why did you link to the very article to which you responded? Was it to get me to click endlessly in a loop, never to actually post? Because it almost worked.

Re:... And Nary a Thing Will Change

[turkeydance]

my favorite was on Craig's List: shotgun choke: $400 with a FREE gift.

Re:... And Nary a Thing Will Change

[Quila]

I saw one guy selling a cheap plastic gun case for a few hundred dollars, but the contents could go with it for free.

Nonsense.

[Beer_Smurf]

Since Facebook does not verify addresses and has no way of knowing where the sale is actually being transacted, this is just total nonsense.

Simply put...

[PortHaven]

Facebook should just post an alert that reads "It is against Federal law to sell a firearm to a prohibited person. This includes felons, those dishonorably discharged, etc."

Re:Simply put...

[x0ra]

I'm gonna be negatively commented out, but I disagree with that law. It has become too damn easy to create "felon" out of non-violent crime. Heck, you can become a felon over sheer copyright infringement, or because you were in the wrong place when you were 15 and got caught smoking marijuana... As a result, your constitutional right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is made void, without any chance to redeem yourself.

Re:Simply put...

[sycodon]

Did you REALLY just cite Venezuela as some kind of utopia brought about by gun laws?

That's a special kind of stupid you got going there.

Re:Simply put...

[x0ra]

What we called today the "Wild West" was probably more civilized than some poor metropolitan area today... As for the gun ban argument, have a look to Australia and UK, whose rate of violent crime has never been so high, while they have utter strict gun law.

Re:Simply put...

[wonkey_monkey]

have a look to Australia and UK, whose rate of violent crime has never been so high*, while they have utter strict gun law.

Right! And since the US, Australia, and UK are absolutely identical in all other aspects of their society, it can only be down to the gun laws!

Wait...

(*not true in the case of the UK)

Re:Simply put...

[xenobyte]

Much more interesting is the discussion on the whole 'perpetual felon' idea. In my book you are a felon while serving your punishment or on parole, but once your debt is paid, you're a free man and should have all the same rights as anyone else, which include the right to vote and the right to own firearms. Only exception to this rule should be sex offenders who should be registered and pedophiles should be banned from working with children and living near schools and similar child-dense areas.

The felon restrictions doesn't make sense in themselves. If you drive drunk and kill someone, you're still allowed to buy new cars and to re-acquire your drivers license, but a felon cannot own firearms or vote for life even when all they did were fraud, counterfeiting or similar non-violent while-collar crime.

Re:Simply put...

[deadweight]

AFAIK Venuzuela has one of the highest - if not the highest - murder rates of any country on the planet.

Re:Simply put...

[ai4px]

Shockingly, recently release stats say that by the age of 25, 40% of men will have been arrested. Could it have anything to do with us continuing to pass more and more laws which in turn make ordinary citizens into criminals? Naww....

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.

Re:Simply put...

[ai4px]

Amen brother... I wish I had mod points for you today. Amazing how we pick and choose crimes that make you a perpetual felon.

Re:Simply put...

[NevarMore]

Until you note that Home Office bases its published crime statistics on CONVICTIONS not REPORTS.

Re:Simply put...

[operagost]

Actually, in many places vehicular manslaughter while under the influence will get your license permanently revoked. But the inconsistency is what we're focused on here.

Re:Simply put...

[wonkey_monkey]

Nope. Still down. That's according to the Police, the British Crime Survey, and hospital records.

Re:Simply put...

[harrkev]

I cranked the numbers for Australia about a year ago. My start point was 1995, before one of their big gun banning sprees. The latest figures that I could find were for 2007. All crime data came from an Australian government web site. I adjusted for population, but the population numbers came from Google. My "crime" figures includes: murder, robbery, assault, and sexual assault. I excluded tiny categories like kidnapping since the numbers were so small. Here is what I found..

In 1995 the murder rate was 17.7. The overall violent crime rate was 7223.5 (once again, per million).

In 2007, the murder rate was 13.3. The overall violent crime rate was 10126.1.

Let me put that in perspective. Per million people per year, about four less people were murdered, but 2,902 more people were the victims of violent crime. Yes, your chance of being murdered was slightly less. However, for each and every life saved, an additional 657 people were the victims of violent crime.

