Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

230358Re: [7x10minilathe] OT: It happens again and it caused by mental illness

Expand Messages
  • Ian Newman
    Jul 1 1:00 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Ryan,

      Thanks for taking the time to reply - I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you.

      Re. check performed by a FFL holder - I am very impressed at the turn round time for firearms checks - few national data base searches in the UK are executed so quickly! (except vehicle and driving licence checks by the police, of course).

      Regarding FBI access to medical records, you suggest:
      <SNIP>
      I'd venture they would also have it on record if you were declared mentally insane, mentally dangerous to yourself or others, "things" like that.  I'd doubt they have any information on "minor" mental issues like depression, manic depressive, etc.
      </SNIP>
      I agree with you.  As I said before, I think it unlikely that the FBI would have full access to all medical records - this would imply a national medical database, does such a thing exist in the USA?  It does not (yet) exist in the UK, but it is in the process of development.


      You raise the question of my use of the vague term "inappropriate"
      <SNIP>
      Maybe you need to clarify "inappropriate people".
      </SNIP> 
      I am deliberately avoiding getting side-tracked over detail.  We both agreed that there are some people who should be denied access to firearms - for example, the very young, convicted criminals, but we would probably have different views on the limits and thresholds (is a six year old too young? A ten year old? A fourteen year old? etc). So let's just use the term to represent a set of criteria that, in your own view, should not be permitted to have free access to guns.


      You agree with me that
      <SNIP>
       under current US law it is simple and straight forward to carry out an unrecorded and untraceable firearms sale/purchase without breaking any US laws
      </SNIP>

      but go on to say

      <SNIP>
      I would bet that if you were to walk into a store, buy 10 guns, walk out and then try to do it again the next day somebody would be showing up at your door.
      </SNIP>

      and I agree with you entirely.  But I was not thinking from the position of a mass purchase, rather from the position of someone who should not have a gun, and who decides to go out and buy one.


      Finally, you ask the question:
      <SNIP>
      In the UK what happens if your home or store is robbed and your guns are stolen? ............  I'm just curious if the owners would be held responsible in any way?
      </SNIP>
      Yes, owners are held responsible - they are obliged to report the crime and show that they took all reasonable precautions to prevent the theft.  As long as they did this there is no blame held against the gun owner.

      As I stated earlier, part of the condition of being granted a gun licence in the UK is the requirement that you keep the gun in a locked cabinet, etc, etc.


       You quoted a figure for gun theft in the USA:
      <SNIP>
      ABC news had a story on that reported over 250,000 guns a year are stolen from homes and business a year.
      </SNIP>
      I would be the first to point out that the figure of 250,000 is suspiciously "round" and that the figures come from a news media source (and the news source is probably presenting the figures in a manner that creates a sensational news story).

      As a percentage of guns owned (estimated at about 308 million weapons) this amounts to 0.0812% or 81.2 per 100,000.

      The UK figure for stolen guns in the five year period 2007-2011 was 1768, that is an average of 354 per year, that is 0.0196% or 19.6 per 100,000 see:


      I do not believe that this difference is due to American criminals being more inclined to steal guns, but simply because guns are kept more securely in the UK.


      To sum up:

      We agree that some form of law is required to prevent guns getting in to the hands of those who we believe should not have them.

      We agree that, in the USA, a system of checks is in place to minimise the risk of gun sold through a licenced dealer being sold to a person who should not have access to firearms.

      We agree that any one in the USA can buy a second hand gun through a private purchase (including those people not allowed to have access to guns) with out any checks being performed or any records kept.

      We agree that in the USA, once a gun has been sold by a dealer, there is no way of knowing where tat gun is, or who is responsible for it.

      We disagree on one point:  
      You believe that the above situation does a reasonably good job at preventing guns getting in to the wrong hand.
      I believe that that as the sale of second hand weapons involves a voluntary code, it is a fundamentally unsound system.

      Before we continue to discuss other aspects such as storage of guns, access to guns by young people, etc, do you agree with my summary above?

      All the best,
      Ian






      On 19 Jun 2014, at 05:56, "Ryan Hodges ifly172@... [7x10minilathe]" <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

       

      Good evening Ian.

      I've had a long day at work and an even longer one coming up so if I overlook something here please point it out and I'll try to answer.

