Now, what I want to know is how in the world can gun rights folks continue to justify the fact that guys like Christopher Mark Taylor can buy guns without having to submit to a background check? To me this is absolutely unacceptable and people who support this should be embarrassed to admit it.Christopher Mark Taylor is accused of shooting Jerome Police Officer Dennis Clark, 35, Monday afternoon during a automobile pursuit that began in Jerome and went southeast into the countryside.Taylor is currently on probation for a pair of Twin Falls County criminal convictions. In July, he was convicted for possession of a controlled substance and theft by receiving stolen property, both felonies. Fifth District Judge G. Richard Bevan levied a seven-year prison stint for the controlled substance conviction and 10 years for the theft conviction. Both were suspended for a four-year probationary term.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Criminals don't require background checks when they are dealing in illegal weapons to prohibited persons.
ReplyDeleteNow, what I want to know is how in the world can gun control advocates continue to ignore the fact that even if there's a LAW that requires background checks on all private sales, guys like Christopher Mark Taylor can buy guns without having to submit to a background check? To me this is absolutely unacceptable and people who support gun control should be embarrassed to admit it.
ReplyDeleteThere, I fixed that for ya.
...Orygunner...
Now, what I want to know is how in the world can gun rights folks continue to justify the fact that guys like Christopher Mark Taylor can buy guns without having to submit to a background check?
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think you can get a man like that to obey a background check law? Really, what makes you think you can pass a law that will actually force him to comply? Since bad guys like that buy guns in areas that require background checks, but those bad guys don't have background checks when they buy guns, it serves no point to expand the failed policy.
It doesn't work now, it hasn't worked ever, and it can not work. We aren't justifying the failure of your policy - just pointing out that it is a failure from start to end.
The real question is why was Christopher Mark Taylor a free person? Why was his sentence suspended? If he had served the 17 years he was originally sentenced, this would have never happened.
ReplyDeleteI refuse to support any gun control legislation while criminals are essentially given get out of jail fee cards.
You all have very good points on the gun control laws, however there is always more to the story.
ReplyDeleteI realize no laws however well enforced could make a criminal do something he doesn't want to do. So, is your solution that we make it easier for him? Should we increase the sources from which he can buy guns?
ReplyDeleteNo, of course not. What we need to do is make it harder. We need to eliminate some of the most accessible sources for criminals to get guns - the private sales which require no background checks.
@Mikeb, you haven't provided any evidence that making it "harder" would prevent ANY dangerous people from getting guns.
ReplyDeleteThe flow of guns to the street isn't like a leaky bucket full of water that you can just plug all the holes and expect there's no way for them to get water. Not when they can either punch their own holes in the bucket, reach around the top and scoop out what they want, or even go get their water from another bucket altogether.
Each path you shut down will be circumvented. For each avenue you block, they will find another one. This has been proven time and time and time again with ANYTHING that ANY society decides is illegal - if there is a demand for it, people will STILL get them.
The burden to show that "making it harder" will actually make it hard enough to change the violent crime rate is on you. Where's your evidence?
...Orygunner...
On the contrary Orygunner. It's very much like that leaky bucket. Plugging holes is what it's all about and the fact that we will never realistically plug them all is no reason to give up and actually punch more holes, which is what you want.
ReplyDelete@Mikeb, Actually, I would rather everyone just be allowed to scoop from the top of the bucket instead of restricting people we THINK may be dangerous.
ReplyDeleteAs long as dangerous people have any access to ANY bucket whatsoever, it's foolish to think anything you do is going to matter. We need to keep people who have demonstrated they are dangerous completely away from the bucket by keeping them behind bars as long as they are still dangerous.
You just keep trying to plug holes. Dream that impossible dream, while others work on reality.
...Orygunner...