Friday, August 5, 2011

My Official Goal

Extremely strict gun control laws enforced nationally which would disqualify about half the present gun owners. Since that half, although legal under today's rules, is responsible for much of the trouble including gun flow into the criminal world, the results would be tremendous.

19 comments:

  1. What about the ATF gun runner programs? would you ban the ATF and Eric Holder from having weapons? What about police departments that have their evidence rooms robbed? No guns for them either? Or when the gun checks that are supposedly checked by the government but don't do so. Who really is at fault here? The public or the system that supposedly protects us? Your lack of information here is very disturbing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. MMasse, we have had some significant problems with the ATF gun runner programs - an incredibly embarrassing one recently, notably.

    That doesn't change that the various efforts by government and our law enforcement community are both honest and very clever, that they work hard and put themselves at risk to do their job, deserving our support.

    The gun check problem is something that we should address, requiring states to participate in a competent manner, to keep us all safe.

    I have to wonder how well run, how effective, any police department is which has an evidence room that is ripped off. Whether incompetence or dishonesty - sadly, both happen sometimes - we can do better, we shold do better.

    In our history, these problems in some degree have always existed. In some respects, it will always be something against which we have to push back, a negative aspect of people being human. That doesn't excuse us from making the effort.

    Mike, on what basis do you assert that enforcement of gun control laws would disqualify about half the present gun owners? I'm taking from this that you are referring to illegal guns? Please elaborate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I knew it wouldn’t take long to see considerable appreciation of your famous 10%.

    Tip: Gun control typically goes by the principle of getting the small stuff implementing first- THEN jacking up the restrictions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. TS, please elaborate on your assertion. In doing so, support it with verifiable documentation.

    If this is so obvious, if it realistic, you shouldn't have any trouble doing so.

    If on the other hand this is a subjective perception that you cannot document in some reasonable way, you might want to take a more objective position.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "TS, please elaborate on your assertion. In doing so, support it with verifiable documentation."

    Dog gone,

    First, before TS could come up with documentation to support his claim, MikeB would have to come up with documentation to support his Famous 10% which he is first to admit is his own made up number.

    After the nonsense of Jade and others on this site and our repeated calls for documentation and cites, it is a hoot whenever someone here demands it from us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. FWM, apparently you missed where I just wrote:

    Mike, on what basis do you assert that enforcement of gun control laws would disqualify about half the present gun owners? I'm taking from this that you are referring to illegal guns? Please elaborate.

    While MikeB may very well have made up his 10% figure, I would bet that if he made the effort he could extrapolate hard data, and show on what basis he arrived at that approximation. In any case, he at least is candid and intellectually honest enough to admit it is his own estimate, not a concrete fact.

    It only advances the argument to ask someone to explain their numbers, their facts, and to justify them, document them and support them.

    I notice FWM, that you don't seem to be taking me to task for the numbers I assert here. Do I take from that correctly that you while we often differ, you do feel I document my positions?

    Or are you just looking for a pretext over which to kvetch? (written teasingly, not with hostility)

    ReplyDelete
  7. How about this.

    Ninety percent of the people posting on the Internet have to give up their Right to post such manure first.

    After all Hubert Humphrey wrote that without the second, there would be no first amendment.

    So mike gives up his right to speak and post the utter bull pucker he proposes. His posting have no benefit to society they make no sense and they influence people to distance themselves from his points of view. That sounds like a much better proposition.


    Also mike what nation are you posting about. People in Italy already have tough laws and that's where you live so you must be meaning more laws in Italy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dog gone: “please elaborate on your assertion. In doing so, support it with verifiable documentation. If this is so obvious, if it realistic, you shouldn't have any trouble doing so.”

