We have two massive safes of guns, just in my immediate family. I couldn’t even guess how many among my cousins, et al.
But our family is not the norm. The level of safety, especially.
And I still have cause to be worried, because in my lifetime we’ve already had 3 suicides by gun.
This is phrased really strangely. “Having a clean person buy the guns for them,” is not getting them illicitly. Like, by definition of “clean person”, this is an entirely licit way of obtaining a gun, which means by your logic most criminals actually obtain their firearms completely legally.
But also, this means to make it harder for criminals and terrorists to get guns, you have to make it harder for everyone else to get guns.
It’s not especially easy to buy a house or a car; other things can be quite difficult to buy as well. Why is the default expectation that guns should be especially easy?
Wait, how do criminals and terrorists get their guns again?
You can’t have it both ways. If it’s legal for a person with no criminal record to buy a gun and then resell it to a private individual in the same state with no background checks, then in most cases criminals will have obtained their guns completely legally.
? Someone who can arm a posse is obviously scarier than someone who can’t.
Sure, you’ve got your occasional doomsday cult stockpiling guns for armageddon, but most of these 9 million are regular, law-abiding people. Legally purchased guns account for a tiny fraction of gun crime. Concealed-carry permit holders are less likely to commit a crime than police officers. They may not (in general) agree with some of the laws on the books, but neither do most people. They may not be perfect citizens, but they’re at least lawful-neutral.
I don’t think you read your link before deciding to cite it as evidence:
“The problem is that only a very small fraction of gun crimes result in the recovery of the weapon or in any other way allow us to determine how the gun was acquired by the person who committed the crime,” Cook told us.
On the other hand, if Scarborough had said that 3 percent of criminals who use guns get them legally, he would have come closer to the truth. There are still big issues with that, but he would have found some support in Cook’s work.
Just because Joe Scarborough said it doesn’t mean it’s true. The article is mostly arguing that it’s not true.
More:
Cook noted that it’s possible to buy a gun illegally from a gun store. You can use a fake ID or employ a straw purchaser (someone who can pass a background check who buys the weapon on your behalf).
Furthermore, just because the rest of the people interviewed didn’t purchase a gun at a gun store doesn’t mean they acquired it illegally.
“It’s possible to make a legal acquisition from another source – a gift from a family member, a purchase from a private seller, etc.,” Cook said. “Whether transactions of that sort are legal depend on the details of the transaction and local regulations.”
Cook also cautioned that the numbers from the Chicago study might not apply across the country.
Edit: Your second link is a methodological disaster and should be ignored entirely.
I think the ad and purpose is effective because the insinuation is that because Kander wants smarter and more effective gun control that he must be unqualified to hold office or perhaps is a left wing nut job who “seeks to abolish the second amendment”.
Kander is clearly demonstrating not only does he not want to abolish the second amendment, but also he is adept in the use of modern day weaponry. You don’t get to the point he demonstrates of being able to dismantle/assemble a rifle in the manner he does it by going through basic training and that’s it. He’s adept.
Maybe the problem is you’re equating one ad with “the test for Congress”?
P.S. Technocracies suck.
I am sure people think I am nuts for having as many Boba Fetts as I do
Considering that he was killed by a blind guy, yes.
Han Solo for Congress!
The kind of bucket head politician who can re-assemble a rifle also tends to be the kind of bucket head politician who’s been trained to take his weapons seriously (i.e. not as fetish items to promote the fever dream fantasies of the firearms industry lobby). It’s not a test for Congress but rather a test on common-sense views of firearms ownership – one I suspect his opponent would fail on a number of levels.
This is actually a loophole that troubles me. I have several guns that I inherited, but most of them are not valuable to collectors, etc. This leaves me in a position where if I want to sell them off, I have the responsibility of determining if I want some random individual to take possession of them. Screw that. I’m probably better off mashing them down with a hammer.
I think “figuring out ways to prevent military-grade assault rifles from getting in the hands of civilians, including terrorists” is an excellent agenda to push, especially from someone with the military experience to know why it’s a strong and proper agenda.
