CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Yes, ban all firearms, they're much too noisy and waken my children.
We could keep the decibels down by killing each other with hatchets or knives and let the neighbors enjoy having sex without the constant noise of gunfire.
There is literally not a single argument for the legalisation of guns which can pass a basic scrutiny test. Whatever benefit gun nuts claim is gained from citizens "protecting themselves" with guns is (vastly) numerically outweighed by the amount of innocent lives they take. More innocent people would be alive today had guns not been legalised in America. That's a simple fact.
There is literally not a single argument for the legalisation of guns which can pass a basic scrutiny test.
Right now, Venezuela is a useful argument for private gun ownership. Hitler and Pol Pot also confiscated personal fire arms prior to instituting oppressive policies and committing mass murder.
Obviously private gun ownership does not deter the most dedicated megalomaniacs, but it discourages those who would become "casual dictators."
A well armed populace is a way to ensure that our leaders know that despotism would NOT be easier than leading in a republic and protecting civil liberties.
More innocent people would be alive today had guns not been legalised in America.
Only to a certain chronological point. Everyone dies, ultimately. (Someone killed by Jesse James would have died by now, even had Jesse been unarmed.)
Death is inevitable for everyone, but not everyone has liberty. In fact, the vast majority of people throughout history lived and died under authoritarian rule. Those of us fortunate enough to live our lives in functioning Republics possess the rarest of treasures, freedom. The desire to protect that treasure is an argument for the legalisation of guns which can pass a basic scrutiny test.
You have once again graphically displayed yourself to be a child like simpleton with your schematic and altogether ineffectual argument.
Just because you live in cloud cuckoo land doesn't mean we all have to join you.
You live in denial in your fool's paradise ''somewhere over the rainbow way up high'' and get a free ride while the rest of us will face up the the harsh realities of life on the streets and fight fire with fire.
So you are stupid enough to think that law breaking criminals will give a flying damn what your proposed law says? Here's your "I'm stupid and naive" sign. Maybe they'll arm up with water pistols because you tell them to with your magic unarm the criminals with laws pixie dust from Never Never Land....
You are a sick arrogant person who is so mindlessly stupid, that you can not grasp that Cars kill far more people. Drunk drivers kill far more people.
It isn't about which kills more people you obnoxious pseudo-Christian idiot. Cars are designed for the purpose of taking you to places you can't reach on foot. They serve a useful purpose in society and car accidents are an unfortunate by-product of that. Guns are designed to kill. Killing is their actual designated purpose. It isn't a by-product of another irreplaceable purpose. Guns are built as tools to kill, and that is what they are used for.
By your insane religious "logic", since nuclear bombs don't kill as many people as cars, nuclear bombs are therefore safer than cars, yes? There should be no problem with walking into Walmart and buying a nuke, right?
You say cars are obviously for transportation yes... but guns aren't for killing. Guns are for protection why is this such a big controversy... let me ask you what in the hell would you use it if someone invaded your house. What would you do if someone invaded the country, then I bet you would be happy to find someone with a gun.
This country would also be invaded if there had not been guns. Why instead of taking them away, why dont we make better laws and regulations against them. If you are the only one that doesn't have a gun all I can say is have fun protecting yourself
the whole idea of presenting a debate is, through reasoned and rational argument,to persuade people to accept your viewpoint.
That idea is of course only legitimate if you present your debate to reasoned and rational people. I'm not sure your idea works so well when the debate is about banning guns and you present it to a culture brainwashed from childhood with the (clearly false) notion that guns are a good thing.
If guns were banned how would decent citizens protect themselves from filth such as you.
With dirtballs like you who represent a danger to the more vulnerable members of our society prowling the streets it is vital that they have the means by which to protect themselves.
The Muslim terrorists in Europe know that they can target their defenseless victims with relative freedom from the injurious consequences of their murderous actions.
The Muslim terrorist filth know that this is not the case in the United States so they, along with scumbags like you and your entire family are less active here.
It is indicative of molesters like you who, for highly suspect but painfully obvious reasons call for the removal of the means by which decent law abiding folk can protect themselves in the event of being accosted by scumbag criminals/terrorists like you or a member of your notorious family.
Your blatantly obvious attempt to support the loony left's call for the disarmament of the general public so can perpetrate your criminal activities on a defenseless public isn't going to work.
The Nazis actually used gun control. You have it backwards.
No they didn't, idiot. Your entire culture is living in a damned myth.