    Fat White Man, I believe she was referring to my second comment about gun control jacking up restrictions after getting something lesser passed.
    No problem giving examples of that. Here is Maryland who has a ban on magazines over 20 rounds attempting to change it to 10:

    http://mlis.state.md.us/2011rs/bills/sb/sb0162f.pdf

    Here is California trying to vastly expand the definition of “cop-killer bullets” by removing the exemption for rifle rounds. I have touched on this here before:

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_124_bill_20110425_amended_sen_v98.html

    Another example would be California’s definition of “Assault Weapons” enacted in 1989 under the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act. Since then there have been two other bills that passed expanding the scope:

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_23_bill_19990719_chaptered.html

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2728_bill_20060929_chaptered.html

    You want something on a national level? Here is the text of Brady II which they immediately went for before the ink was dry on the original Brady Bill:

    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/brady2.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree, we need more gun control. the ATF really shouldn't be allowed to buy or own any since they allowed mexican drug gangs to be better armed than the police.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "While MikeB may very well have made up his 10% figure, I would bet that if he made the effort he could extrapolate hard data, and show on what basis he arrived at that approximation."

    We await the results of such labors.

    ReplyDelete
  11. LMAO! Ever have a look at the level of Violent Crime in England or Australia?

    I am just wondering who would be the person to approach the 100 Million American Gun Owners and ask them to turn them in peacefully. I sure would hate to be them on their last day on earth!

    ReplyDelete
  12. "While MikeB may very well have made up his 10% figure, I would bet that if he made the effort he could extrapolate hard data, and show on what basis he arrived at that approximation. "

    Yup, we've all waiting for a couple of years for that one.

    "I notice FWM, that you don't seem to be taking me to task for the numbers I assert here. Do I take from that correctly that you while we often differ, you do feel I document my positions?"

    Yes, for the most part you do document. I may disagree with a lot of your positions, beliefs and the way you interpret some things but I don't believe I would ever accuse you of not documenting most of what you present.

    I still would like you to cite the specific law that provides for the multiple long gun reporting though since you have claimed it exists.

    ReplyDelete
  13. FWM, what I said was that I don't believe the laws, such that I have found and read anyway, seem to prohibit the long gun reporting requirement, and that it is up to the courts to make any determination if this is not legal. From what I've read, I think the goverment, not the NRA will prevail. The range of law experts that I've looked at seem to argue for the reporting, not against.

    But only the courts can decide, not you or I - or the NRA.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I don't believe the laws, such that I have found and read anyway, seem to prohibit the long gun reporting requirement"

    Passing a law is not as simple as deciding if there is a law that would stop you from doing so. That would only require an Executive and Judicial branch, the Executive to make up laws and the Judicial to decide if it were legal or not.

    We happen to have a third branch, a legislature, that has to write the laws first. Mainly not finding something to stop you does not make it legal.

    Current law requires the reporting of multiple handgun sales only, specifically only handguns. It was written that way on purpose. There is no law that directs that multiple sales be reported for long guns in four specific states. You can't even claim "loophole".

    ReplyDelete
  15. Doggone, I can answer that, CA. passed a law that certain so called assault weapons, whatever the hell that means, had to be registered by a certain date, so what happens? Lo and behold later on down the road the Attorney General Bill Lockyear sent a letter to those that followed the law telling them they had a amount of time to turn those weapons in as they were now illegal, So here is a clear cut case of where registration led to confiscation.
    Now I'm not one of these no restrictions allowed nuts, I firmly believe that the NICS system needs improvement with reporting, The states need to do a better job of updating their prohibited list, the mental health reporting system needs vast improvement, I so support that the NICS needs to be opened up to a private seller as long as it is only a go-no go on the sale and no record is kept.
    Mike, how do you figure that half of the gun owners in the country would be disqualified under your plan?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dog Gone said: ""While MikeB may very well have made up his 10% figure, I would bet that if he made the effort he could extrapolate hard data, and show on what basis he arrived at that approximation.""

    You weren't with us back then, but I imagine you've looked at it given how often it's mentioned by me and others.

    My contention is that I did "extrapolate hard data" and the pro-gun guys went berserk with denigrating my suggestion that some of them (10%) are unfit.