I do admit that other things in Australia might have changed in the 12 years. But if the intention of severely restricting guns was to reduce violent crime, it failed completely, as violent crime was up by 49.5%.

Re:Simply put...

[RevGregory]

I cranked the numbers for Australia about a year ago. My start point was 1995, before one of their big gun banning sprees. The latest figures that I could find were for 2007. All crime data came from an Australian government web site. I adjusted for population, but the population numbers came from Google. My "crime" figures includes: murder, robbery, assault, and sexual assault. I excluded tiny categories like kidnapping since the numbers were so small. Here is what I found..

In 1995 the murder rate was 17.7. The overall violent crime rate was 7223.5 (once again, per million).

In 2007, the murder rate was 13.3. The overall violent crime rate was 10126.1.

In 1995 the US murder rate was 8.2 with a violent crime rate of 6845, in 2007 it was 5.6 and 4718...all while firearms sales soared to all time highs and evil black rifles became the most popular gun sold.

Re:Simply put...

[harrkev]

So, in a country where guns are almost banned, the crime rate goes up?

In a country where firearms are freely available, the murder and violent crime rate goes down??

Inconceivable! (I know. It doesn't mean what I think it means).

But, we still have to ban guns, you know, for the kids. Our kids deserve an increase in crime just like the kids in Australia!

Re:Simply put...

[lsatenstein]

I'm gonna be negatively commented out, but I disagree with that law. It has become too damn easy to create "felon" out of non-violent crime. Heck, you can become a felon over sheer copyright infringement, or because you were in the wrong place when you were 15 and got caught smoking marijuana... As a result, your constitutional right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is made void, without any chance to redeem yourself.

Then try to become an immigrant to another country. There are many where the quality of life is equal or better.

Fackebook prohibits all weapons sales

[tlambert]

Fackebook prohibits all weapons sales. They always have. I don't see why illegal weapons sales are a big deal here, given that "illegal" is a subset of "all".

This is not news, because it's not new.

Re:Fackebook prohibits all weapons sales

[coinreturn]

Fackebook prohibits all weapons sales. They always have. I don't see why illegal weapons sales are a big deal here, given that "illegal" is a subset of "all".

This is not news, because it's not new.

But is nice bait to stir up the gun-nuts.

What's the big deal?

[loony]

They are a private company and can (or should be) allowed to impose whatever rules they want... Its only the federal government that is required to adhere to the bill of rights. So until the Constitution gets amended, we can argue about how illegal background checks, waiting periods, and registration by the federal government are - but there is absolutely nothing you can say about FB doing whatever they feel is right.

Peter.

Re:What's the big deal?

[x0ra]

And we, gun owners, are free to criticize FB to do so.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Overzeetop]

I'm amazed that anyone who considers themselves a freedom loving American would sell out to a sleazebag liberal corporate-whore advertising goat-raper* like Facebook. In fact, I'm not even sure why this is on slashdot, since - based on most FB stories - almost nobody here is even signed up for the service.

*not my words, just repeating what I've read about FB on /.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Nimey]

And we other gun owners are free to mock you for being idiots.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Tailhook]

I'm amazed that anyone who considers themselves a freedom loving American

Likewise. It would be interesting to actually analyze the "ads" that Facebook has actually removed. My bet is they fall into three categories; thug life types passing around $50 zinc belly guns, the fabulously stupid, and all of the above. Competent gun owners don't resell guns on fucking Facebook.

Anyhow, precious few of us will be the least bit upset about Facebook's little manufactured controversy. Corporate anti-gun grandstanding is about as novel as Guardian stories on Israeli "crimes."

Re:What's the big deal?

[x0ra]

I never said so, and it does not. Warfare and aggression is in human nature. You are living in a dream thinking you can legislate to change human nature. Moreover, I live in black bear, coyote, and cougar area. When I go hiking, I am packing a weapon, might it even be a good old blade.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Nimey]

Meh. The NRA does /not/ speak for me, those people are batshit crazy. My rifles are for target shooting and hunting; nothing like blowing the shit out of a recalcitrant printer with eighty rounds from one's Mosin-Nagant.