The law was loosened in 1928, and gun permits were granted to citizens “of undoubted reliability” (in the law’s words) but not “persons who are itinerant like Gypsies.” In 1938, under Nazi rule, gun laws became significantly more relaxed. Rifle and shotgun possession were deregulated, and gun access for hunters, Nazi Party members, and government officials was expanded. The legal age to own a gun was lowered. Jews, however, were prohibited from owning firearms and other dangerous weapons.
You have a real problem with reading comprehension don't you?
I'm banning you for being an obnoxiously dishonest loser who gets proven wrong and pretends the opposite has just happened. The Weimar Republic banned guns. The Nazis brought them back into circulation.
It's all over youtube how to make a gun that will mortaly injure or kill someone, and it takes two pieces of pipe, a screw, and ten to fifteen minutes to make. Goodluck disarming a nation with 400 million legal firearms when they can make a gun for twenty bucks in fifteen minutes.
If guns were banned how would decent citizens protect themselves from filth such as you.
Yeah, that makes sense. Same goes for flamethrowers, tanks and personal missile silos. How can I ever be expected to protect myself if I am not permitted to own those things?
Oh, hang on. Wait.... I have an idea. What if I just man up and stop being a paranoid, frightened little twerp?
The Muslim terrorists in Europe know that they can target their defenseless victims
Hang on a minute, you brazenly Islamophobic, neo-Nazi buffoon. The military has killed approximately two million Muslims in the last 16 years, but it can't protect its own citizens from "Muslim terrorists"? Then what was the point in sending the military to kill two million Muslims in the first place, you idiot? Was it your intention to provoke them? Repeatedly kick a hornet's nest and then claim victimhood when you get stung, yes?
You really have got some nerve. The American military cut the water and electricity supply for everybody in Iraq, killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims, and you are still insisting THEY are the terrorists?
Gtfo with your up is down, black is white nonsense, you fascist toolbag.
Your initial argument is not without merit, I think. If I follow your point correctly, you are saying that the fact that we clearly do not need the larger military hardware, then by extension we do not need the personal firearms.
I am not sure what your second point is because you hid it under insults. Are you saying that gun ownership is no protection from the destruction of infrastructure?
Your initial argument is not without merit, I think
Dammit Marcus, stop agreeing with me!! I might have to change my politics. Lol.
If I follow your point correctly, you are saying that the fact that we clearly do not need the larger military hardware, then by extension we do not need the personal firearms.
That is definitely one of the points I have made, buddy. I pushed it to ad absurdum to illustrate the argument clearly (you have to with some of these guys), but that generally is what I'm saying, yes. The guns we have today are lethal killing machines and there is just no need for a private citizen to own one unless he/she intends to kill. The military might need to kill, but there is no reason why a private citizen in a developed, prosperous country should. I'm all for private ownership of things like tazers, which can incapacitate without killing, but guns are a step too far. Any benefit is vastly outweighed by the cost in human life.
I am not sure what your second point is because you hid it under insults. Are you saying that gun ownership is no protection from the destruction of infrastructure?
I can't go back and look without losing my reply, brother. I'm also not entirely sure which post you are replying to. Could you copy and paste the part you're referring to? I'll happily explain if I can.
Dammit Marcus, stop agreeing with me!! I might have to change my politics. Lol
Don't go overboard, buddy! Just because your argument has some merit, it does not necessarily follow that you are becoming logical enough to become a conservative. :)
Seriously, though...
This is one of those issues where there can be very sound arguments on ALL sides.
To put this in Project Management terms, a lot of what determines where we stand on the issue depends on our Risk Assessment. Most of us (extreme left to extreme right) more-or-less agree on the Impact (severity) of most of the identified risks.
Where we all disagree is on the Likelihood (probability) of each risk. This changes how we prioritize the risks, which in turns changes which risk strategies (risk avoidance, risk mitigation, or risk acceptance) we favor.
In this issue, many strategies bring secondary risks, some of which force reprioritizing the risks.
For example:
You and I probably calculate the Impact of the risk of governmental oppression (like in Venezuela or Nazi Germany) as equally high (5 out of a possible 5). What we disagree on is the Likelihood.
Because I rate the Likelihood as high (not imminently, but ultimately) I favor a better armed populace with larger arms. Not only does this act as a deterrent to casual restriction of rights creeping toward oppression (Risk Mitigation), but also provides a response capability if the Risk escalates to an Issue (a risk that actually happens).