    So frequent and so strong were the pro-gun claims that I "made up that number" than many started to believe it. But, just go back and read the post, it wasn't invention it was extrapolation.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dog Gone asked: "Mike, on what basis do you assert that enforcement of gun control laws would disqualify about half the present gun owners? I'm taking from this that you are referring to illegal guns? Please elaborate."

    To clarify, I'd say my goal is to have strict gun control laws in order to significantly reduce gun violence.

    In implementing those laws, I would guess about half of the folks who now lawfully own guns would be disqualified. Now, remember, among them are many hidden criminals masquerading as law-abiding, you've got your mentally ill who won't pass the screening for that, you've got the problem drinkers who wouldn't be able to sober up enough to pass anything, etc.

    TS is right, this does increase my Famous 10% theory but it doesn't contradict it. It's the same idea looked at with a couple more years experience.

    The criminal gun owners have nothing to do with this because, as the pro-gun guys keep telling us as if we didn't know it, criminals don't obey laws. That's why gun control laws are mainly aimed at the law-abiding.

    On TTAG, Farago immediately mischaracterized my statement saying that my goal is to disarm 50%. Maybe the distinction is too subtle for him.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I have to add a comment about this. While I will certainly agree that in today's climate there are plenty of people that should not have guns, you seem to miss a very important point.

    There are many guns in the world that are legally purchased from gun stores. Any enforcement is going to be limited to those and those alone. However, a significant number of guns are obtained through other channels, including everything from Ebay to the illegal gun dealer you meet in a seedy bar.

    Illegal transfers of weapons are not going to be stopped in the US without a significant change in the climate of freedom and law enforcement. Even if you shuttered all US gun manufacturers there are thousands of handguns imported every day into the US - again some legally and some not so legally. When "Saturday night specials" were outlawed (briefly, I believe) in the 70's it was quickly noticed that while US manufacturers stopped making them they continued to be imported from other countries - illegally. Today we are far, far less in control of the containerloads of materials that are coming in through our ports.

    It is correct that it would be possible to ensure that good law-abiding citizens cannot obtain handguns. It is not correct to believe that this would affect the number of guns used in crimes in major cities. You would probably eliminate the gun that Daddy brings home, leaves unsecured and is used by one child against another accidently. You will not affect the budding armed robber that gets a gun from the dealer his friend knows. These transfers were never legal to begin with and they are uncontrolled today. No amount of new laws, no matter how draconian, will prevent the illegal importation and illegal transfer of handguns in the US.

    What the gun control advocates have always missed is that if you are going to break one law (say, armed robbery), then breaking another law (illegal transfer of a handgun) is trivial. Considering that in the US the rate at which criminals are caught, prosecuted and convicted is about 20% any criminal with a brain can see they have only a 1-in-5 chance of doing time for any crime they commit. Increasing the penalties without changing that 20% figure does nothing because it is obvious that we aren't really punishing criminals effectively. Especially obvious to the criminals, I might add.

    One serious suggestion that might have an effect is that anyone caught with a gun is executed on the spot. Possession of a gun = death. It might take 10 years to make it sink in and there would be horrible abuses of such a law, but it would finally get guns out of the hands of criminals. Anything short of that - such as longer prison terms - is a joke and has no effect. We've already tried that and many such laws are already on the books today and being enforced. It simply has had no effect.

    You cannot solve a problem with laws when the problem involves people that are already ignoring the law. You might solve it with unrestrained violence, you might solve it with education and social change. But you are never, ever going to solve it with more laws and legal structures that are already being ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mr. Unknown, I was preparing to seriously attemt an answer and then I read your gun possession = execution idea. That made me wonder how serious you really are.

    What you seem to miss or leave out on purpose is that all those guns that one criminal gets from another started out the lawful property of some gun owner or FFL dealer.

    Strict laws aimed at these lawful people would directly impact on gun availability. That's what we're trying to do.

    ReplyDelete