MnSpring wrote on 08/09/19 at 08:55:52:



The problem is mn - I do know how it works.

You think billy bob is gonna do his due diligence when he's got to get home to his double wide and NASCAR?

You're not only funny, but gullible!

MnSpring wrote on 08/09/19 at 09:17:30:

"You simply don't know how a Face to Face transfer works, what it involves, how it accomplished, and how people do it"

 To say face to face transfer requires any form of due diligence is false.  Bottom line is people can sell, give, loan, trade guns with zero interaction of any researching or verification party.  People trade guns all the time, I have, it's legal and many people think this is a "loophole"

"Any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law."

 Each state may have other requirements.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/state-laws-and-published-ordinances-firearms-33r...

Eegore wrote on 08/09/19 at 09:43:24:

 To say face to face transfer requires any form of due diligence is false.

In my experience that is a false statement.
Face to face transfer requires, due diligence !

Can a person Not, do, 'due diligence', and can a person Lie, Sure.
Like someone from IL, going to Wisc, and Lying, about their State of residence, and criminal history. And encountering a person that does not care if that person is LYING.
(which VERY RARE, If at all, that, would happen at a Gun Show)
It would be most likely buying a gun out of a trunk in a dark alley in Chicago/Milwaukee
People can buy drugs on the street, hire a prostitute, rob a bank, kill someone, etc.  
It's called 'Crime'. How many criminals do you know, follow the laws ?

Bottom line is people can sell, give, loan, trade guns with zero interaction of any researching or verification party.
Again that is false. (The Law, you posted below)

People trade guns all the time, I have, it's legal and many people think this is a "loophole"
It is legal, if one followed the Law. See Below.
"Any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law."


Each state may have other requirements.
Which can be stronger, not more lenient.

"Face to face transfer requires, due diligence !"

 Explain how a Face to Face transfer of a firearm can not be completed unless due diligence is conducted.  If its "required" then it can not happen without the requirement.  For instance a Face to Face transfer of a firearm requires two or more people, one or more firearms, and a face to face meeting.  If any of those are not met, then you do not have a face to face exchange.

 There requires no lying to conduct a face to face transfer of a firearm.  One does not need to lie to do that.


 "Bottom line is people can sell, give, loan, trade guns with zero interaction of any researching or verification party.
Again that is false. (The Law, you posted below)"

 Incorrect.  The law does not require research or verification.  "does not know or have reasonable cause to believe"  means flat out ignorance to a person's background.  No requirement to verify anything beyond a State ID.

 Pretend all you want but people can exchange firearms without verification or research, and they can do it without lying.

"And does NOT see, Punish the Criminal,
Not the thing."

 And the other side is you do NOT see that access control is part of the problem, just part of it, not the entirety of it.  Punishing a criminal only after a crime is committed is not acceptable if prevention is possible.

 If DUI was only illegal after you kill someone there would be more dead people on the road.  Why would that be ok?

 Firearm control is about prevention, but instead of acknowledging the fact that less firearms means less firearm related death people will compare red cars to AR-15's as if that proves anything besides poor analogy.

 More firearm laws will most likely not prevent criminal firearm access due to the huge availability of illegal weapons.  Pretending people can't sell/trade each other guns in an unsafe manner gets us nowhere because nobody is going to believe that all legal firearm transactions go above and beyond to gather a criminal background.  

 So pro-gun needs to admit that the current Federal Law is not as safe as it could be, and pro-gun-control needs to admit that most law as it is suggested now won't change a thing.

"Access control exists."

 It exists, but can be better.

 Again you are making analogies instead of having a productive conversation.

 Once people in your position are capable of admitting that legal gun transactions could be made safer then there can be some productive conversation.  All these pro-gun guys marching around with AR's over their shoulders is getting their point across to no one but themselves.  Red car analogies influence the decisions of zero lawmakers.  

"Saying: "Acknowledging the fact that less red cars, means less red car related death"
Is exactaly the same as someone saying:
"We have to Remove, Restrict, Control, these 'scary looking guns', which will mean less 'scary looking guns' related deaths."

 Yes.  Both are true.  Fewer red cars means fewer red car related deaths, same with firearms.  

 As I said its murder-rate-per-second not "scary" factor.

"(That kinna gun, is the, 'Scary' gun)"

 My sources are typically trauma reports indicating the type and rate of injury based off of projectile used.  None.  None of those evaluations mentions "scary" "intimidating" "dangerous" or in any way assigns some adjective to a firearm.  It's evidence based data only.

 "Scary" isn't there, it is literally a study of human anatomy being damaged by foreign body impact and the survivability of said impacts.

 The murder rate per minute is not calculated off of gun type and what it looks like, it is calculated off of the physical results measured from dead human beings.  This scary gun monologue comes from pro-gun trying to downplay the results of murder rate per minute.


"No amount of removing a thing that that was a tool for a DFI, will stop another DFI from using a similar tool/thing"

 I agree.  I also am open minded enough to understand, or at least attempt to understand the broad range of issues surrounding projectile weapon murder rates.  I believe that if firearms were removed people would use knives and explosives since this is what happens pretty much everywhere else where this is a thing.

 I am however willing to accept that there are too many illegal methods of firearm acquisition to expect a firearm ban to be very effective for multiple generations, and also willing to accept that the proven psychological patterns of depression effected humans indicates many would not use explosives on other people.

 The problem is people take these outlandish far right or left stances and go even further with ridiculous comparisons in a feeble attempt to end a conversation instead of just having one.