To mitigate the risk of people with guns committing violent crime, we both favor differing degrees of registration and regulation. Obviously, the degree we each favor is based on our calculation of the risk of government overreach, and which risk we are more willing to Accept -- the risk of government overreach or the risk of violent crime.
I have been at Risk Management meetings for my project, and watched people, all of whom made perfect sense, disagree on risk management strategies.
I am sure you see that there is room for multiple well reasoned answers on gun control based on personal levels of idealism or cynicism, and personal risk tolerance.
I am not sure what your second point is because you hid it under insults. Are you saying that gun ownership is no protection from the destruction of infrastructure?
I think I see which part you're talking about now. In fairness I blew my stack a little bit there. The far right likes to use scare tactics a lot, and in this instance someone claimed we need to endure 30,000 senseless deaths every year so the big bad Commies/Muslims/Terrorists/(Insert Boogeyman Here) don't get us.
I don't believe we need to take guns away from private citizens but I do think there needs to be stricter control and rules to owning them as well as penalties to those who don't follow the rules. As to how far that goes or what those rules should be? I have no idea, well I have some but they certainly aren't hashed out.... but our method of just putting our heads in the sand and hoping it will all fix itself isn't working.
I don't believe we need to take guns away from private citizens but I do think there needs to be stricter control and rules to owning them as well as penalties to those who don't follow the rules.
I don't agree at all. You need to ban them outright. That said, you're the only person I feel I can even have a sensible conversation with about the issue because everyone else who has responded so far has done so with the usual sophism and obnoxious personal attacks. Arguing with Americans about guns is literally like arguing with children. They have something, they want it, and they are going to cry and scream if you take it way.
but our method of just putting our heads in the sand and hoping it will all fix itself isn't working
That's what I'm saying. Thirty years ago gun control might have worked. But the problem is now so deep-rooted into your culture the only thing which is going to solve it is a total ban.
That's fine, I wouldn't mind having a discussion with you about possible alternatives but I don't think banning outright is going to do anything. It may work in the UK but here where it is so deeply ingrained in our culture and indeed a very part of our written rights, that action would not be plausible. Our best option for reducing the amount of gun violence is being stricter and there are many ways we can try, some of which I'm sure have arguments against if only for the fact that those who want to keep guns so much will argue against ANYTHING relating to some sort of control. But I would be interested in what their opinion is on how to fix the problem that we have. It's just a matter of keeping it civil. :D
That said, you're the only person I feel I can even have a sensible conversation with about the issue because everyone else who has responded so far has done so with the usual sophism and obnoxious personal attacks.
Thank you, it would be nice to have a sensible conversation about this with anyone involved who is interested in it without personal attacks.
Arguing with Americans about guns is literally like arguing with children. They have something, they want it, and they are going to cry and scream if you take it way.
Your statement is a bit insulting and boarders on a personal attack as I am American and there are a great many people who want some form of gun control. We do have some who yell the loudest but a vast majority of us are getting sick of doing nothing because they are too afraid to.
Try to get them banned way to many out there and it could never happen but that is "A Wet Dream of you Leftist" Explain how you are going to ban guns from criminals i will await whatever insane response you might have !
So let me get this straight. There are too many guns "out there" to pass a law banning guns? Lol. That's like saying there are too many rapists out there to pass a law banning rape.
When you want to cross the Big Pond and amend our Bill of Rights then hop the plane that burns fossil fuel and give it your best shot
You don't have the "right" to put other people in danger with your stupidity. When the second amendment was made to the constitution the intention was not to give mentally ill trolls access to weapons capable of killing hundreds of people.
Ok you are so dumb , the person was right you can't take guns away. How do you know people won't make more of people won't give up their guns. What she means by too many guns is that you won't be able to pass a law if there are still guns. Why should we pass a law any way there are still other weapons to kill with not just guns. People will find another way taking them away is just stupid. It's not the guns that are the problem it's the people pulling the trigger.
Ok you are so dumb , the person was right you can't take guns away.
But I proved he was wrong with the use of an example. How is it possible that you can completely ignore the fact that I proved him wrong, repeat the same debunked claim, and then call me dumb for having the audacity to have disproved the claim?
Taking a crap on the ground, watching it dry, then throwing it at people as they pass by isn't proving anyone wrong. It simply makes you a knuckle dragging, banana gobbling chimpanzee. Hmmm... Just as I suspected. Snakes don't swing from trees. How dare you pretend to be a slithering serpent when you are obviously a helmet wearing little snatch.
Let's try this another way. What prevents me from taking your guns away?
