Yeah, even the CDC, in their most recent study, could not suggest that gun control was a good idea, and not for a lack of trying. If they could have proved otherwise, Obama would have been trumpeting this report. But “guns are not actaully bad” from a major government agency results in the sounds of crickets from the mainstream media.
Except in the second armed robbery, where he was identified as the shooter by the guy he robbed, but I guess he gets a pass on that one because it took the courts too long to re-prosecute him on those charges.
Unless you’re a black woman trying to escape from an abusive boyfriend, where it’s the same as shooting at people. ( Fla. mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots - CBS News ) But I suppose that’s totally different because it’s Florida which… has a “stand your ground” law. Little known “fact”: if you don’t shoot at anyone, the law works the opposite of the way it normally does. Or something.
1 Like
Seriously? Really? Deliberately committing a string of violent/gun-related crimes and accidentally killing someone? Totally the same. Although if Kennedy had gone on to dedicate his life to making sure that drunk/reckless drivers had no impediments put on their right to drive (and also separating people into categories of “safe” and “unsafe” drivers unrelated to driving practices while putting himself in the first category), then that might be closer. And completely appalling.
1 Like
Do you have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that this guy ever proposed legislation that would allow people to get away with murder? Any evidence at all?
Actually, the analogy is closer to supposing that Kennedy went to work for a car manufacturer or an engineering firm that build bridges. How evil!
1 Like
Data please? Considering the prevalence of straw purchases – which is indeed a channel subject to regulation through the gun laws proposed – this would seem to be straight up false but maybe you have some data source you’re not sharing.
We’ve been over this before. Don’t know why you keep repeating this nonsense long after acknowledging you don’t actually know this.
Edit:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
He said “no impediments to drunk driving”. No impediments to a murderer buying a gun is the analogy (and yeah, that does seem to be the MO of the NRA). Take a deep breath and read what you’re responding to.
1 Like
What proposed gun laws have addressed straw purchases? Looking here - Home | Bureau of Justice Statistics - we can see ~40% of those polled got their guns from friends and family. So many of those are probably straw purchases, or private purchases between friends.
What laws do you propose to help curb straw purchases? Talking with gun store owners, they tell me if someone comes in, picks out a gun, but has their girlfriend fill out the paper work, they tell him to take a hike. Of course not everyone is as vigilant, and nothing is stopping that person from coming back or going to another store alone.
So - if you are legally able to buy a gun, no record, but you plan on getting one to give/sell to your friend/cousin, what gun law do you propose that would stop you? Unless we develop the ability to read minds, I think that it is impossible. Hence I don’t see added laws curbing crime. But if you have some ideas I’d like to hear them. Too often I hear a lot of “someone should do something” with out any practical ideas on what exactly.
1 Like
Sorry, but straw purchases are ALREADY illegal. Yes, we should make them MORE illegal.
Wow, people say we should make straw purchases illegal when they already are. People say that “assault rifles” should not be allowed, and they almost are (a real assault rifle can run almost $20,000 and takes stack of federal paperwork). You already HAVE what you are screaming for.
Of course it doesn’t. But if “not being killed in a police raid” is the primary goal then odds are looking better for the guy who isn’t shooting at the SWAT team. If they’re willing to kill you over a case of mistaken identity then you’d better believe they’d be willing to kill you for blowing away one of their fellow officers.
1 Like
Perhaps start by charging negligent gun-owners with manslaughter if somebody uses their improperly stored gun to commit suicide.
Oh come on. How often does that even happen?
Are we counting people who kill themselves with a gun that belongs to a family member? Because that happens a LOT.
I’m not sure whether charging parents of suicidal kids with manslaughter would improve the situation (who fears a manslaughter charge more than they fear their own child’s death?) but it’s an unescapable fact that a lot of people kill themselves with improperly stored guns.
3 Likes
Any law that makes it more difficult to purchase a firearm will make it more difficult to straw purchase a firearm.
Which isn’t to say you couldn’t do it intelligently. Just that your rebuttal here is prima facie nonsense.
You want a particular proposal? Guns have to be registered, gun owners have to be licensed. The license needs to be renewed and part of that renewal is to account for all guns registered under that license. Inability to account for all weapons registered under the license mandates legal sanctions whether they be fines (hefty enough to make reselling guns on the black market a losing proposition) or jail time.
1 Like
As @Mister44 already acknowledged, straw purchases are only illegal after the fact and determining that a straw purchase is illegal prior to the purchase being made would require reading minds.
Wow, people say straw purchases are already illegal without acknowledging that a straw purchase is completely indistinguishable from a legal purchase. Kinda hard to take you seriously when you can’t admit that much.