      Your system sounds very much like what I understand about the Illinois system I mentioned some time back.  As I understand it, they have to be approved before hand and are issued an identification card.  That then also fulfills the NICS check so they don't have to do that every time.  That wouldn't be a bad system for the instances we have been discussing in that you could ask to see the card.  I do not know if there is a list of ownership associated with it.


      "I advertise or offer the gun for sale.
      A buyer comes forward.
      I take their details and tell them to come back in a week or so, after I've had a check performed.
      I contact an appropriate authority, who perform the check.
      After some period of time (is the check instant - over the phone - or does it take a few days?) I get the result of my inquiry.
      The buyer comes back and I sell the gun (if all is well)"

      I think they have to be there the way it was explained to me.  You would meet the buyer at a shop and they would do the check with you both there.  If it's good you'd sell it.  The check is via phone.  It's pretty quick I guess.  I was told it takes longer to fill out the form than to do the check.


      From your comment about the FFL holder being able to perform a firearms entitlement check, I assume the FFL holder has access to all medical records of all residents in the USA - I do not think that this is likely, so I assume the check is for criminal record only.

      Again, the call system is run by our FBI so what they have on record I wouldn't venture to guess.  Criminal records I'm sure.  I'd venture they would also have it on record if you were declared mentally insane, mentally dangerous to yourself or others, "things" like that.  I'd doubt they have any information on "minor" mental issues like depression, manic depressive, etc.  But again, I do not know.

      I also do not know exactly what the FFL is told when they call.  I know the sheet showed something like proceed, denied, delayed.  From that I'm guessing the FFL isn't given specifics about the person and then they decided what to do, the FBI makes the decision on whether or not a person is approved or denied.


      Next point - I stated that "In the USA, the minute a gun is sold, all knowledge of its whereabouts, who is responsible for it and who has access to it is lost forever." - To which you responded:
       
      <SNIP>
      Really?  When a gun is sold the make, serial number, etc is recorded on the form that has to be filled out for the background check.
      </SNIP>
       
      You then linked to a document which records (in detail) who bought the gun.
       
      You have missed the point here.  The document records the sale - who purchased the gun not the current location or the current owner.  It would be perfectly legal for you to buy a gun, record the sale, walk out the shop and immediately sell the gun on (obviously to a legally entitled individual - I'm not suggesting you break the law).

      My point was that it would be quite easy to find, at least, the original owner and ask them about said gun.  You're completely correct in that you could walk in, buy a gun, walk out and sell it on the sidewalk.  Would you do that without recording it to someone you just met?  At a bare minimum I'd want a name and state issued ID number to protect myself.  In my opinion not smart,  but yes, it would not be required. 

      And at this point I disagree with you.

      No problem, you can do that.  Maybe you need to clarify "inappropriate people".  I took your question in reference to store sales.  And I agreed that the NICS / FBI checks have failed at times and probably will continue to do so.  Guns legally purchased from licensed dealers following all the rules and regulations have been used by bad people to do bad things.  I have no way of knowing how many sales were stopped by the system though.  Those never make the news here.

      If so, can we agree that under current US law it is simple and straight forward to carry out an unrecorded and untraceable firearms sale/purchase without breaking any US laws?

      To an extent I would agree.  Your wording makes it sound as if you can just buy and sell all day and that is correct if you can do it face to face.  I would bet that if you were to walk into a store, buy 10 guns, walk out and then try to do it again the next day somebody would be showing up at your door.  But I may be wrong.

      Just a question for you.  In the UK what happens if your home or store is robbed and your guns are stolen?  ABC news had a story on that reported over 250,000 guns a year are stolen from homes and business a year.  I'm just curious if the owners would be held responsible in any way?

      Regards

      Ryan


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Ian Newman ian_new@... [7x10minilathe] <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      To: 7x10minilathe <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 8:17 am
      Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe] OT: It happens again and it caused by mental illness

       
      Hi Ryan,
       
      I appreciate the time and effort that you put in to answering my questions, and I'm sorry if the questions in my last message seemed to indicate that I had not read your post - the problem is in my wording:
       
      I stated that a private individual cannot check if a potential gun purchaser is legally permitted to own a gun.  You responded:
       
      <SNIP>
      Yes, they do. As I posted, you go to a FFL and have the check performed.
      </SNIP>
       
      I was thinking in the context of the system in the UK.  We have firearms certificates similar in concept to a driving licence - a document carrying your photo, personal details and recording the type of firearms you can possess (and as I stated earlier, the actual weapons in your possession).  In other words, you are checked, and have a document proving that you can possess a firearm before you try to buy a gun, rather than trying to buy one, and needing to be checked every time.
       
