What will it take to make America want reasonable gun laws?

[Greenday]

Problem is, that serial numbers are very easy to remove. All you'd need is a few minutes with a grinder, and off they come. Throw on a lick of paint, forge some paperwork, and now you have a 'clean' firearm.

And then get arrested if ever caught with the gun because it doesn't have a serial number.

[Tanasi]

A few things spring to mind:

1. Investigate people who are reported or otherwise come into suspicion of selling guns without valid background checks.
2. Set up sting operations trying to catch perpetrators in the act.
3. Use serial numbers to follow the trail of a gun used in a crime. Who bought it where? Who sold it to whom? Did they all follow the law?

You know, let the police investigate a potential crime. It's what they do.

Of course, private sellers could hardly perform background checks themselves. You would need some sort of "gunowner license", that confirms you have had the necessary checks done, and needs to be renewed every few years. That way, anybody selling a gun privately could just check if your license is still valid, make a copy for their records, and they'd be within the law.

Stings that could work in the short run. Unless there's a gun registration it's impossible to enforce. Registration didn't work in Canada what makes you think it would work here? The LEOs come looking for a gun you tell them you traded it before the law took effect, they have to prove that you didn't.
As to registration that's only for two purposes taxation and confiscation. When it comes to confiscation a lot of people are going to get killed, are you going to volunteer to be the first person through the door???

[protege]

And then get arrested if ever caught with the gun because it doesn't have a serial number.

That's *if you get caught.* It would be very easy, at least here, to dump the gun in one of the four rivers, and have it disappear. Hell, a B-25 bomber went down in '56, and is *still* missing, some 60 years later.

[Lachrymose]

That's *if you get caught.*

That kind of goes for any crime, though.

[Greenday]

That's *if you get caught.* It would be very easy, at least here, to dump the gun in one of the four rivers, and have it disappear. Hell, a B-25 bomber went down in '56, and is *still* missing, some 60 years later.

Thus rendering the gun inoperable and can't be used in a crime?

Ok...

[Gravekeeper]

That's *if you get caught.* It would be very easy, at least here, to dump the gun in one of the four rivers, and have it disappear. Hell, a B-25 bomber went down in '56, and is *still* missing, some 60 years later.

You could say that for virtually any piece of criminal evidence though and dumping a weapon used in a crime is already common place with or without a serial number. I don't think it changes anything one way or another.

Stings that could work in the short run. Unless there's a gun registration it's impossible to enforce. Registration didn't work in Canada what makes you think it would work here? The LEOs come looking for a gun you tell them you traded it before the law took effect, they have to prove that you didn't.
As to registration that's only for two purposes taxation and confiscation. When it comes to confiscation a lot of people are going to get killed, are you going to volunteer to be the first person through the door???

The reasons the registry didn't work had less to do with the idea and more to do with the implementation. The idea that it's only for "confiscation" is just an unending bogeyman among American gun owners. It's a bit weird that people are fine with registering and licensing their car and that information being available to the government and law enforcement. But freak out at the idea anyone knows they have a gun.

Besides, if you shouldn't have a gun and you shoot at the person that comes to confiscate it you're kind of proving their point. >.>

[Greenday]

http://www.businessinsider.com/calif...tehama-2017-11

Another day, another shooting at a school. 5 dead, 3 kids wounded.

"It's too bad there is no way to stop this kind of thing from happening!" said the only country where this ever happens.

[Canarr]

Stings that could work in the short run. Unless there's a gun registration it's impossible to enforce. Registration didn't work in Canada what makes you think it would work here? The LEOs come looking for a gun you tell them you traded it before the law took effect, they have to prove that you didn't.
As to registration that's only for two purposes taxation and confiscation. When it comes to confiscation a lot of people are going to get killed, are you going to volunteer to be the first person through the door???

Just noticed that I forgot to reply here; sorry about that.

1. Why should stings only work in the short run, not in the long run as well?

2. Sure, you could claim a gun was sold before the law went into effect; but the more time passes, the less believable that becomes, especially if you're dealing with someone who regularly sells guns where he shouldn't.

3. You do realize you're contradicting yourself, right? First you (correctly) state that such a law would require gun registration. Then you immediately turn around and claim that registration has only two purposes, taxation and confiscation, when you yourself just put forth the third purpose - enforcing gun laws.

Seriously: your country has a problem. You're killing off your own people at an astonishing rate. And the rampant gun ownership is part of the problem.

[Gravekeeper]

http://www.businessinsider.com/calif...tehama-2017-11

Another day, another shooting at a school. 5 dead, 3 kids wounded.

He was thwarted not by a Good Guy With a Gun(tm) but by locked doors as well.

Also, domestic violence again. The one common thread through a disturbing amount of gun violence: Men who beat women and children.

[Canarr]

Also, domestic violence again. The one common thread through a disturbing amount of gun violence: Men who beat women and children.

Isn't that a bit premature? The article only mentions "domestic violence", not whether any children were present - or a woman, for that matter.

Besides: is there actually a measurable correlation between gun violence and domestic violence?

[Gravekeeper]

Besides: is there actually a measurable correlation between gun violence and domestic violence?

Yes, actually.

It may be one of the best predictors available.

[Mr Hero]

http://www.businessinsider.com/calif...tehama-2017-11

Another day, another shooting at a school. 5 dead, 3 kids wounded.

"It's too bad there is no way to stop this kind of thing from happening!" said the only country where this ever happens.

Didn't this happen in a state with strict gun laws?

[Gravekeeper]

Isn't that a bit premature? The article only mentions "domestic violence", not whether any children were present - or a woman, for that matter.

They found the wife's body.

"We found her dead body concealed under the floorboards of the residence last night," Johnston said. "She was obviously the victim of several gunshot wounds. That was probably what started this whole event."

While conducting interviews in the aftermath of Tuesday's shooting, neighbors told law enforcement they had heard "a domestic incident" between Neal and his wife on Monday night, but the sheriff's office did not receive a report about the incident, Johnston said.

"He had literally cut a hole on his floor. We are confident that he murdered her, shot her, at some point probably late Monday, and literally just put her body in the floor and covered it up," Johnston said.

[Greenday]

Didn't this happen in a state with strict gun laws?

California does have some stricter laws compared to other states. But there's a lot we don't know. For instance, where did he purchase his gun? Nevada has some extremely weak gun laws so it wouldn't surprise me if he got it there.

It's almost like we just can't be responsible with guns. How humans just cannot act responsibly with weapons that can cause a crap ton of death in a short period of time.

[Canarr]

Yes, actually.

It may be one of the best predictors available.

No... not really. Bee is putting forward that 54% of the women shot to death by their partner were also beaten by him before that. Not exactly surprising, that someone who'd shoot their partner would also beat them. But as a predictor?

The BBC lists an average of about 12,000 gun-related homicides in the US per year. If we split that by gender, with women making up 22% of homicide victioms, that means an average of 2,700 women are intentionally killed by firearms every year in the US.

Now, according to this survey here, an estimated number of 4.73 million women fall victim to physical violence by an intimate partner in a 12 month period (page 118).

How exactly would you suggest going about predicting 2,700 victims of homicide from 4.73 million victims of domestic violence?