Re:What's the big deal?

[bigfinger76]

80 rounds from a Mosin? Loaded 5 rounds at a time? I think you're full of shit, breh. That, or it was an HP printer...

Re:What's the big deal?

[Nimey]

In fact it was a Laserjet 4L. I might have put in a few more but the bolt was getting very sticky at that point, so I satisfied myself with some desultory bayonet thrusts and called it a day.

Not just 5 rounds at a whack, but without stripper clips. Me and that printer, we had history.

Re:What's the big deal?

[x0ra]

ATI has made an aftermarket polymer stock which accepts a 10 rounds, single stack, mag. Buy a few extra mag and smoke the sh*t out of that printer ! You might end up dislocating your shoulder once or twice, but that's a detail !

Re:What's the big deal?

[Nimey]

I've got a Limbsavers rollover butt pad, so I don't feel a thing anymore. Beats the hell out of my M44's steel buttplate.

Re:What's the big deal?

[x0ra]

And I'm working out my front deltoid and upper chest :-)

Re:What's the big deal?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

How so? I dispose of old hard drives that way with my Finnish M39 and will go through that many rounds or more in an afternoon.

Re:What's the big deal?

[david_thornley]

While I wouldn't want to prevent somebody from criticizing FB, this seems a bit misguided. They have absolutely no requirement to facilitate gun sales, or for that matter, Hello Kitty poster trades. There are presumably other places to find people to buy and sell guns.

Why?

[invictusvoyd]

Now Why would anyone sell arms on facebook? . aint it supposed to be clandestine business? .. it's like selling arms on times square ..

Re:Why?

[amiga3D]

Actually selling firearms is mostly legal. Some States have certain regulations you have to comply with but generally compliance isn't that difficult. I don't know why they'd use Facebook though as there are much better places to advertise their wares that are known to people interested in buying and selling firearms. This is just a lot of hysteria as people who like to bitch are looking for an excuse to be offended. Facebook is privately owned and can ban pretty much anything they want.

Re:Why?

[Lord Kano]

If it were illicit, yes that would be stupid.

These sales are usually some guy selling his SKS to get enough money to buy a new-to-him Mauser or something like that.

LK

Re:Why?

[Arker]

No, it's not supposed to be a clandestine business, why would it be?

Re:Why?

[x0ra]

I am about to put a Spanish Mauser for sale, for the sheer pleasure of pissing them off.

Re:Why?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Even better would be a pre 1895 Mosin-Nagent.

Zuck in 2011: "I just killed a pig and a goat."

[theodp]

FORTUNE: When he's not too busy connecting people across the universe, Mark Zuckerberg is pursuing a new "personal challenge," as he calls it. "The only meat I'm eating is from animals I've killed myself," says the Facebook founder and CEO...Zuckerberg's new goal came to light, not surprisingly, on Facebook. On May 4, Zuckerberg posted a note to the 847 friends on his private page: "I just killed a pig and a goat."

Re:Zuck in 2011: "I just killed a pig and a goat."

[theodp]

According to today's press release, "Facebook will provide public education ad space targeted at users interested in firearm-related content to ensure they know about the laws related to gun sales." Perhaps among those targeted by Facebook for education will be Facebook's own CEO - FORTUNE indicated Zuckerberg was interested in firearms ("Zuckerberg has learned to hunt, according to people close to him. He got a hunting license and recently shot and killed a bison.")

Won't work

[kheldan]

This amounts to the sort of censorship that online forums and chatrooms/services have been attempting to do for a long time now. Problem is wordfilters don't work, there's always a way around them, and faster than they can add terms to the wordfilter, someone comes up with another euphemism or substitute for the word or phrase being blocked. Same thing will happen here, they'll just come up with different words to say "gun for sale", and Failbook will never be able to keep up with the evolution of the language being used. In other news: Failbook is now planning on censoring what you post. Haven't you people had enough of Failbook and it's bullshit yet?

Wrong way of looking at it...

[Lawrence_Bird]

Facebook does not want to be hounded by the anti-gun/do-it-for-the-children/omfg-i'm-scared lobby.

Re:Wrong way of looking at it...

