With over 100,000 gun deaths or injuries every year in America, it is clear what we're doing now to reduce gun violence is not working. Last week, the Brady Campaign released our State Scorecard for 2008, the latest in our annual rating of the 50 states. Each state is evaluated according to a detailed set of gun violence prevention laws that it does, or does not, have. You can read the Scorecard here.
Some gun enthusiasts call this kind of report a pack of lies. Others pick it apart piece by piece, refuting every part of it in a terribly painstaking exercise. Both types are well represented in the HuffPo comments. I personally think it makes perfect sense to enact common sense gun laws and expect them to impact on the availability of guns to criminals.
One thing Mr. Helmke said is that pro-gun folks often lament that there are already too many gun laws. I've actually heard bizarre numbers quoted, I suppose adding up every single law in every single jurisdiction, even obsolete and overlapping legislation. Mr. Helmke pointed out that there are only a few that truly affect criminals, universal background checks for example.
Why are gun enthusiasts so adamant in their opposition? Are they really convinced that these are only the first steps towards confiscation? Does anyone really believe that? I certainly don't.
What's your opinion? Even allowing for bias, doesn't some of what this report offers make good sense?
Please leave a comment.
This is an example of the pack of lies spread by the Brady Campaign
Mr. Helmke pointed out that there are only a few that truly affect criminals, universal background checks for example
So, it is against the law to brandish a firearm...that doesn't truly affect a criminal?
It is against the law to commit robbery with a firearm, that doesn't truly affect a criminal?
It is against the law to conduct a straw purchase, that doesn't truly affect a criminal?
Over and over again, you find the same thing...there are many laws...and you are right - They don't truly affect the criminal. THE CRIMINALS AREN'T OBEYING THE FRAKKIN LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS NOW
What on God's green Earth makes you think they will follow any new law?
Let's use that vaunted common sense you value so highly. If laws are needed to stop the problems, then states already with some of those laws would have less crime?
Haven't we already covered this???
According to the CDC,
The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.
Now, simply state one new law that would stop a criminal from getting a firearm completely?
Want universal background checks? Criminals will continue to use non-prohibited people to buy them firearms. Net result, more cost and no reduction in the flow of guns.
I personally think it makes perfect sense to enact common sense gun laws and expect them to impact on the availability of guns to criminals.
Name the common sense gun laws that aren't already on the books?
We are adamant because every one of the "common sense" gun laws makes it more difficult for us to purchase, own, and carry firearms without reducing crime one FRAKKIN IOTA!
I personally think it makes perfect sense to enact common sense gun laws and expect them to impact on the availability of guns to criminals.ReplyDelete
certainly if we make such laws, it does make sense to have that expectation.
let's do a little contingency planning. if we make such laws, and then find that common-sense expectation to be futile, then what?
"What's your opinion?"ReplyDelete
Why do you care? You simply discount any opinions that don't agree with yours.
Hence why you have no problem slinging admiration at bald-face liars like Mike Licht and Paul Helmke, and sling insults at pople like Bob, Nomen, and Sevesteen.
Do you want to talk about this issue, or do you want to hear your own echo?
Also Care to discuss what laws Helmke proposes sound like logical ideas?
Seems you've backpeddled on every point but "Guns are bad....you guys on my blog are nice...but all the other gun owners are alcoholics who shoot up schools and sell guns to criminals" ect ect.
Now that I've cooled down a bit, although I would like an answer to the questions posed and to Weer'd's post, let's try something else.
Are you against the deaths and injuries or are you just against firearms?
Or are you just against ideas different from your own?ReplyDelete
While we wait for you to Dodge my question about what of Helmke's proposed "Common Sense" laws you support, This reminded me of you:ReplyDelete
Oh and BTW:
" Contrary to the assertion that "thousands" of gun control laws are on the books, there are really only a few designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people – and even those have loopholes."
If the Thousands of gun laws we do have aren't working, why isn't Helmke proposing laws be repealed? I mean he's talking about taking about taking rights away to protect people, and he's talking about laws that don't do anything....yet he doesn't seem to be talking at ALL about compormise? Seem Strange to you, Mike?