      From your comment about the FFL holder being able to perform a firearms entitlement check, I assume the FFL holder has access to all medical records of all residents in the USA - I do not think that this is likely, so I assume the check is for criminal record only.
       
      An alternative is that a national database of people on certain medication is kept which can be checked, rather than having access to all records
       
      I do not know details of the procedure for checking with a FFL holder, but I assume the sequence would go something like this:
       
      I advertise or offer the gun for sale.
      A buyer comes forward.
      I take their details and tell them to come back in a week or so, after I've had a check performed.
      I contact an appropriate authority, who perform the check.
      After some period of time (is the check instant - over the phone - or does it take a few days?) I get the result of my inquiry.
      The buyer comes back and I sell the gun (if all is well)
       
       
       
      The next point - I stated that " there is no requirement for a private gun sale to be checked or recorded" to which you replied:
      <SNIP>
      That is incorrect as a blanket statement
      </SNIP.
       
      Again, my poor wording - I agree there are some cases where a check needs to be performed, but the requirement is peculiar to the purchase, not the sale.  Certain transactions need to meet certain legislation, but it is completely legal to carry out a sale with no checks or records if the sale is within state, etc, etc, - in other words you could sell a gun or buy a gun with absolutely no record of the transaction or change of ownership being recorded in any way.
       
       
       
      Next point - I stated that "In the USA, the minute a gun is sold, all knowledge of its whereabouts, who is responsible for it and who has access to it is lost forever." - To which you responded:
       
      <SNIP>
      Really?  When a gun is sold the make, serial number, etc is recorded on the form that has to be filled out for the background check.
      </SNIP>
       
      You then linked to a document which records (in detail) who bought the gun.
       
      You have missed the point here.  The document records the sale - who purchased the gun not the current location or the current owner.  It would be perfectly legal for you to buy a gun, record the sale, walk out the shop and immediately sell the gun on (obviously to a legally entitled individual - I'm not suggesting you break the law).
       
      A non-gun example of the above practice is the sale of Morgan cars.  The current waiting list is over two years for some models, and people are prepared to pay over the odds to get a "delivery mileage only" vehicle and so jump the queue.
       
       
       
      Next point - I asked
      "How does the current US legislation on the sale of firearms prevent the transfer of guns to inappropriate people?".  To which you replied:
       
      <SNIP>
      To me it seems that it works at [wh]at I would call a good to very good level.
      </SNIP>
       
      And at this point I disagree with you.  You have stated that it is quite straight forward to legally sell or buy a firearm with no requirement for any checks or records to be kept.  In view of this I see nothing in the current US legislation to prevent such a sale taking place with an inappropriate purchaser.  The legislation makes the transaction illegal, but there is nothing in place to make the transaction difficult to execute or possible to trace (no record of buyer, seller or weapon involved).
       
       
       
      Finally, I asked "How are inappropriate transfers detected?" to which you replied that you thought detection would be by "investigation".  In other words, after the illegal transfer had occurred, and the weapon come to the attention of the police (probably due to a crime being committed involving the inappropriate owner).
       
      In the UK, a gun is registered to an owner and the guns held by an individual are regularly checked.  The owner is in trouble if they cannot account for one of the guns they are responsible for.  All transactions are accurately recorded.  This prevents the casual selling a firearm to an unchecked person and it prevents the loaning of a firearm, etc.
       
       
       
      I hope you will consider continuing our discussion.  If so, can we agree that under current US law it is simple and straight forward to carry out an unrecorded and untraceable firearms sale/purchase without breaking any US laws?
       
      All the best,
      Ian.
       
       
       
      From: "Ryan Hodges ifly172@... [7x10minilathe]" <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      To: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, 18 June 2014, 7:39
      Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe] OT: It happens again and it caused by mental illness

       

      Good evening Ian.

      No need for a new thread, I was just looking for a short answer and brief explication and have no desire for any in depth discussion.