[shutdown -p now]

I think they would prefer to be hounded by those, as opposed to the NRA. If the recent events have shown anything, it's that anti-gun petitions and demonstrations are significantly less numerous than pro-gun ones - simply because most people who are vaguely for stricter gun control don't care all that much about it (not enough to get their ass off the chair and do something, basically), while a significant proportion of gun owners will treat gun control as a very serious issue and are willing to invest a considerable amount of time and money fighting against it.

Heck, it's a very simple number game even on Facebook itself. The biggest pro-gun lobby/propaganda org is, doubtlessly, the NRA. The two most prominent anti-gun lobby/propaganda orgs are Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action. So, looking at their Facebook pages:

MAIG - 20,000 likes
MDA - 150,000 likes
NRA - 3,000,000 likes

Who would Facebook rather piss off?

Re:Wrong way of looking at it...

[misexistentialist]

Zuckerberg is surely a member of that lobby

Re:Wrong way of looking at it...

[shutdown -p now]

What makes you believe that gun owner demographic (especially the kind that actually go like/join NRA) is "people living in impoverished rural communities"? Guns are fairly expensive, on the order of electronic gadgetry. Ammo is also not cheap. The modern stereotype of an American gun owner is "rich fat white guy", and it's fairly accurate (I can testify to that, being such myself, and seeing who else comes to the range when I'm there). Needless to say, that is an audience rife for advertising.

Re:Wrong way of looking at it...

[shutdown -p now]

Gun ownership is low in cities, and high in rural areas.

This is also not entirely accurate. Yes, the rate of gun ownership is lower in cities, but urban gun owners tend to be more wealthy, and have significantly bigger gun collections as a result. Basically, a rural area might had a dozen rednecks with a shotgun and a rifle each (both several decades old), whereas the city will have two RFWGs each with a dozen guns with an average price tag of $800-900.

Anyway, the point is that, apparently, catering to the gun crowd doesn't actually piss the urbanites off all that much. If it did, we'd see way more membership in and funding of gun control organizations, way bigger demonstrations against guns etc. On the other hand, the gun crowd tends to be very touchy (which shouldn't come as a surprise, as many are clinically paranoid and live in their own reality where the government is out to take their guns and freedoms, and everything that can even tentatively be connected to that is a part of the grand master plan).

So they'll probably do what organizations usually do: adopt a few symbolic and largely meaningless measures that are enough to get the gun owners talking but not quite fuming, while also allowing MDA and MAIG to publish nice press releases about "somebody finally did something! yay us!".

Illegal gun sales?

[jcr]

What are they going to do, delete Eric Holder's account?

-jcr

Re:Why bother with Facebook?

[x0ra]

It's black, the magazine is overly protruding, and it has a barrel shroud... must be an "assault weapon" [sic] :-)

Re:Guns and Porn

[Lord Kano]

Ebay also had the added leverage of being able to freeze people's assets for 180 days through PayPal.

People were less likely to press the issue when PayPal could lock them out of their operating capital for 6 months.

LK

Re:Why bother with Facebook?

[kurzweilfreak]

Barrel shroud? That's the thing on the shoulder that goes up, right?

Re:Spin much?

[x0ra]

To some extend, it is just like the Starbucks stance on OC and CC. But I fear that they are actually alienating against both side, by refusing to take a stance. This is the problem with compromise, it's not pleasing ANYONE...

And herein lie the issues

[phoenix182]

"It would also remove posts from any state in which a gun seller says a background check will be skipped, even if such checks arenâ(TM)t required where the seller lives." There is no law requiring such a check in most states, therefore they are knowingly deleting posts which conform to the law. What's more, it is essentially impossible for a private citizen to perform a proper NICS check, meaning that it is impossible to honestly comply with the intent of the policy. Also, it requires a near expert in law and firearms to determine which guns are actually legal or illegal, so there is little chance of this being implemented as intended. Finally there is little evidence of a positive causal relation between background checks and actual impacts. While we can certainly accept that sometimes it may offer a minor deterrent or slowing, in most of the incidents which have led to this type of policy implementation it would have absolutely no effect, thereby negating the need for such policy in the first place. This is a TERRIBLE situation.