Bob said, loudly, "THE CRIMINALS AREN'T OBEYING THE FRAKKIN LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS NOW " I know that. That's why we need to have universality, especially in the background check business. This way the availability to the criminals will be cut.ReplyDelete
Weer'd said that I said "all the other gun owners are alcoholics who shoot up schools and sell guns to criminals." Why do you keep saying such exaggerated nonsense and then accuse me of dodging when I don't respond.
Also for Bob, I want to clarify that my whole point is that gun owners are just like anybody else when it comes to problems that would make them unfit to be armed. Maybe today you guys are finally admitting that. Up till now, you've been dodging that one.
We're talking about millions of problem people who are exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. And the flow keeps right on going.
Don't you get it. We have checks at licensed dealers now, right?
So when you say
That's why we need to have universality, especially in the background check business. This way the availability to the criminals will be cut.
It is a joke. Criminals are using straw purchasers to buy guns now from FFL's. That is against the law, it is successful, why won't they do it with someone selling grandpa's old revolver or semi?
It won't keep criminals from buying firearms. What it will do is make criminals out of people who have firearms.
Do you know how many firearms I have? Does the government? Heck, I don't even want to think about the number of firearms someone like Thomas has that the government doesn't know about (jealousy on my part, not fear).
So, how will the government know when or if I sell one without running a background check??
Answer that one.
Absolute frakkin bull in your next statement:
Also for Bob, I want to clarify that my whole point is that gun owners are just like anybody else when it comes to problems that would make them unfit to be armed. Maybe today you guys are finally admitting that. Up till now, you've been dodging that one.
What we have said over and over again, is that those who are licensed, those that care enough to jump through hoops are demonstrably more law abiding then the general public.
Any problem that makes a person unfit to be armed should also make them unfit to have poison in their homes (household cleaners), operate any heavy machinery, drive any automobile, have knives in their homes. Firearms are just another tool. If they aren't safe to be armed, they aren't safe to be in public.
We are talking about millions of people exercising their rights and a faction....a very small faction of them break the law.
Tell me how you stop that small faction.
For every 1 firearm crime Mike, there are proven....not just something that I "Feel" but proven to be 9 non firearm crimes. Why not focus on reducing CRIME. Wouldn't it make sense if you reduce CRIME in general, society would be better.
There are millions of men, but the flow of rapists keeps right on going...how are you going to stop that?
There are millions of people driving and the flow of drunk drivers keeps right on going. How are you going to stop that small fraction
Now again, are you concerned with the deaths and injuries being suffered or just the firearms?
Don't dodge again
"Why do you keep saying such exaggerated nonsense and then accuse me of dodging when I don't respond."ReplyDelete
Did anybody else see an answer to my questions?
I saw some support for "the background check business", but nothing that state's that's it. There's a bunch of other questions you dodged, but I'll cut my losses at "What of Paul Helmke's Proposals do you support?"
As for "the background check business", right now in most states people can privately sell guns between law abiding citizens. It's a FEDERAL crime to sell a firearm (privately or otherwise) to a prohibited person. So people respectful of the law take great care to sell guns to people they KNOW are law-abiding, because they know an illegal sale will end in them loosing all their guns, their future rights, and likely a stay in prison, and those charming gang-showers.
Now there are people who don't respect the law. They simply buy and sell to people that benefit them the most, laws and repercussions be damned.
While you answer my other question, answer me this. The first group isn't a problem, but the law will effect them, how will Helmke's law effect group two?
They're already breaking the law, how will one more law slow them down?
Of course you don't believe it Mike, because you don't want to. The first steps towards banning handguns in DC and Chicago were the 'reasonable' requirements for licensing and registration.ReplyDelete
Then they simply closed the registration offices.
California required the 'reasonable' requirement to register 'assault weapons' (even listing some that didn't exist, they just copied from a catalog, including typos). One state office said registration could continue past a certain date. Another office nixed that and then used the list to confiscate firearms registered past that date. They are currently using that list, under advisement by anti-gun activists, to confiscate firearms from people they determine to be 'unreliable'.
Immediately after the Brady Bill passed, a push began for Brady II, an even more restrictive bill.
There are already universal background checks in Illinois yet the Brady Campaign continue to push for MORE restrictions, including gun bans.
These are all documented, real-life examples all supported by the Brady Campaign, et al. Do you still think it's 'unreasonable' to oppose any further measures by them? Can you give me one, just one, reason why I should trust the anti-gun groups? Especially ones that admit to using distortions to push their agenda?