Once I make gun possession a crime, if you don't hand your gun into a police station then you are a criminal. What, in your experience, usually happens to criminals in America?
Once I make gun possession a crime, if you don't hand your gun into a police station then you are a criminal.
Oh goody. Disarm the law abiding citizens and criminalize them while the real criminals continue to carry their guns with no concern for your new ignorant clown law.
What, in your experience, usually happens to criminals in America?
They are put back on the streets because the prisons are full and the cost to contain them are too high?
It takes 20 minutes to build a gun at the house. Now scurry off back to fairytale land where criminals stop raping your wife because you aren't carrying a gun while they are, and they just lay down their weapon because you don't have one, and they are noble rapists with magic imaginary gun manners..
And then the British police had a reality check and had to arm themselves with........ guns. Why? Because criminals won't disarm no matter what the law says. The left's make believe fairytale that changing gun laws will disarm violent gun offenders is well... childish. No one should be that stupid, even snake, the puppet account.
I mean even if for arguments sake, we agree that the U.S. has a problem with guns and the main cause of this is the guns themselves, banning an item outright is clearly not the answer. The issue with banning items after they have been mass produced and sold for a very long time is that people are not willing to part with them. It's likely you would end up with the same situation as the alcohol prohibition. Criminal organisations would see an oppurtunity and expand the black market to account for the ban. So instead of having guns be sold from a registered and government regulated business you would rather they are sold in a similar fashion to illegal drugs? Banning guns, regardless of the principle would be difficult and impractical to execute properly. Why not instead turn to look at the many other countires who also allow private citizens to own guns and see the differences they have? Or perhaps it's time to consider the idea that many of the problems in the U.S that are related to and lumped together with guns are affected by other things as well...
I mean even if for arguments sake, we agree that the U.S. has a problem with guns and the main cause of this is the guns themselves
So in other words, even if for argument's sake you do not outright reject common sense?
banning an item outright is clearly not the answer
So, "for argument's sake", if we accept that the item is the "main cause", then "banning the item" is "clearly not the answer"? Are you literally retarded, buddy? Of course it is the answer. You said so yourself and then contradicted yourself two sentences later.
It's likely you would end up with the same situation as the alcohol prohibition
No, it is not likely, because most people of intelligence believe they have the right to put what they want into their own bodies, and you are talking about the "right" to put toxic chunks of lead into other people's bodies. A ban on guns would be like the ban on rocket launchers, and a ban on drugs would be like the ban on alcohol.
You are a complete idiot who is throwing imaginary obstacles in front of a gun ban which don't exist anywhere other than your imagination. It can be evidenced quite simply. You don't want to try a gun ban to see if it ends up how you claim it will end up. No. You want to use what you claim will happen as an excuse not to try a gun ban. It's circular reasoning at its ugliest.
So, "for argument's sake", if we accept that the item is the "main cause", then "banning the item" is "clearly not the answer"? Are you literally retarded, buddy
It takes 2 pieces of pipe, a screw and fifteen minutes to make a gun. You're a mindless, ignorant clown.
I'm routinely accused (falsely) of being a liberal and yet I'm here to tell you it's crazy to ban guns for private citizens...
1) In a country awash with guns the fact is the vast vast vast majority of gun owners have never done anything illegal or dangerous with theirs. You hear about the ones that do, because it's catastrophic when it happens, but truly if the majority of gun owners were up to no good we would have already seen a nonstop anarchy of violence on every doorstep for the last 200+ years.
2) There are many legitimate reasons other than self defense for private citizens to own guns including hunting, pest control, target shooting sports, antiquing, and being auxiliary to law enforcement. It's a big country. The needs from city to farm, from coast to coast and imbetween, from job to job, are not taken into account when you declare an overal ban on all private ownership.
3) The recent terrorist attacks in Europe, which operates under rules like you propose, don't even need guns. They're getting massacres done with big trucks and knives and bombs.
Now, after making those points, I want to reiterate my main stance on guns and the 2nd Amendment is that yes the public has a right to own guns but it does not eclipse or eliminate needs for public safety. I still believe licenses and waiting periods and restrictions on some types of guns or ammunition are allowed. And I usually find the positions of the NRA and gun nuts offensive on many levels. I'm not a gun nut. And that's why my objections to your call to ban them need to be taken seriously.
and yet I'm here to tell you it's crazy to ban guns for private citizens...
I'm here to tell you that you are the crazy one.