It’s a problem, and a hard one. Personally, I prefer the generalized gun control approach. That is, just make it a lot harder to own firearms. We already restrict arms in a variety of ways (you need a special permit to own any firearm of .50 or greater caliber, for instance) so why not make it more restrictive? Especially in light of the clear public danger that unrestricted access to firearms presents.
Then we don’t need to get into thorny questions of evaluating mental competence. Then, of course, the question becomes what to do with all the guns already out there. Like I said, it’s a hard problem.
One thing I do know: ignoring it won’t make it go away.
Maybe we just haven’t been ignoring it long enough?
Jesus H. Christ, soldier! You are going to be a senator!
Hey, it couldn’t get worse, right?
Right?
There are three main ways criminals get guns:
^^^ No gun law is going to stop these two things. Already illegal.
^^^ Already illegal. An illicit activity.
First off, terrorists getting guns is a non-issue. Just like all the other fear mongering and curbing of rights in the name of “security”.
At some point there is point where the added checks and laws aren’t actually CURBING crime. We added the background checks in 1994 and there wasn’t a dramatic decrease in gun crime (because they were already getting guns outs side of the FFL network.) Yes will see a decrease in crime from its height in the 90s, but that is an over all decrease, one that is echoed even out side the US. There isn’t a direct correlation.
It is legal to sell to a private person who isn’t otherwise restricted from owning a gun. Two of the main ways to get your gun rights removed or suspended in the system is a felony conviction, or a domestic abuse charge.
The criminals who are using their underground networks and networks of family and friends are doing so now so they don’t have to go through an FFL. Do you honestly think these people are selling to criminals completely unaware that they are selling to a criminal? NO - they don’t care. They are violating the law. Adding a new law that even private sales have to go through an FFL will be ignored just like the laws the one or two other laws already being broken.
The only thing this MIGHT have an effect is a criminal buying from a private person who doesn’t know them. But really, how often does this happen? If some methed out tweaker wanted to buy a gun from me, I’d either refuse, or say I’d feel better going through an FFL. Many sellers want to see a CCW card, which means they have already passed background checks. The vigilant sellers are already taking measures to not sell to criminals. Those who DON’T CARE now if they sell to a criminal or not, won’t care later either even if it were illegal.
Back to this - the whole concept is flawed. How has this worked on the War on Drugs - stuff totally illegal? There was no “straw purchase” for heroin. It failed utterly. And now they are cracking down on prescription opiod use to the point where I have to fucking spend $80/mo to visit a doctor who wants to pee test me for a drug i have been on for 10 years because some people got hooked on Oxy or what ever, and instead of treating people for addiction we lock them up and try to further restrict the drug. And now we have a heroin epidemic because the ILLEGAL drug is CHEAPER and EASIER to find.
Well I am sure. Jimmeny Christmas. Your examples of the Bundy fiasco is one example out of 80 million gun owners. Even the III%s and other more militant groups are a tiny, tiny fraction of gun owners (hint, not near 3%).
The actual GUN CRIME isn’t the weirdos in the woods, it the poor in dense cities. That is the statistics. I am not saying fringed armed groups shouldn’t necessarily be watched, but they are that mole on your arm that you think looks weird, where as the city crime is the cut off leg making you bleed out.
Arming a posse? When has this happened ever? Someone who is going to raise hell and revolt or what ever, is going to be armed themselves already. Hell, giving someone a gun who doesn’t have one and knows how to use it is a liability. Your fear of a fictional scenario is just that.
Suicides are horrible things. But the cause of them are outside forces beyond just access to a tool and not something you can fix with laws.
Aw man - below the belt… right in the feels…
Almost. In a lot of ways I don’t miss my home state.
Well, they aren’t quite military grade, as they aren’t full auto. But statistically, rifles (all rifles) are used to kill less people than fists and blunt objects. Literally you are more likely to be beaten to death than shot with an assault rifle. Even more likely to be stabbed.
So no, I don’t agree is an agenda to push, because the fear of potential doesn’t line up with the reality.
Also, this is an Appeal to Authority.
Also it is dismaying how many people are against the use of government force, are wanting the government to be the only ones with that force.
Ugh, why does the comment section of every article on gun debates turn into a gun debate?
Anyway, I have to say, after the restrained power of the first ad, the second is hilariously over the top. What the fuck?
Isn’t he canonically alive, according to Disney?