WB says you'll next ask what kind of improvements I would make. Here's one. Universal background checks.
"Wait", you say, "That's the same thing that the gun control groups are calling for."
There's a significant difference in my plan as compared to theirs. EVERY 'gun control' group wants all sales to go through licensed FFL dealers. The problem? They also endorse and advocate suing those same dealers out of existence through 3rd party lawsuits. No FFL dealers. No legal sales/transfers.
Open up the NICS system to non-FFL inquiries.
Groups like the Brady Campaign, Ceasefire, etc. either oppose that or refuse to comment when it is suggested.
Ask yourself why.
Made a little post on thisReplyDelete
What of this do you support, Mike?
How do you feel about Thirdpower's suggestion? I'm all for it too!
Why do you care? You simply discount any opinions that don't agree with yours.ReplyDelete
Almost sounds like a 'troll' comment, but of course it wouldn't be.
You and Bob NEVER agree with anything gun-control related and summarily dismiss the gun-death data that Mike provides in his posts.
Why the hell do the two of you come here? Do you feel 'obligated' to counter his opinions each time he gives one? Reminds me of that idiotic fundamentalist babe who obsessively "has to" throw Bible quotes out every time there is a discussion about 'sin' or what she thinks as 'sin.'
For chrissake stop visiting this blog if neither you nor Mike ever agree. It is a f'n waste of time and energy.
I recently did some simple statistical analysis on the Brady Campaign data, compared to US government figures on crime rates.ReplyDelete
(If I've done everything right, there should be a link to a Google spreadsheet here, showing a chart)
I then ran the numbers through an online correlation calculator.
I ran the same numbers again, with the addition of DC--counting it as the "best" of the brady states, and using its actual crime statistics.
Without DC, there is a statistically insignificant correlation between Brady ranking and crime rate.
With DC, there is a statistically insignificant negative correlaiton between Brady ranking and crime rate.
In layman's terms: Not counting DC, there is a barely measurable match between Brady rank and crime rates, but the match is considerably smaller than the margin of error. Including DC in the rankings flips it around--Places with "good" Brady scores have slightly more crime, but again considerably smaller than the margin of error.
As far as gun laws--How about some actual compromise--If you want universal background checks, pick a method that does only that--don't require a dealer, fees or registration, and if the system goes down, we still get to sell. Done right, I'll support that if I get the right to buy guns in other states.
What most of us want to see is laws that primarily restrict criminal misuse, with efforts made to minimize impact on the law abiding. What we get is too often criminalization of our honest and harmless behavior, with little impact on criminal misuse.
You and Bob NEVER agree with anything gun-control related and summarily dismiss the gun-death data that Mike provides in his posts
You are full of it, Mike's own words prove you wrong.
aybe today you guys are finally admitting that. Up till now, you've been dodging that one.
What we don't agree with Mike about is the effectiveness of gun control laws and the many of the conclusions.
summarily dismiss the gun-death data that Mike provides in his posts.
If you've bothered to read anything we've written, or read Mike's complaints about the volume of statistics I cite, you would realize we don't summarily dismiss his data.
We actually rip it to shreds with factual, multiple sourced, data.
Show a statistic that the gun banners use and I'll do the same. Showing my sources, methodology of how the information was obtained, etc.
Do you feel 'obligated' to counter his opinions each time he gives one
Actually the answer is yes, I feel obligated. Those unwilling to fight for their rights don't value them. I value my rights too highly to let people like you and Mike persuade others to an anti-gun position. Especially persuading them based on lies (not often from Mike), half truths, distortions, misleading statistics, "feelings" and Mike's favorite "common sense".
Reminds me of that idiotic fundamentalist babe who obsessively "has to" throw Bible quotes out every time there is a discussion about 'sin' or what she thinks as 'sin.'
The fact you have to try to put down someone who disagrees with you says more about you then it does about her.
I think this citation really hits home....
Bullies have particular behavior and personality traits. Dr. Sam Samenow describes these as:
* greater than average aggressive behavior patterns
* the desire to dominate peers
* the need to feel in control, to win
* no sense of remorse for hurting another child
* a refusal to accept responsibility for his/her behavior
And then you go and prove my point.