Re:And herein lie the issues

[Quila]

It would also remove posts from any state in which a gun seller says a background check will be skipped

So FB would block a post that said "I will not ask for any background check. But I will only sell to concealed carry license holders."

A lot of people only sell to CCW holders just to make sure they're in the clear legally and morally. But Facebook would ban that post.

Legal interstate sales.

[JWSmythe]

Well, at least in Florida, I (an individual firearms owner) can sell to another individual in person.

I was told by the operator of a gun store, that I *can* choose to ask FDLE to run a background check for the purpose of selling a firearm. They will only give a yes/no answer to if the buyer is ok to sell to.

I, as a private individual, *can* sell to anyone, in any state. It has to be shipped to a federally licensed firearms dealer who is willing to do the transfer (i.e., pretty much any gun store). Around here, the cost to do the transfer is about $25, paid by the buyer. For the sake of not having the weapon seized in transit, it has been recommended to me, to ask a local store to handle the outbound shipment. The receiving dealer is responsible for ensuring local laws are followed. For example, if you live in California, and I sell you an AR-15, but not in a California-legal configuration, they are obliged not to give it to you. Likewise, if you don't meet the legal requirements to own a firearm, they will refuse it. I haven't personally been involved in such a transaction, but it is my understanding that if the transaction cannot be completed (the weapon is not legal in that jurisdiction, or the owner cannot take possession of it), it will be returned to me.

If you sell me a firearm, I, as a CCW holder, can pick up the weapon at the receiving store immediately, but they still call FDLE to ensure there's nothing new on my record. If I didn't have a valid CCW, there may be a waiting period, depending on the type of weapon.

There are some things that are illegal in Florida, but not everywhere. I happened to stumble across a few while looking at alternative ammunition. The "dragon's breath" shotgun shells are illegal here. I just thought they were interesting, although I don't see them being very practical. Flechette shotgun shells are also illegal. In theory, I could go buy them in another state. I may also be able to mail order them. If I am caught possessing or using them, I may be in trouble.

Re... or without a background check?

[JWSmythe]

I worry every time I have to go through a background check. It's not that I've done anything, or I intend to do anything. There's always a chance for human error.

I had an interaction with the police once. They got rather irate that I had a felony warrant. At least the officer asked for them to look at it carefully. It was my name, but my DOB was about 30 years off. That was years ago, and hasn't come up again, so I'm guessing the warrant was satisfied.

We're all just one clerical error away from failing a background check. About the time you're going through the background check, isn't the best time to try to get it fixed. Well, unless you're flying, then we're all one soundex match away from someone with a name or alias that sounds similar ours to get put on the no-fly list. Good luck getting off of that.

Re:Re... or without a background check?

[MBGMorden]

Yeah I run into the same thing. There's a guy with my same (first and last) name and birthdate who was born a few rooms down from me (our mothers actually spoke that day and were amused that they both named their babies the same name). His middle name is different and his SSN is different.

Fast forward to adulthood he turned out to be quite the bad apple. Before I moved from my parents house I was getting his debt collection notices (of which there were many) constantly. They didn't hit my credit report so I didn't care too much. Then I found out my insurance had skyrocketed and upon investigating the insurance company had mixed up our records and raised MY insurance. About 4 years ago I was driving home, got pulled over for speeding. The cop mistakes me for him and I come damned close to being arrested because my doppleganger was supposed to be in prison on narcotics charges. The local hospital has also mixed up our identities as well.

Trust me, every time they'd call in for a NICS check I'd be nervous that they'd mix us up again (though I always put down my SSN, which is optional, to help narrow things down). Thankfully after I got my concealed weapons permit the background check is no longer necessary in my state so I don't have to worry about it anymore.

Re:Re... or without a background check?

[JWSmythe]

I guess I lucked out.

I worked for a background information company a while back. I did a broad search for my real name (i.e., not my Slashdot name), and found all the other "me"s out there. There are several right around my age. There were doctors, lawyers, and a pilot. One, approximately my age, didn't live very far way, so we could easily be mixed up.

I had some nefarious thoughts as I was looking at their full record. I had their DOB, SSN, address history, phone numbers. I could have easily become a doppelganger.