      " in fact, a private individual has no way of performing any checks, even if they wanted to"

      Yes, they do. As I posted, you go to a FFL and have the check performed. If you mean private as in can you call about random people, I sincerely hope not.  " (they have no access to criminal records, no access to health records, etc)." As well they should not.  As a person (private individual) that information is not your, mine, or anyone's business.  You shouldn't be able to call and do a background check on someone just for something to do just like you can't call a doctor about someone to find out if they have a disease.

      " there is no requirement for a private gun sale to be checked or recorded"

      That is incorrect as a blanket statement as it was explained to me and I posted below.  A face to face within the same state sale. All other sales must go through a FFL holder.

      " In the USA, the minute a gun is sold, all knowledge of its whereabouts, who is responsible for it and who has access to it is lost forever. "

      Really?  When a gun is sold the make, serial number, etc is recorded on the form that has to be filled out for the background check.

      Here is a link to the form.  You can plainly see that the name of the buyer and all the information about the firearm is recorded.  http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

      Maybe you can enlighten me on how there is no record when it's right there, on the form?   Name, address, birthday, firearm, etc.  It's all right there.

      "The fact that there is no requirement for checks on a private firearms sale raises two questions:"

      Again, as a blanket statement this is incorrect from what I was told.  Only face to face sales are exempt from checks.

      As it seems you know much more than I do already I'm going to quit wasting my time and the time of store owners tracking down answers to your last two questions. I already wasted hours of time on the phone to get answers to what I thought were actual, legitimate questions you had and I'm not wasting any more so I'll give you my closing thoughts...

      "
      How does the current US legislation on the sale of firearms prevent the transfer of guns to inappropriate people?"

      To me it seems that it works at at I would call a good to very good level.  It sure isn't perfect as demonstrated by the naval yard shooting but we have no idea how many hundreds or thousands of incidents it has stopped.

      "
      How are inappropriate transfers detected?"

      I would guess the same way most broken laws are detected.  Investigation.  But that's just a guess.

      Regards.

      Ryan

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Ian Newman ian_new@... [7x10minilathe] <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      To: 7x10minilathe <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tue, Jun 17, 2014 11:42 am
      Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe] OT: It happens again and it caused by mental illness

       
      Hi Ryan,
       
      <SNIP>
      Below I asked if you trust your government more?  You never answered.
      </SNIP>
       
      I am happy to talk with you about trust in Government(s) but as it a distracting digression with respect to our discussion on ensuring firearms safety, I will start a separate thread for it.
       
      Regarding checks to ensure that guns do not easily pass in to the wrong hands, you state:
       
      <SNIP>
      Within the state a face to face sale [of a firearm] between two private individuals is basically unregulated.
      </SNIP>
       
      but in an earlier post (10th June) when discussing laws to reduce the risk of firearms getting in to the wrong hands, you stated that:
       
      <SNIP>
      The system / law, of restrictions is already in place and administered by the FBI through it's NICS.  http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics  It's designed to keep firearms out of the hands of the underage, criminals, people with mental issues, etc
      </SNIP>
       
      Clearly there is a problem with the law - there is no requirement for a private gun sale to be checked or recorded - in fact, a private individual has no way of performing any checks, even if they wanted to (they have no access to criminal records, no access to health records, etc).
       
       
      In the USA, the minute a gun is sold, all knowledge of its whereabouts, who is responsible for it and who has access to it is lost forever. 
       
      The fact that there is no requirement for checks on a private firearms sale raises two questions: 
       
      How does the current US legislation on the sale of firearms prevent the transfer of guns to inappropriate people? 
       
      How are inappropriate transfers detected?
       
       
      All the best,
      Ian
       
      From: "Ryan Hodges ifly172@... [7x10minilathe]" <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      To: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, 17 June 2014, 6:00
      Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe] OT: It happens again and it caused by mental illness

       
      Hi Ian.

        Below I asked if you trust your government more?  You never answered.  You called it diversionary and moved on.  
      Like you, I don't want to get into a discussion on it but I would appreciate it if you would answer that.  I'm very interested in whether or not you, personally, would be comfortable with your government having a list of items that you own and why or why not? 

      -- cut from below--

      You say there may be "remote instances of people buying a gun (legally) and selling it to someone who can't pass the background check".  Are you suggesting that in the vast majority of private sales - guns sold second-hand by one individual to another - the seller performs identity and background checks on the purchaser?