For chrissake stop visiting this blog if neither you nor Mike ever agree. It is a f'n waste of time and energy
Nice how you come into Mike's living room and try to tell us how to behave or what to do.
If Mike ask me to stop commenting, I would.
Thirdpower said, "Groups like the Brady Campaign, Ceasefire, etc. either oppose that or refuse to comment when it is suggested.ReplyDelete
Ask yourself why."
I don't know why they would oppose opening up that data base? Would you tell us? Who owns it? How does it work?
Weer'd, I support the background checks, the waiting periods and the 1-gun-a-month rule. But please before you answer, remember my ADD.
Sevesteen said it exactly right. "What most of us want to see is laws that primarily restrict criminal misuse, with efforts made to minimize impact on the law abiding." That's me for sure. I think it must apply to some of the Brady people too.
"Weer'd, I support the background checks, the waiting periods and the 1-gun-a-month rule. But please before you answer, remember my ADD."ReplyDelete
I have ADD to. Drink a cup of Roman Espresso and cowboy up there hippie!
"Weer'd, I support the background checks, the waiting periods and the 1-gun-a-month rule. But please before you answer, remember my ADD."
Which version of background checks? Helmke's or Thirdpower's (that you've ignored TWICE now)
What's the point of waiting periods? I've got a shitload of guns at home, what's making me wait a week for my next one going to do? Are you aware the waiting period was simply a old-fashioned law that allows people to do a paper version of today's NICS check. The whole "Cooling Off Period" bullshit is simply Helmke and company keeping a defunked law alive simply because it inconveniences gun owners.
One-gun-a-month? So 12 guns a year is totally safe, and 13 is dangerous? Why?
I think your support deserves a whole post to itself.
Of course I suspect your the first kind of gun-banner who does it out of ignorance, so I don't think you could explain your points...they just FEEL good to you.
As a gun owner, I fully support common sense gun control laws.ReplyDelete
Of course, it's only common sense to insist that "common sense" means "measureably reduce violent crime without affecting the rights of the law-abiding".
Up here in Canada, very few of our gun control laws meet that definition. There is some evidence that accidental death rates have gone down since the introduction of the mandatory safety training requirement, so that one might arguably be common sense.
The rest of it is pretty much useless, and has had no discernable and could IMHO be scrapped without negatively impact on violent crime rates. Especially the registry; there's a bill before Parliament right now to scrap the long gun registry and reform and streamline the handgun license process. Now that's a common sense gun law...
And waiting periods? I've been waiting since November for my handgun license. I'm 41, a lawyer with a perfectly clean criminal record, and I have two M-14's, an SKS, two Remington 870's and a couple of .22's already in my gun safe.
How can making me wait months in order to be able to buy a firearm that's outclassed by a factor of thirty in terms of muzzle energey and ten times in the area of range by what I already own make anybody safer?
It would be an interesting exercise to analyze the gun control laws you support.
First, look at the justification--What good comes of these laws? Is there a hidden justification?
Second--What is the impact? Look at positive and negative--Is it effective at reducing misuse? Does it excessively burden the law abiding?
Third--Is there another method that will have a similar reduction in misuse, with less inconvenience to gun owners?
If you do this honestly, I think you will find that a lot of laws and bills have alternatives with similar effectiveness against misuse, with a much lower burden on the law abiding.
Pick the proposal that you think has the most potential for reducing misuse, and see if the pro-gun people here can come up with an alternative that meets most of your goals, while being least objectionable to us. This is true compromise, and it isn't what typically happens with gun control.
Brady-style "compromise" is that we only give up part of our rights, in exchange for a delay in giving up the rest.
"I don't know why they would oppose opening up that data base? Would you tell us? Who owns it? How does it work?"ReplyDelete
I already told you why Mike. It's in the rest of the post.
The NICS is 'owned' by the FBI.
Why do you support "1 gun a month" laws and "waiting periods"? Can you show me causal evidence that these laws have effected criminals?
Which version of background checks do you support? Mine or Brady's?
"let's do a little contingency planning. if we make such laws, and then find that common-sense expectation to be futile, then what?"ReplyDelete
And of course we've already got those "common-sense laws" and they have NOT been shown to reduce crime.