In a country awash with guns the fact is the vast vast vast majority of gun owners have never done anything illegal or dangerous with theirs
This is a completely circular argument. If a ban is put on guns then they will be doing something illegal just by owning a gun.
There are many legitimate reasons other than self defense for private citizens to own guns including hunting, pest control, target shooting sports, antiquing, and being auxiliary to law enforcement.
These aren't legitimate reasons. They are laughable attempts/excuses to circumvent the main purpose of guns. People don't need to hunt (and if they do licenses can be issued), people don't need to shoot rats (they can use poison like we do in the UK), target shooting doesn't require personal ownership (hence it is a red herring), antiquing is fine provided the guns are not functional (and cannot easily be made functional) and there is a very good reason why the police don't appreciate vigilante "justice".
The recent terrorist attacks in Europe, which operates under rules like you propose, don't even need guns. They're getting massacres done with big trucks and knives and bombs.
This has absolutely nothing to do with guns. If I take a hatchet and stick it in your stupid head it does not evidence that I should have shot you instead.
Most people who own guns aren't doing the harm dude obviously it's the ones who don't. Why are you so stuck up you can't hear other people's opinions. If you take guns away there's nothing stopping people to invade America then what will we use to protect us with. Seriously answer my question I will be happy to hear what you have to say because all your doing is arguing for no point.
Most people who own guns aren't doing the harm dude
Strange. Whenever I point out that most Muslims aren't doing the harm, you guys seem to have the opposite opinion. Do you have to practice your double standards, or do they come naturally?
If we gave everybody nuclear weapons, then MOST people would not use them to obliterate half of America. You see what I'm saying?
Why are you so stuck up you can't hear other people's opinions
It isn't that I'm stuck up. It's that I've heard all of your "opinions" before, dozens of times, and every single one of them is logically indefensible. In fact, let's call a spade a spade: they aren't even your own opinions. You all say the same things for a reason, and when those things are systematically debunked you all have the same emotional reaction for the same reason.
Good luck getting the criminals to surrender their guns. The people who obey the law would be at the mercy of all the violent and still armed criminals. What would stop home-invading sociopaths once there was no longer the chance that the residents might have a gun?
Ok this is such a flawed argument people have. You can never take away guns from people it is their right to bear arms. If you take guns away they will make new ones, they will threaten with knifes they will use bombs explosives etc. Why should we take them away in the first place its not the guns doing the harm it's the people pulling the trigger. People need to understand this, we have a law about guns for a reason why don't you open your history book and read them.
Most gun homicides in America are by gangs which are composed of minorities. So get rid of the minorities and no gun violence eh Snake, you racist bastard. How dare you disarm the Mexican cartel, the Bloods, and the Crips.
Ok this is such a flawed argument people have. You can never take away guns from people
So it's "a flawed argument", yet you evidence it by telling us something which is demonstrably false? Plenty of countries have banned guns successfully so you are talking complete unadulterated nonsense.
it is their right to bear arms
No it is not you insufferable imbecile. Rights are not given to you by nature and therefore what you have are privileges. Secondly, your privileges end at the point that you put other people in danger (i.e. when you interfere with their privileges). You do not have the right to endanger other people.
its not the guns doing the harm
Are you saying it is just a statistical coincidence that guns are always involved in gun crime? If the guns weren't there, nobody would get shot, and therefore it is EXACTLY the guns doing the harm.
Does the same principle apply if I give everybody portable suitcase nukes? When half of America is a radioactive wasteland will you still insist the bombs aren't doing the harm?
So it's "a flawed argument", yet you evidence it by telling us something which is demonstrably false? Plenty of countries have banned guns successfully so you are talking complete unadulterated nonsense.
And then the British Police were forced to arm themselves with guns and ISIS easily went on mass shooting sprees through disarmed Europe.
Are you saying it is just a statistical coincidence that guns are always involved in gun crime? If the guns weren't there, nobody would get shot, and therefore it is EXACTLY the guns doing the harm.
You're right. Before guns, no one ever killed anyone else, fought gunless wars, murdered without guns, or committed pre gun suicide....
First of all we are not "plenty of countries" we are our own country we aren't like any other. Second, the law you have the right to bear arms isn't for hurting people it's to PROTECT yourself. You can be the only one to not have a gun its your right but you can't take the right as from the people. Third have fun being attacked with no gun and nothing to protect yourself against enemies you can use your little stuffed bear while we use something worth while. Forth, I am saying it's not the guns because you know why, if you set a gun in the table it won't shoot. No question its not the guns, it's the people shooting. I am not about to think twice.
