Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

johnhd t1_jcz0x6r wrote

Reply to comment by WunkyFinkerbean in Gunfire erupts at birthday celebration in Horsham cemetery, killing 1. Group had gathered to celebrate a life lost to gun violence 10 years ago. by PienotPi

Willing to bet this shooter did not purchase or possess his firearm legally, and therefore would not be subject to any of these proposed new rules.

The intersection between "people who follow gun laws and training requirements" and "people who shoot up a memorial service in a cemetery for a prior shooting victim" is nonexistent, especially considering discharging a firearm in public is a felony, as are assault with a deadly weapon and murder.

16

Complete-Matter-3130 t1_jcz9r57 wrote

people always say this drivel like being able to buy guns like cheeseburgers doesn't contribute to the issue just because the last transaction in the chain was the dude getting the gun from his brother.

are you willing to bet that this gun was at some point purchased legally? I am.

Don't worry about reporting your stolen gun, or having any criminal responsibility for leaving your gun on your front porch with your 10 friends who all have felonies -- someone would need to prove you somehow have culpability in the crime for you to face literally any repercussions.

The courts will actually go after you harder if your car is stolen and the person gets parking tickets than if your gun is stolen and used in a violent crime.

12

johnhd t1_jczhjzu wrote

>being able to buy guns like cheeseburgers

Weird, I don't ever remember Burger King asking me to provide ID, then filling out multiple pages of forms with personal information, employment info, a series of questions with complex wording that all carry a felony for answering falsely, and getting a PA State Police-run background check to buy a cheeseburger.

>just because the last transaction in the chain was the dude getting the gun from his brother.

It is illegal in PA to:

  • Transfer a handgun without a background check unless to a parent/offspring or spouse.
  • Provide a firearm to someone who is a prohibited person.
  • Purchase a handgun with the intent to sell it to someone else (straw sale).
  • Receive, possess, and/or carry a handgun if you are a prohibited person.

This scenario would already be illegal.

>Don't worry about reporting your stolen gun, or having any criminal responsibility for leaving your gun on your front porch with your 10 friends who all have felonies -- someone would need to prove you somehow have culpability in the crime for you to face literally any repercussions.

Leaving a firearm on the front porch with even one convicted felon would be a crime by itself. But yes, there is a burden of proof for everything in this country, that's how our legal system works, and would be the same for any crime committed.

>The courts will actually go after you harder if your car is stolen and the person gets parking tickets than if your gun is stolen and used in a violent crime.

This is simply not true. If Person A has a legally-purchased firearm stolen, and that firearm is used in a crime and found after the fact, the ATF will run a trace to determine who it was last sold to. And they will show up at Person A's door asking about it. If Person A doesn't have proof showing the firearm was stolen, they can absolutely be investigated for involvement in the crime. And even if they did report it as stolen, they may still be investigated for straw selling, depending on the situation. Just saying "it was stolen" when the ATF shows up is not some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card.

Similarly, if Person B's car is stolen and the thief gets tickets or runs somebody over, Person B would have to prove that it wasn't them driving to avoid facing charges, and a police report or other documentation of the theft would be one way to do that.

5

[deleted] t1_jczok6f wrote

[deleted]

2

johnhd t1_jczxijv wrote

>So tell me again how requiring more training and safety courses, and safe possession of the firearm, wouldn't help?

How does one require "safe possession" of a firearm? Require that they all be locked up? Is the government providing funding for safes, or is that just another cost we're gonna toss over to gun owners to cover? Is someone coming to my house once a month to confirm everything is locked up? Will they also be evaluating the rest of my house for safety, making sure my chemicals and knives are locked up, etc? And will they go into my neighbor's house as well, since they're a convicted felon prohibited from owning firearms? Can't imagine any negative impacts from sending police with itchy trigger fingers door to door in lower income neighborhoods...

Tangent aside, let's say we require 2 hours of training and 1 hour of safety courses for the 100,000,000 existing and all future gun owners in this country.

Person A, who wants to straw purchase firearms to earn extra cash, sits through those sessions, then proceeds to buy 20 handguns over the course of a year, and charges an extra $200 per pistol instead of $100 for the added time. No change.

Person B, who follows the laws, sits through the sessions, buys a gun, and puts it in a lock box in her night stand because she lives alone in a sketchy neighborhood. Someone breaks in and steals the lockbox while she's working overtime to cover for the time she missed attending the training. No change.

And what happens when there's no noticeable change? Do we increase it to 4 hours training? 10 hours? 20? Or do we shift focus to adding another gun ownership barrier at that point?

If the government wants to provide free optional training to the 100 million gun owners out there, fine by me. But requiring training and/or making firearms owners responsible for the costs is effectively punishing everyone for the actions of few, and adding a financial and time barrier to owning firearms.

2

WunkyFinkerbean t1_jczjh15 wrote

And yet, this happens. Hundreds of times a week, it seems*, someone is shot in Pennsylvania by a handgun. Usually, it is a handgun.

What do you think should be done about it?

* according to the CDC, about 1,600+ a year are murdered and 3,000+ are wounded. That includes suicide.

1

LocalOnThe8s t1_jczree1 wrote

Which is why ar15 debates crack me up. Rifles make up like 4 percent of homicides. That's why you barely need a background check for a rifle.

1

CreditBuilding205 t1_jczzp7h wrote

Illegal guns used in crimes are much more likely to come from southern states with loose gun laws. They track this. It’s just a simple fact.

People aren’t driving down to Georgia to buy guns because it’s a fun road trip. They do it because the laws down there make it easier to traffic guns without getting caught.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffickers-smuggling-state-gun-laws.html

8

johnhd t1_jd0k2gr wrote

For what it’s worth, you can only purchase handguns in your own state of residence per federal law, so nobody is driving to GA or any other state with looser laws and purchasing a handgun legally unless they already live there. And having a resident of the state with looser laws purchase them would also be illegal.

Yes, residents of those states traffic guns to states like PA as per the linked story, but people straw purchase in PA as well despite having UBCs for handguns.

4

WunkyFinkerbean t1_jczfm0t wrote

That's kind of where the restriction of availability comes into play. We have simply too many guns floating around and, as u/Complete-Matter-3130, it was purchased legally somewhere along the chain.

The looseness of firearms is an argument for gun registration and stricter transaction laws.

5