Damn. I just checked on Intelius.com for myself. I know how they pull some of their records, and they use the same resources as some employment verification companies. The real me on there, based on age, cities shows all the wrong employers, the wrong education, and an extra relative that I don't have. Great. Maybe I should go try to buy a gun, to see what new shit comes up. It's been a few years.

Maybe it's just time to change my name to a string of random letters, and live in a nice cabin in the woods. I hear the property Ted Kaczynski was living on is available now. He lived pretty quietly out there for a while.

Your wrong by an order of magnitude

[Bananenrepublik]

You might want to check your percentages:
1) deaths by gunfire in US in 2013: > 12000
2) gun owners: roughly 20% of US population, i.e. roughly 60 Million people

Therefore the fraction of irresponsible gun owners in 2013 is around 12 000 / 60 Mill = 0.02%. This is an order of magnitude more than you claimed. The number is certainly not negligibly small as you seemed to try to suggest.

The number is going to shrink a little if one factors in events were several people were killed, but then 12000 is a lower bound to begin with. Taking into account the duration of gun ownership (it doesn't matter whether the killing happens in the first or the twentieth year of ownership) and non-lethal encounters (also irresponsible), we're almost certain to gain another order of magnitude.

Re:Your wrong by an order of magnitude

[harrkev]

Ahhh. Another person who either failed logic 101 or who likes to skew facts. You assume that all gun deaths = irresponsible gun owners. How about these categories?

Police shootings. Yes, there are some cops who should not have a badge or a gun. But the vast majority of them are responsible public servants. I would say that when a police officer shoots a dangerous criminal it is not irresponsible.

Similarly, a gun used by a responsible and honest citizen to protect their own life and the lives of their loved ones is hardly an irresponsible use of a gun. To argue otherwise indicates that you value the lives of criminals over that of decent citizens.

Many gun deaths are suicides. The belief that getting rid of guns would prevent these deaths is naive. I would say that a bottle of whisky and a bottle of sleeping pills are easier to get than a box of bullets. Guns are an effective suicide tool, but are far from the only tool available.

Also my statistic of 99.999% was a very rough approximation. I have not done the math recently. It may be 99.995%. Even if it is only 99.99%, the point still stands that it makes little sense to restrict the rights of all because a tiny minority abuses it. Plus, criminals, by definition, do not obey the law and are happy to purchase guns illegally. Taking away rights only harms the honest people. Need I point out that almost all mass shootings happen in "gun-free" zones?

Re:Your wrong by an order of magnitude

[Bananenrepublik]

Ahhh. Another person who either failed logic 101 or who likes to skew facts. You assume that all gun deaths = irresponsible gun owners. How about these categories?

That's certainly fine for an estimate of order of magnitude, especially as the statistic I was referring to only counted deaths actually reported in the media, and therefore probably happening in more outrageous circumstances. And yes, I believe that virtually all gun deaths (and injuries inflicted by guns, which are not even tallied in that number) are irresponsible.

Police shootings. Yes, there are some cops who should not have a badge or a gun. But the vast majority of them are responsible public servants. I would say that when a police officer shoots a dangerous criminal it is not irresponsible.

No, but the criminal wielding a gun certainly is.

Similarly, a gun used by a responsible and honest citizen to protect their own life and the lives of their loved ones is hardly an irresponsible use of a gun. To argue otherwise indicates that you value the lives of criminals over that of decent citizens.

Again, probably the criminal was using a gun irresponsibly himself. And no, I don't value the life of a "decent" citizen over that of a criminal. I believe in the right to self-defence, but it's still a tragedy if somebody is hurt in the outcome.

Many gun deaths are suicides. The belief that getting rid of guns would prevent these deaths is naive. I would say that a bottle of whisky and a bottle of sleeping pills are easier to get than a box of bullets. Guns are an effective suicide tool, but are far from the only tool available.

That doesn't change the fact that suicide with a gun requires an irresponsible gun owner -- which is what your number was about.

Also my statistic of 99.999% was a very rough approximation. I have not done the math recently. It may be 99.995%. Even if it is only 99.99%, the point still stands that it makes little sense to restrict the rights of all because a tiny minority abuses it.