But seriously. Straw purchases are already illegal but they almost certainly account for a plurality if not a majority of the guns used in gun crimes. Why do you think the laws against straw purchases are so ineffective and what could be done to make them more effective? Perhaps you’d be taken more seriously if you offered solutions instead of just nay-saying everyone who disagrees with you. Speciously in this case.
1 Like
/facepalm Re-read, try again.
OMG, such a lie.
1 Like
I don’t think it would help anything at all. Suicides aren’t a gun issue, it’s a mental health issue. Japan has very draconian gun laws and nearly 2x the suicide rate (btw, WTF is going on in Greenland?)
Unless maybe your family member was dying a horrible death from cancer or something, I can’t imagine most people would want to provide access to a suicidal loved one. Of course the problem is many people are suicidal and the people around them either have no idea, or some how make themselves blind to the fact. In general I find laws rarely make one more responsible if they are not already.
Such as? I need specifics to be able to judge whether it would be a reasonable measure. You make a few extra hoops, and the legal straw purchasers will just jump through them. You make too many hoops and they will go to a street source.
Registration won’t curb crime. People who commit crime won’t register their guns. Straw purchases might be curbed, but it isn’t a slam dunk. Straw purchasers can always just claim their gun was stolen. The fact that registration has lead to confiscation so many times means I doubt that will ever happen.
I also think it is hugely impractical. Canada had one for Rifles and they suspended it because it cost millions of dollars a year and wasn’t netting criminals. It took 3 months for the Sheriff to process my CCW - the man power and bureaucracy would be huge.
And let’s look at what we have RIGHT NOW with NICS - the Federal background check system. In 2012 they rejected ~80,000 people. How many people were brought up on charges. Take a guess. 8000 would be 10%. Maybe 800?
Try 44. But what we really need is more laws to make us safe.
Incorrect on all counts. You make a few extra hoops and a smaller percentage of the straw purchasers will jump through them. You make too many hoops and a smaller percentage will go to a street source – which will supply fewer guns at a greater cost.
Since completely eliminating gun crime is a pipe dream I think you should acknowledge right now that a lower percentage of criminals getting their hands on guns is exactly what we’re trying to accomplish. Whether or not you think any particular measure is reasonable according to your no-doubt unimpeachable standards is besides the point entirely.
If straw purchases are curbed then there will be fewer criminals with guns and registration will curb crime. You can’t even be consistent in the space of three sentences.
What’s a “slam dunk”? Again, if you’re being reasonable then we can agree that we can’t eliminate gun crime. So why demand that any solution do that before it’s acceptable? You really seem to talk out of both sides of your face on this particular topic.
Straw purchasers can claim their gun was stolen but if they didn’t call the police and file a report at the time then they could still be criminally liable for letting the gun get away from them. This is the whole point – holding people accountable for the lethal weapons they purchase. You don’t think people who purchase lethal weapons should be held accountable?
Cars have to be registered and yet there seem to be precious few instances of automobile confiscation outside of ridiculous asset forfeiture clauses in drug laws. It’s cute that you think “I doubt it will happen” is a valid argument.
Well I don’t think we can compare the US to Canada in this case because the cultures are so different. This line of argument ringing any bells?
Failing a background check isn’t a crime so I’m not sure why you would think people would be charged for it. On the other hand, it’s not the most ridiculous thing you’ve said in this comment.
1 Like
Sorry for the lack of eloquence, I am trying to work.
I think my point was very valid. The cultural make up that leads to violence in the US is much different than say Canada, the UK or Australia. Just like places like Iraq are even more so. The PEOPLE living within and their situation is the cause of the violence, not the weapons.
Yes - that is the goal, but I don’t find these suggestions reasonable. The cost and punishment of peaceful owners is greater than the violence it prevents.
This is a difference of opinion and threshold for acceptable risk. You will note similar arguments on how much is to much when it comes to things like the TSA, NSA data gathering, and other forms of surveillance.
Depends what they were denied for. A felon trying to buy a gun is. At any rate, I can’t believe that out of 80k, only 44 of them were deemed dangerous enough to arrest. You want to expand powers - let’s fully use the powers already in place.
Yep, let’s really look at those accidental death and swimming numbers.
10.4 residential swimming pools. 309,000 public swimming pools.
301 million swimming visits each year. (That’s just the pools.)
3,555 accidental deaths by drowning in 2011.
A prevented drowning is an accident that didn’t happen.
So, in reality, here are the numbers:
If you went swimming in 2011, there was a 0.001% chance that it would result in your accidental death.
The same year, 300 million guns were owned in the U.S.
14,675 number of gun related injuries in the U.S. in 2011.
(Source I only included unintentional when selecting.)
850 number of accidental deaths. (CDC)
Total accidental injury and death 2011 - 15,615
So that means, if you were accidentally shot in 2011, your chance of death was: 5.44%
In reality, it was far, far safer to take a swim than get accidentally shot.
2 Likes