Chicago, DC, and Baltimore are cesspools of violent crime even though NO ONE can legally(no citizens) carry firearms in those cities.
If we just make it illegal to carry a gun then no one can use one to commit a crime right? Seems to have worked brilliantly in DC, IL, and MD. Carry is already illegal in those states as is violent crime. What do you propose we do? Pass laws that make it super extra special illegal?
That's why we need to have universality, especially in the background check business. This way the availability to the criminals will be cut.
May I suggest education Mike?
The FBI published a 5 year study not long ago that confirmed what most of us on the pro-rights side already knew. Criminals DO NOT GET THEIR GUNS AT GUN SHOWS.
From their study.
"In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows."
Where did criminals get guns from? In the manner you'd expect a criminal to get one. They stole them or bought them on the black market. Surprise, surprise, criminals bypassing the legal avenues to procure firearms.
Tell me how will tightening up the legal market keep criminals from obtaining arms on the black market?
Perscription pain meds are highly regulated, yet there's a thriving black market for them. If there's a demand for guns criminals are going to get them no matter what the laws are. They don't care about breaking a few firearms laws. I don't get what's so hard to understand about this?
At least Helmke finally admits that most gun laws to not really affect criminals.ReplyDelete
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to getting treatment for your illness. Now maybe Paul will quit trying to pass so many silly laws that have no affect on crime.
Anyway, I was sad to see Ohio do as poorly as it did on the report card. 13 out of 100. I was hoping for maybe 2 or 3 or even less. I still take issue with 5 of the points that they got wrong do to later legislation. Even so, that only brings us down to around 8. We'll have to work on that this year!
Again, the problem is not the guns. It's family breakdown, drugs, alcohol, poor parenting, the removal of spanking to teach kids that they must control their behavior or suffer consequences -thus there are people growing up who lack self-control, whose parents can't control them, and then the other end of the spectrum, child abuse cultivating very angry, sick people.ReplyDelete
Lack of religious belief can't be helpful either --speaking of religion which teaches love, forgiveness, and self-control.
MR calls it a waste of time to blog with people with whom he disagrees. On the contrary, a blog could be a place to find common ground and befriend people with whom we disagree. A place to bring forth knowledge and opinion that others have not considered and to correct misconceptions and misjudgments of groups of people.ReplyDelete
Some people like to debate and argue points for their views, enjoying the mental challenge, honing their thinking and writing skills.
Some still hope to persuade with facts and common sense --only to find out that some people are hopeless and don't want to be confused with the facts.
And finally, there ARE two or more sides to many issues and it never hurts to become familiar with all of them.
Weer'd said, "One-gun-a-month? So 12 guns a year is totally safe, and 13 is dangerous? Why?"ReplyDelete
This is an example of what you like to do. You know very well I'm not talking about the 13th gun at the end of the year. I'm talking about the unscrupulous gun buyer who would buy 13 guns in a month and sell them off at a profit not caring where they end up. Now, you knew all that, but by stating it the way you did, demonstrating your wit and sarcasm, you made an already tedious argument all the more tedious.
Meanwhile, you keep accusing me of not answering and avoiding questions as if, aha, you trapped me with brilliant questioning.
So, back to my idea, might the one gun a month rule have an impact on that unscrupulous buyer who is, knowingly or unknowingly, supplying the criminal world with guns?
Mike W. provided this quote for us, "In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows."ReplyDelete
Here's my idea about statistics. Even FBI stats can be biased, so they must always be taken with a grain of the old salt. About this particular claim, once before we read that it was 1% or less of a large sampling that came from the gun shows.
Let's say a gun is bought in a gun show or in the parking lot of in someone's living room. Being a private transaction, there's no record of it. Let's call this a "gun show" transaction. The buyer is a law abiding citizen who loses the gun in a card game or has it stolen from his truck or by his teenage son. The gun eventually finds its way into the criminal world, gets swept up in a police raid and is determined to have come from, where, a gun show? No. It would be considered stolen or lost or origin unknown.
That's why those claims are bogus, because they don't stand up to common sense.
Seriously, do you even know what a "gun show" is?
You example is a private transaction that had nothing to do with a gun show.
What you are wanting to do is ban all "private transactions".
Here is why that won't work.
Nobody knows how many guns I or many of the gun owners have, right?
