Would you be comfortable if...

[John Kloehr]

4 minutes ago, Black Angus McPherson said:

I believe the Background checks do have a positive effect.  I'll leave it to the rest of you to debate just how effective they are.

My view is the deterrent effect of any law depends on the certainty of getting caught, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced. Long sentences are the only thing shown to reduce recidivism. All other efforts to deter law-abiding citizens from owning firearms do not affect criminals or reduce the crimes they commit.

 

The current 0.03% chance of prosecution for lying on a 4473 is not a deterrent, a much higher percentage would be a deterrent. At this time, the ATF seems to be considering warning letters as an improvement over doing virtually nothing. The only thing this might accomplish is reducing repeat purchase attempts by prohibited persons.

[Rip Snorter]

Simply, incarcerating violent criminals separates them from civil society for, at best, a significant period of time.  Expensive for tax payers but the other options, folks protecting themselves with lethal effect or actual, prompt execution after conviction when appropriate to the crime are problematic.  Too many are or feel "safe".  The only safety these days is what you can provide for yourself and family.

[El Chapo]

4 hours ago, John Kloehr said:

My view is the deterrent effect of any law depends on the certainty of getting caught, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced. Long sentences are the only thing shown to reduce recidivism. All other efforts to deter law-abiding citizens from owning firearms do not affect criminals or reduce the crimes they commit.

 

The current 0.03% chance of prosecution for lying on a 4473 is not a deterrent, a much higher percentage would be a deterrent. At this time, the ATF seems to be considering warning letters as an improvement over doing virtually nothing. The only thing this might accomplish is reducing repeat purchase attempts by prohibited persons.

 

Your view is also not quite there, empirically.  The certainty of getting caught and going to jail, even for that night, has a very high deterrent effect.  The probability of getting convicted, sentenced, or even very long sentences, have very small effects, much smaller than most people realize.  I have worked in the criminal justice system for ~12 years and I had no idea until I saw the data.  

 

That's also why the data are so concerning.  There is such a low chance of ever seeing a day in jail, much less a criminal prosecution, that the criminal side is doing nothing.  It's hard to ignore that those who were denied did not leave the store with a gun, though, and that probably has a much greater effect than any criminal anything, but I don't know because I'm not sure how you'd measure that.

 

If we had an evidence-based criminal justice system, it'd look far different than most people would think who are not familiar with the data.  The money we have spent for nothing is astonishing and ridiculous.

[Black Angus McPherson]

15 hours ago, El Chapo said:

  It's hard to ignore that those who were denied did not leave the store with a gun, though, and that probably has a much greater effect than any criminal anything, but I don't know because I'm not sure how you'd measure that.

 

 

 

It may not completely stop the criminal from getting a gun, but it at least delays them.

 

Nothing will stop a determined criminal from getting into my house, but I still lock the door.  Make them work for it.

 

Angus

Edited Thursday at 09:12 PM by Black Angus McPherson
Condense

[Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001]

My thought on this are well known and unchanging 

 

research the origins of GCA'68 , it is almost word for word , the NAZI gun control act of 1937

 

  it is all about control of the people , whom follow the rules 

 

  Chickasaw Bill 

 

 figure this will stir up , more unwarranted attention , due to daring to post the facts 

Edited Friday at 03:07 AM by Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001
wrong year on the German gun control law

[John Kloehr]

1 hour ago, Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001 said:

My thought on this are well known and unchanging 

 

research the origins of GCA'68 , it is almost word for word , the NAZI gun control act of 1938 

 

  it is all about control of the people , whom follow the rules 

 

  Chickasaw Bill 

 

 figure this will stir up , more unwarranted attention , due to daring to post the facts 

I have wanted to dig in to some of these questions for a long time. My understanding in broad brush strokes is the Allies from WW1 imposed disarmament on Germany. Hitler in general removed the restrictions ahead of WWII except as it applied to "disfavored" populations. Those were still disarmed.

 

The argument goes further, equating these maintained restrictions as similar to the founding era restrictions on Catholics. Some of my sources on these questions are (cough cough) highly disfavored in the US today.

 

Honestly not sure of the truth, would require looking up  old documents and even translating them. Possibly even understanding what particular words meant when they were written nearly a century ago. Have heard various claims for years and really would like to know how and why and what the steps were. I do know at some point the German armies switched from carrying shovels to rifles.

 

Key question. Dd Hitler disarm the population or did he re-arm parts (but not all) of  the population?

 

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

Waiting Periods:  Get rid of them.
Ban on shipping guns via the post office:  Get rid of it.
Background checks:  I need more information.   Do they actually work?  If so, they may be worth keeping.  If they serve no purpose, get rid of them.   If you have a state issued concealed weapons permit, then they are redundant and should not apply.
    Aside:  Full reciprocity for CCWs is needed.   And there IS a tradition of specifically not allowed the carrying of concealed weapons in our history.   But open carry should be unrestricted, and anyone who applies for a CCW should get it.
FFLs:  When all is said and done, I think they are a good thing.   They are little more than a specific business license.  But any citizen should be able to walk into any gun dealer in any state or territory and walk out with the firearm of his or her choice.

Edited Friday at 12:49 AM by H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619

[Texas Joker]

Re background checks: we have background checks to confirm we match the requirements put forth by gun control laws to be permitted the exercise of a Right.

 

If you can't do it to voting why can you do it to Arms?

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

2 minutes ago, Texas Joker said:

Re background checks: we have background checks to confirm we match the requirements put forth by gun control laws to be permitted the exercise of a Right.

 

If you can't do it to voting why can you do it to Arms?

Because if they WERE to do it for voting, the other side wouldn't be able to cheat.

 

Moderators, if this is once again too far, please delete it, but not the whole thread. Thank You.

[Alpo]

8 minutes ago, Texas Joker said:

If you can't do it to voting why can you do it to Arms?

They used to have something called a poll tax. You had to pay to vote.

 

They decided that was unconstitutional. Having to pay to exercise a right? Besides, many many poor black people could not afford to pay the poll tax, so they could not vote (well yeah, that was the purpose of the poll tax). So they did away with the poll tax. Shouting loudly when they did so YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY TO EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT!!!!

 

And I thought that they were correct. You should not have to pay. So why was it that I had to pay to get a license to carry a gun - which is my right.

[Subdeacon Joe]

California has universal background checks, all transfers mustgo throughan FFL and require a 10 day waiting period.  Go to the FB pages of the Santa Rosa Police Department and the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office and you'll see how effective they are.

 

 

[Seldom Seen #16162]

On 8/3/2026 at 11:19 PM, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

Don't give it another thought. We've all got our hot buttons. And you were correct, as others have pointed out. National reciprocity for a CCW, like a Driver's License is, I believe, what we all would prefer. 

Er, NO.

 

Just plain NO. The individual States have passed and entered into agreements for reciprocity with other States all without any help from the Federal Government. Now you want to give the Feds control of concealed carry laws for all of the States.

 

I think not.

[watab kid]

in 1968 i saw no reason for any law , ive always thought we should go back even further and eliminate the 30s laws , i however have seen the rise in gangs here and all of the lawless having illegal guns , LEOs are helpless with all the restrictions we put on them , if all was right in the world id say i was fine with eliminating the unconstitutional laws that have been passed but in reality i see why law enforcement needs them , i just wish they would prosecute them instead of taking plea deals