It's impossible to write effective laws against illegal firearms on a state-by-state basis, because criminals in states with tougher laws can always get around the restrictions simply by driving a short distance to states where guns are easier to buy. Without sensible federal restrictions that apply across the board, many state gun laws are virtually meaningless.What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Baltimore Awash in Illegal Guns
The Baltimore Sun seems to be singing the same song as many sensible folks around the country. But they're hard-pressed for a solution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
And then what would they say if those laws are passed and they are still awash in gun violence.
ReplyDeleteGreat Britain and Australia are islands and gun control there didn't stop gun crime.
The Fat One engages in a very common gunloon dodge--that is, any gun law has to be 100% perfect is stopping gun violence or it's a failure. Of course, gunloons never apply that standard to their gunloonery.
ReplyDeleteAs I've very sagely noted before, if we had gun violence rates equivalent to the UK or Australia, we'd be singing in the streets.
And of course Jadegold simply manufactures a fallacy as gun laws can be 100% INEFFECTIVE but still good in their dull eyes.
ReplyDeleteAll I ask is to see something work.
This is why I left the anti-gun camp
Sounds like a case the special crime unit and the boys from the western district could investigate. With their proven track record of taking down major drug dealers like Bell Stringer and the Baxtel gang, I am sure tracking illegal guns will find all the same players as the drug cases.
ReplyDeleteI will look for it in an uncoming season of The Wire.
Sadly, Weerd cannot name a "100% INEFFECTIVE" gun law. Flawed s the Brady Check is ( and it's flawed because the NRA was allowed to remove most of the law's teeth)--it still does make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns.
ReplyDeleteOTOH, as Ayres and Donohue have pointed out--states with lax gun laws have more gun-related crime and violence.
And Weerd was never in the "anti-gun camp." To him, guns are just the logical extension of his RPG fantasy life and his own arrested development.
I agree with il Principe--Let's get the crew from the Wire to chase after them. Since Martin O'Malley is still governor, it would be a meeting of fact and fiction.
ReplyDeleteWeer'd gives a dubious reason for leaving the "anti-gun" camp. If he "wanted to see something work", then he is in the wrong camp. The pro-gun camp does everything possible to sabotage gun laws and the enforcement of gun laws.
Although, I guess Weer'd expertise in using the autoclave makes him an expert in criminology as well.
Laci
I find it interesting that Weer'd doesn't chant the "enforce the laws on the books" if he is being completely honest with us that he was ever in the "anti-gun" camp.
ReplyDeleteInstead, I see someone who wishes to dismantle gun laws.
An odd smell emanates from the weer'd one.
Laci
As local politics show me, they'll let the dumbest people on earth have a JD!
ReplyDeleteI loved the McNulty character on the wire. Too bad he's a too common example of both cops and gun owners in general - drinking, erratic behaviour, a general mess.
ReplyDeleteToo bad the people who played some of the characters were British (e.g., McNulty (Dominic West), Carcetti (Aidan Gillan), Stringer Bell (Idris Elba)!
ReplyDeleteI was a bit disappointed at the show, but it was interesting. Carcetti did mention O'Malley in it, but the Carcetti character was nothing like O'Malley.
I didn't know you had a JD, weer'd. May wonders never cease that an institution other than University of East Anglia would grant you a degree.
"The pro-gun camp does everything possible to sabotage gun laws and the enforcement of gun laws."
ReplyDeleteYes. Your point?
Bravo, FWM. For Laci to say that is the same as saying "The abolitionist camp does everything possible to sabotage slavery laws and the enforcement of slavery laws."
ReplyDeleteI don't see such things as bad.
NO, it's more like commiting an act of treason by enabling people such as terrorists to have access to firearms.
ReplyDeletePer Article III, Section iii:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Interestingly enough, Article III, Section iii mentions levying war against the United States. 18 USC § 2385--Advocating overthrow of Government, specifically mentions:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so;
So, be careful what you go around saying, or you could be sitting in Gitmo.
So, don't compare yourselves to abolitionists: you are the people who end up with their heads on poles.
"...you are the people who end up with their heads on poles."
ReplyDeleteNot until you can get our guns from us, yappy dog. Molon Labe!
Laci, I really hope you're referring to the civil rights travesty of attempting to remove 2nd Amendment rights from people on the No-Fly List and/or Terror Watch list. These two items violate an individual's right to due process, so any educated individual would see that denying them any of their rights based on being added to a secret "list" by some non-elected government agent is nonsensical, not to mention illegal.
ReplyDelete--Colin
Thanks, Colin. I agree the "list" is problematic. Yet, reasonable measures need to be taken to keep guns away from dangerous people.
ReplyDeleteHow about licensing and registraion? That would obviate the need for disarming people on the "no-fly list." They'd already be prevented at the licensing stage.
Well, it's good to see that we agree on something, Mike. As for licensing, on Joan Peterson's blog, Sean Sorrentino came up with a brilliant idea to add a clean background check code to everyone's drivers license. This allows for proactive licensing (rather than asking for permission from Uncle Sam to own or carry a gun) that can't be turned into a back-door gun owner database. There are a few kinks to work out, such as how often to reapply for the license, and the procedure for turning over an individual's clean license if convicted of a crime that would render him ineligible to own or carry firearms, but after that, there would be no more issues with private sellers selling a weapon unknowingly to a prohibited person, and all without having to call in to a system that may or may not be operational, not having to pay a background check fee to an FFL holder, no possibility of the government building a gun registry, and no more having to kill multiple trees with the forms I fill out to buy a gun (and I buy several every year).
ReplyDelete--Colin
Yes, Sean Sorrentino, the guy who banned me from commenting on his blog BEFORE I ever visited it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I see the advantage to that driver's license idea. But it's good to know you guys are trying.
Does that mean that you agree there's a problem that needs to be addressed?
It's more of a CYA for us legal gun-owners. I don't want to get butt-raped by the jackbooted thugs at the BATFE for accidentally making a private sale to an illegal alien (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/09/texas-gun-dealer-gets-prison-sentence-selling-gun-illegal-immigrant-id-illegal/). At the same time we get an actual compromise that simplifies the gun-buying experience for those of us that go through it on a regular basis.
ReplyDeleteActually, I should change "accidentally" to "unknowingly." The seller asked for, and was shown, a valid Texas DL, which is all the proof he needed to make a legal sale to what should have been a legal citizen of the State of Texas and the US.
ReplyDeleteI was suggested this web site by my cousin. I am not sure
ReplyDeletewhether this post is written by him as nobody else know such detailed about my difficulty.
You're amazing! Thanks!
Also visit my web page; Visit Website
What's up colleagues, how is everything, and what you want to say on the topic of this piece of writing, in my view its genuinely awesome in support of me.
ReplyDeleteVisit my website ... www.forum.kanzelgruss.de//index.php/index.php?page=User&userID=3860
Oh my goodness! Impressive article dude!
ReplyDeleteThank you so much, However I am experiencing troubles with your RSS.
I don't understand the reason why I am unable to subscribe to it. Is there anybody else getting the same RSS problems? Anyone that knows the answer will you kindly respond? Thanks!!
my blog :: Nadia taylor plays With Lollipops 12292006