As I pointed out, the number is probably closer to 99.8%. Where's the threshold? You said, irresponsible ownership of a gun is very seldom -- hugely underestimating its frequency when you were making that argument. Maybe that's something to think about instead of something to rationalize.

Plus, criminals, by definition, do not obey the law and are happy to purchase guns illegally. Taking away rights only harms the honest people. Need I point out that almost all mass shootings happen in "gun-free" zones?

Right, and criminals don't purchase guns legally. Anyway, that's a discussion that's so old and tiring -- and besides the point, see "suicides" -- that we don't need to have it here, as we're certainly not going to agree.

Re:Your wrong by an order of magnitude

[harrkev]

I would like to point out that YOU are the one who used the word "irresponsible" first. I consider a bad gun owner to be one who hurts others. Anybody who hurts themselves, due to either negligence or suicide, to simply be Darwin in action. My comment about suicide still stands. A person who simply desires to do themselves in without hurting others, by whatever means, is no danger to you or me. Were guns to be banned, would you be on a campaign to ban cars simple because a few choose to leave them running in a closed garage?

You are perhaps right about legitimate police and self-defense shootings in that there must be somebody else out there who is doing the wrong thing. Might I point out that people have been legitimately shot who have been armed with knives?

You said, irresponsible ownership of a gun is very seldom

Way to put words in my mouth... Here is what I said:

After a shooting, the government tries to make us safer by restricting the rights of the 99.999% of the people who did nothing wrong.

Even if it is actually more like 99.99%, my point still stands. But let's get actual figures...

Gun homicides in US (2010, according to CDC): 11,078
Gun ownership in US (2010, according to Gallup): 39%
Population in US( 2010 US census, according to Wikipedia): 308,745,538

Lets assume that the average size of households with and without guns are the same average size. That yields 120,410,760 people with access to firearms. We could get into a discussion about how many people in the household have access to the guns and the average sizes of gun vs. non-gun households, but to start with, we will make some simplifying assumptions.

So, the actual percentage of good gun owners who manage to not commit murder is 99.99079%. Lets put this in perspective. For each and every gun murder out there, there exists 10,869 people out there who have access to a gun and yet manages to kill nobody. To round, one out of every TEN THOUSAND gun owners does bad things. Clearly, this is a problem. Damn the rights of the TEN THOUSAND if we can stop one. This really bothers me. I am an honest person. I work hard, pay my taxes, and raise my kids. It really annoys me when somebody tells myself and over ten thousand others like me that I cannot do something because ONE person does something wrong.

Now let's put this in perspective. From Wikipedia:

A black male born in 1991 has a 29% chance of spending time in prison at some point in his life.

This means that approximately 2 out of every seven black males will be in legal trouble. This is a LOT more than one in ten thousand. Do you think that it would be wise to simply outlaw black males based on this logic? (full disclosure: I have three adopted children who are black) So why is it a bad idea to restrict the rights of some people based on a two-in-seven chance of doing something wrong, but a good idea to restrict the rights of other people based on a one-in-ten-thousand chance of doing something wrong?

Really, I want to know how you justify this.

Re:Your wrong by an order of magnitude

[Bananenrepublik]

Out of the 13000 deaths tallied in that statistic I quoted, 1200 were flagged as suicides. Much too large a number, but not essential to the argument. So we can leave them aside for the sake of the argument. I was talkign order of magnitude, not something accurate to 10%. Nevertheless, you may want to think about whether the gun-owning father whose kid shot himself with the gun did something "wrong" or not (let's put it into moral categories, if you don't like the word "irresponsible").

Ok, so it's 1 in 10000 gun owners per year does something bad, or one in 1000 over the lifetime of a gun (hey, 10 years is a low estimate). I would consider that too high a fraction of the owners of a deadly implement. You disagree, fine. That doesn't take away from my oiginal point, namely that your common-sense argument was based on an estimate of yours that was wrong by several orders of magnitude. As an aside: In order to illustrate why it's the 0.0something% that count and not the 99.9999something%, let me give an example : living next to a volcano that has a 10^-4 probability of erupting the next year is quite different from a volcano that has a 10^-2 probability. Even though the 99.99% probability that all goes well looks very similar to the 99% near the other volcano, I'm fairly sure that you wouldn't build your house next to the 10^-2 volcano.

