After each horrific shooting, some leaders in Washington have said the solution is to do nothing, simply continue to enforce the existing laws, just as we have been doing. The gun lobby, meanwhile, calls for weakening our already paltry laws to get more guns to more people in more places. It is time for the gun lobby to stop stoking fear among gun owners with false claims about the government. It is time for the gun industry to stop capitalizing on those ginned-up fears to spread weapons of war among the public.
The gun lobby’s rhetoric has consequences. We have seen how profound those consequences can be.
We have a gun crisis in America. As important as the economic crisis is, the right to be safe at home and work and play needs at least as much attention from our policymakers as the right to economic security. It is time for leaders in Washington to drop empty platitudes after each horrific shooting, and instead do what they're paid to do: show backbone, and enact reasonable laws to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.
At the very least, require Brady background checks for all gun sales; restrict military-style assault weapons to the military and law enforcement and help law enforcement crack down on corrupt gun sellers.
What's your opinion? Do you agree that the existing gun laws are "paltry?" I would say ineffectual, but "paltry" describes them pretty well, don't you think?
Do you think it's fair to put the responsibility on the gun-lobby rhetoric? Do you believe such a connection exists, a connection between the increase in gun violence and the talk that gun bans are just around the corner? Do you think it's a fair statement to say that the gun lobby is "stoking fear among gun owners with false claims about the government?"
What do you think about Helmke's three proposals? Would they help?
Please feel free to leave a comment.
"What's your opinion? Do you agree that the existing gun laws are "paltry?" I would say ineffectual, but "paltry" describes them pretty well, don't you think?"
ReplyDeleteSo why not repeal many of them?
Note that's one think Helmke et al doesn't talk about.
Maybe he's being dishonest?
NAH we've PROVEN that too much for it to be true!
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteCan you define IRONY?
It is time for the gun lobby to stop stoking fear among gun owners with false claims about the government.
Helmke never passes a chance to dance in the blood of the dead, never passes up a chance to shout "OMG, we are ALL GOING TO DIE UNLESS MASSIVE CHANGES ARE MADE to the PALTRY gun laws".
And then claims we stoke fear. YGTBSM.
I would say ineffectual, but "paltry" describes them pretty well, don't you think?
Again, why not spend a few minutes expanding your mind and actually learning something or would that doing that make you have to give up your pro-ignorance group membership.
How about this MikeB, you find a time in America history where the laws made it HARDER to purchase a firearm (overall, not a single city) and I'll donate $25 to a charity of your choice in your name.
Have to present verifiable, documented evidence of such time in American history....but if you can do that, then I'll make the donation.
To my knowledge, all the things Helmke is talking about were in place with the incident in Binghamton. Here's how handguns (which is what the shooter uses) work in New York:
ReplyDelete- Apply for pistol licence, get fingerprinted.
- Wait up to 6 months for your prints to get run by the FBI, and then for the application to be approved by a judge.
- Get license.
- Buy a gun. Leave it at the dealer's. Record the serial number. Submit a form to the sheriff wanting to register the gun and add it to your permit. Sheriff checks to make sure the gun isn't stolen. If not, the judge signs off that you can have another gun, and you get the signed off form. This usually takes at least a week.
- Take the form back to the dealer. Dealer runs a NICS (aka Brady Background check) on you to make sure that's clean. If it comes back clean, you get your gun.
So, you've been background checked twice (once for the permit, once for the gun), and a local judge signs off on each gun you get (where you're background checked again before you take possession)...
AND we have magazine capacity limits..
AND we have closed the "gun show loophole"..
AND we have a ballistic databank (which is cited as an abject failure by pretty much every study ever done on it)
AND we require all handgun transfers to go through a dealer..
AND we have an "assault weapons ban", which is just like the old federal one.
Essentially, we have just about everything the Brady Campaign wants, and it simply doesn't work.
How much you wanna bet, Matt, that Mike makes NO move to refute/rationalize the very valid points you just made.
ReplyDeleteOr better yet claims that people can just go to other states to buy guns, so the law needs to be federal...despite of course THAT being an illegal act as well.
Note that like 3 verification cycles have gone through and he's had no desire to add to the discussion or answer any of the questions asked of him.
TROLL!
Matt, Thanks for your comment. As you saw, some of the other commenters know me well enough to provide my answers for me. I do think a state-wide set of laws is pretty useless if the state next door or a couple hours away has lax laws. But I wondered what you meant my this: "AND we have closed the "gun show loophole".."
ReplyDeleteIf you're still reading, would you mind expanding on that a bit. My understanding was that this unfortunate expression actually refers to private transactions that do not require background checks, even if they don't take place at a gun show. Are you saying that's been changed?
New York does not allow Private sale of firearms between two lawful citizens, only through an FFL.
ReplyDeleteAnd my prediction was true, call for redundant laws. Because if one set of laws fail, re-iterating said laws obviously will work.
I do think a state-wide set of laws is pretty useless if the state next door or a couple hours away has lax laws.
ReplyDeleteMike, What do you propose then? It is already illegal for an individual to sell/transfer a firearm across state lines. It's a federal felony.
The "gun flow" that occurs between states is ILLEGAL. Your claim that people can just hop across state lines and buy a gun at any gun store in town is crap.
Obviously he proposes to Ban all guns, Mike W!
ReplyDeleteBut the way he proposes it'll work, not like how they did it in the UK, Australia, Mexico, USSR....
Kinda like the people who want Universal Healthcare. They want it, but the way they'll do it it won't bankrupt the system in a few years, and ration care to people who need it like in EVERY other place that's supplied it.
Weer'd said, "New York does not allow Private sale of firearms between two lawful citizens, only through an FFL."
ReplyDeleteThanks I didn't know that. So that means in NY they have closed the gun show loophole. In NY they're pretty smart, they probably realize many private sales of firearms are not between "two lawful citizens." How about a national law that prohibits private sales? How about background checks for everyone who buys? Don't you think that would cut down on the gun flow into the criminal world?
And, Mike W., do you think because it's illegal it doesn't happen? You keep saying that crossing state lines to buy guns is illegal, that one just cannot pop into the neighboring State's gun shop and buy a gun, as if that means it doesn't happen. In states where laws are lax, people from nearby States do come to buy. They get a local resident who's willing to act as a go between. The guns flow right out of the state and right into the criminal world. It happens every day.
Right mike, criminals break the law, so how is ANOTHER law (like say banning private sales) going to fix that?
ReplyDeleteThe people breaking multiple laws already just laugh at you and your asinine proposals.
Certainly keeps NY's Gun crimes down to a national low....Oh wait, FACTS.
ReplyDeleteBTW you didn't know this? That part of the law is EXACTLY the same as the NJ laws.
Oh and remember Micro (and I think you admitted to illigally owning guns in your youth)
Odd, those laws didn't do shit either.
Those fucking facts, Huh Mike?
Ain't it a bitch?
Looks like Mike has been playing games with my comments.
ReplyDeletePut them up, Mike, or tell me what terms I'm in violation of.
(and I mean all of them)
Thanks Mike. Tho it is sad that you feel you have to cheat to win.
ReplyDeleteRemember, make a rational and reality-based argument in favor of heightened gun control, that you can factually defend, and Bob and I will have our entire collections melted down, and you'll get a heart-felt apology for the error of our ways on my blog, as well as here.