      Yes, I would think the vast majority.  I'm sure not in all cases though for the reasons below.  I think you're confusing two separate things here though.  The reference was to people who can pass a background check that will intentionally buy a gun and then resell it at a profit to someone who cannot pass the check.  Doing this is refered to as a "straw sale" and is illegal no matter what.

      If a private individual in the USA wants to sell a firearm, what background checks are they required to perform, and how do they perform them?
       
      Let's take the case of me wanting to buy a gun from you, where would you need to go to get the necessary evidence that I am mentally competent to own a firearm?


      I can only answer to my state and with the information I got from a federal firearms license (FFL) holder.
        Within the state a face to face sale between two private individuals is basically unregulated.  Taking your example... Let's say we're friends that live close in my state.  I can legally sell you a firearm in a face to face transfer as it is a private property sale.  It was recommended that I get a signed receipt and a photo copy of your drivers liscense so if something did happen I could show who the gun had been sold to.  If you live too far away to meet and the gun has to be shipped, it has to go to a FFL holder who then has to perform the same background check as if you were buying a gun from the store.  The same applies if it goes across state lines.  We could live ten minutes apart but the transfer has to be done through a FFL holder performing a background check.

      Now lets say you aren't a friend.  I put an add in the gun shop to sell a gun.  You reply and want to buy it.  The same rules apply.  But because I don't know you... I could have you meet me at the store and they would do the same background check if I wanted before I sold it to you or if I had to leave the gun at the store for you to pick up then they would have to perform the check.  Again, like above if it has to be shipped it has to go though a FFL holder and they have to perform the check.

      Regards,
      Ryan


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Ian Newman ian_new@... [7x10minilathe] <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      To: 7x10minilathe <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Fri, Jun 13, 2014 5:28 pm
      Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe] OT: It happens again and it caused by mental illness

       
      Hi Ryan,

      Sorry - you are correct, I missed your answer.  I appreciate your honesty in stating that you do not see a solution.


      All the best,
      Ian


      On 13 Jun 2014, at 18:33, "Ryan Hodges ifly172@... [7x10minilathe]" <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

       
      Hi Ian.

      No, my answer is right there.  I'm guessing you just missed it as it is a short answer, copied from below...
      That, I cannot truthfully answer. 

      So, how do you do that (not you personally, just in general)?  If it would happen it would become an illegal gun and therefore the law  / legal requirement has failed.  Again, the always cliche laws only affect law abiding people and if people followed the law we wouldn't need cops are very true statements.

      I'm sure there are remote instances of people buying a gun and selling it to someone who can't pass the background check but that's already against the law. 

      From the instance below the law, theft, was broken to get guns.

      Those examples of where there's already a legal requirement so the question actually is...

      How do you get criminals to follow the law?

      Have a good day.

      Ryan

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Ian Newman ian_new@... [7x10minilathe] <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      To: 7x10minilathe <7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Fri, Jun 13, 2014 8:12 am
      Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe] OT: It happens again and it caused by mental illness

       
      Hi Ryan,

      Thanks for replying, but you digressed in to the area of "I don't trust my Government" and so forgot to answer my question - "How do you prevent legally purchased and owned guns being passed in to unauthorised hands"

      I have found that pro-gun Americans tend to resort to one of three diversionary arguments to avoid answering key questions such as the one above.  They are:

      1) "I don't trust my Government"

      2) "My interpretation of the Second Amendment is: 'You can have any weapons you want and do what the Hell you like with them' and anyone who says otherwise is anti-American, a traitor, trying to make me a slave, etc, etc"

      3) "My God says "I can have any weapons I want and do what the Hell I like with them' and anyone who says otherwise is attacking and oppressing my religious beliefs and freedoms"


      So without getting in to such arguments, let's just go back to my original point:

      We agree that some sort of restriction and restraint is necessary for the wider safety of the community and society.

      We agree that common sense is not reliable.

      We agree that a voluntary code of conduct would not be adhered to.

      I suggest that a code of conduct that is enforceable is a "law".

      Do you agree that the only way to ensure people follow restrictions and restraints is to have a legal requirement to do so?  If not, how do you suggest ensuring people follow "the rules"?


      All the best,
      Ian

       





      .





    • Show all 93 messages in this topic