Does the same principle apply if I give everybody portable suitcase nukes? When half of America is a radioactive wasteland will you still insist the bombs aren't doing the harm?
You are a basket case.
We don't have the right to bare bombs. We have the right to arm ourselves against the day that the government becomes the enemy of the people, and/or a rapist comes into our house armed with a gun regardless of what the law says. Are you going to tell him to put down his weapon as he and his buddies do a train on your wife? Maybe you can defend yourself with a ham sandwich. You should try that.
Of course, right wingers believe that ANY regulation is an attempt to take their guns away.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I think the question is what level of regulation counts as infringement.
For the record, those of us on the right have compromised a lot on the definition of infringement.
Certainly, the framers and ratifiers of the US Constitution did not anticipate automatic weapons, RPGs tanks, or F-18s, Apache attack helicopters. Most of us right wingers have compromised: RPGs, tanks, F-18s, and Apache's are off the menu. Some are still arguing about automatic weapons, but when the government tries to outlaw semi-automatic weapons, we say that is definitely infringement. Face it, we left the really good arms off the table, so fair is fair.
Certainly the framers and ratifiers lived in a society that included the mentally ill, criminals, and people who used dueling to settle conflicts over insults, but they did not see fit to end the second amendment with anything to the effect of "...except in the case of people who SHOULDN'T have them." Even most of the extreme right wingers have compromised on this, too. We have acceded to, and even supported for good reason, prohibition of the right to bear arms by convicted felons and the mentally ill, provided there are explicit limits and robust due process PRIOR to prohibition.
We have acceded to, and even supported for good reason, prohibition of the right to bear arms by convicted felons and the mentally ill
Hello m:
You wrote down those provisions, put 'em in a book and called yourself reasonable.. But, you won't close the gun show loophole where felons and nuts CAN buy guns with NO background check whatsoever...
When Obama suggested we CLOSE that loophole, the NRA went nuts..
Mr. Amarel.. You SHOULD know that I don't make shit up.. I HAVE been to a gun show at the Tacoma Dome not 30 minutes from my home. Do you want me to ADMIT I bought a gun??? Well, I'm not gonna DO that..
To the doubters out there, lemme tell you of my experience.. At THIS gun show, there were licensed gun dealers, and private citizens.. IF you bought a gun from a dealer, you had to line up at the FBI window for a background check.. But, if you bought if from a citizen, you just walk right out..
All licensed dealers must obtain a background check. The courts have ruled that an unlicensed private citizen can be considered a dealer requiring a gun license when they sell as few as 2 firearms. The punishment for selling without a license is 5 years in jail and/or a fine of $250,000, according to the ATF.
If you happen to be a guy with selling just one gun (not requiring a license from you or a background check of the buyer), and you sell to someone you don't know, you run the risk of selling to a felon, which is punishable by 10 years in prison (15 in some cases) according to the DOJ.
So if you sell less than two guns, and the one gun you sell is to a non-felon, then you are fine. If you sell more than one gun, you better have a license. If you sell less than 2 guns to a felon, you're fucked.
I don't think the loophole is the problem. I think illegal gun sales are the problem.
A gun show would be just the place for an ATF sting. Given the pressure against gun shows, the organizers have more than a normal vested interest in keeping legal.
Oh, I agree. But, if the "guidelines" ARE guidelines, they don't carry the weight of law. As long as the word "often" (your word), or "occasionally" (my word), isn't a NUMBER, people will take advantage of it... I think that's why they call it a loophole
I agree further that if the ATF wanted to make a statement, they certainly COULD.. But, they DON'T, and that's a statement in and of itself..
My state is trying to close that loophole, but outside of Seattle, this is a VERY conservative state and the NRA rules here.
I agree that laws should always be as clear and objective as possible.
The ATF is a federal agency. Under Obama, statements such as these we have conceived here would be a near certainty. Federal agencies are not autonomous. If laws were being broken, catching them would have been a political win for Obama. Perhaps they simply weren't being broken.
With "Firearms" right in their title, the ATF is bound to be where large amounts of firearms are.
Well, we had 8 years under Obama. The only statement his agents made were to force licensed dealers to sell to people they knew they shouldn't (Fast and Furious), leading to exactly what you might expect illegal gun sales to lead to. This scandal ended with the Atorney General in Contempt of Congress, but of course no consequences.
As bad as failing to enforce laws may be, a concerted effort to break them is worse. Which is why we don't have Hillary.