What this had to do with the lower socio-economic standing of blacks, and the biasedness of the court system against them, completely escapes me. Gun owners are not born with their deadly implements that scare other people (or whatever comparison you're drawing).

Re:Your wrong by an order of magnitude

[harrkev]

Even if the estimate is one in 500 does something wrong, that is not a justification to restrict the rights of all of the honest people.

The reason that I bring the incarceration rates on a minority into it is simply that restricting the rights of a broad class of people BEFORE they have done something wrong based on the CHANCE that they MIGHT do something wrong makes no sense. If it did, numbers say that you should restrict the rights of black males born in 1991, as, statistically speaking, that would be a THOUSAND TIMES more effective than going after gun owners. It is the same logic in either case. Yes, black males are born black. Similarly, gun owners were born with the right to purchase firearms in this country.

It is not just that we "disagree." That is like saying that the Ukraine and Russia "disagree." The purpose of our disagreement is that one party want to tell the other what he can and cannot do. The other party simply wants to be left alone to live his own life.

If you DARE to tell me how I can live my life, you had better have a reason substantially better than even a 1% chance that I MIGHT do something wrong with my freedom SOMEDAY.

Re:Your wrong by an order of magnitude

[Lumpy]

" I would say that a bottle of whisky and a bottle of sleeping pills are easier to get than a box of bullets. "

In fact for the past year, it's easier to get Heroin than a box of bullets. you can find pure pharmaceutical grade Cocaine easier than a box of .22LR

Re:Your wrong by an order of magnitude

[Lumpy]

"So, the actual percentage of good gun owners who manage to not commit murder is 99.99079%"
Stating facts are simply wasting your breath, he is an extremist and no amount of facts will change his pre-formed religious opinion.

*You're

[Bananenrepublik]

sorry, hate those homophony-induced spelling mistakes :)

CALL the NRA

[AlabamaCajun]

I'm calling the nra because it's my rights under the 2nd amendment to sell firearms (within state laws) and none of their fakebooking business.

Gun nuts go ballistic

[Martin S.]

Predictable the gun nuts are going ballistic over this, but it is an entirely reasonable thing for FB to do on their 'property'.

Imagine the result if these people tried to sell their guns in a shopping centre or restaurant the authorities would be on them in no time flat.

Re:Gun nuts go ballistic

[Quila]

Imagine the result if these people tried to sell their guns in a shopping centre or restaurant the authorities would be on them in no time flat.

Why? It's perfectly legal. The last gun I sold was in a Target parking lot.

Re:Gunbroker

[CanHasDIY]

Like Gunbroker.com?

I didn't include Gunbroker as it's an auction site, and not a social one.

Plus, as far as I'm aware anything you buy on Gunbroker is required to be shipped to an FFL and the buyer must be given a background check.

overstating subject is overstating

[mr_mischief]

From the summary alone it's clear Facebook isn't "blocking" anything. They are asking people to remember to follow the law while on their property. They want to be sure that what takes place on their site is encouraged by them to be within the law. This makes Facebook potentially less culpable if someone violates the law in a post, as they've made it clear they want the laws followed.

I am not a lawyer. Ask a lawyer if you want legal advice.

OT: public utility?

[umghhh]

So FB is not a public utility - I guess that was easy - it is not utility because it has no utility, public or otherwise.

I have a little legal news for FB

[RogueWarrior65]

There is no legal requirement to run a background check for interstate sales of long guns. Period. Interstate sales of handguns must go through an FFL dealer. There is no legal requirement to perform a background check or go through a dealer for INTRAstate sales from person to person. That's the law. If Facebook doesn't like that, who the f*ck are they to make their own laws that supersede federal laws? Imagine how ugly things would get if someone decided that a photo ID was required to vote. Oh, wait, that did happen and the feds stomped all over it. Bottom line is that if someone wants to get a gun without going through legal methods, they are going to find a way. Criminals don't care how many laws they break.

Beyond this issue, this is an illustration of Facebook thinking it's important.

If it has a shoulder thing that goes up

[Quila]

That's my favorite definition now.