The only want to ban private transactions if for the federal government to come door to door and count everyone's guns.
I doubt that many gun owners would voluntarily tell the government over the phone, on the census forms, tax forms etc; how many firearms they have.
Without knowing how many firearms I have, without being able to come into my house and check to make I still have them....how in the world will the government be able to ban private transactions?
"This is an example of what you like to do. You know very well I'm not talking about the 13th gun at the end of the year. I'm talking about the unscrupulous gun buyer who would buy 13 guns in a month and sell them off at a profit not caring where they end up."ReplyDelete
That's the WHOLE POINT Mike, you're proposing a law, but not for what the law does. Then you go and talk about something that is ALREADY illegal.
It's illigal to sell guns to prohibited people....so you ban buying 13 guns in a year.
Don't you see the logical disconnect?
You have a problem with a REAL law that is not being enforced properly....so you propose a NEW law that doesn't actually address the problem, and likely will be just as well enforced.
Does that make sense to you???
it's also illegal to be an unlicensed gun dealer, for that matter. making it more illegaler to be an unlicensed gun dealer who illegally sells more than X guns per month isn't likely to help.ReplyDelete
OK Mike, lets go with one gun a month.ReplyDelete
I am assuming that the main goal is to keep guns from prohibited people--Is there also a secondary goal?
Would one gun a month be for all guns, or just those from a dealer?
If one gun a month is for all guns, wouldn't this require registration?
If this will require universal registration, wouldn't registration alone be enough? Why not?
Just thought of something...wouldn't one gun a month be counter productive?
Right now, buying multiple guns in a single purchase gets reported to the BATF. Fewer purchasers means that multiple purchases stand out more, wouldn't you agree?
If there is a law limiting one gun per month, the flow wouldn't change, the black marketeers would just increase the number of people they use to buy guns wouldn't you agree?
So the same number of purchases spread out over more people...less visibility.
End result, one gun per month increases price blackmarket firearms , increases the number of people committing crime and doesn't stop anything.
Isn't that simply common sense?
"That's why those claims are bogus, because they don't stand up to common sense."ReplyDelete
OK here's some "common sense" Mike. You're advocating restricting sales at guns shows. Show me proof that sales to prohibited persons at gun shows is a problem. Surely if it's such a big issue you'll be able to find ample evidence to back up your claim right?
We're never going to come to common ground if you advocate restrictions but can't show
1. That there's a substantial, identifiable problem
2. that your proposed solution will actually correct said problem.
If you'd read the FBI link I posted you'd also see that the criminals themselves said "We don't care about gun laws."
Proof, you say. What is proof?ReplyDelete
I'll try to find something to back up those claims, something that won't be dismissed as lies, but meantime what do you think of my description of how guns can end up in the wrong hands and not be traced back to gun shows?
"Let's say a gun is bought in a gun show or in the parking lot of in someone's living room. Being a private transaction, there's no record of it. Let's call this a "gun show" transaction. The buyer is a law abiding citizen who loses the gun in a card game or has it stolen from his truck or by his teenage son. The gun eventually finds its way into the criminal world, gets swept up in a police raid and is determined to have come from, where, a gun show? No. It would be considered stolen or lost or origin unknown."ReplyDelete
If it is lost or stolen and later used in a crime they who the hell cares WHERE it originally came from, be it a gun show, private sale, or through an FFL? Also, the only records the .Gov will have will be of legal transactions. The black market sales will continue unabated.
If my gun is stolen from my car or house what possible use is there for knowing where it originally came from? It's not going to impact crime any (unless you believe that I, the manufacturer, FFL, or original seller should be held criminally liable when the gun is stolen and later used in a crime.)
I could sell a pocketknife to my neighbor, who could then use it to kill his wife. Let's assume such knife sales were regulated and the .Gov had a record of every such sale. How would such a record prevent that murder from taking place?
The simple answer is that it wont. The same is true for guns. Banning private sales (what you advocate) would be a disaster for gun owners.) Once you do that you increase the fees & regulations for FFL dealers and harass them with the ATF making it almost impossible for folks to buy & sell arms?
If you think that's crazy consider that Obama wanted to pass a law that would ban FFL's within 5 miles of a school or park. Ban private sales and then do that, and we'll be unable to (legally) buy guns in huge portions of this country.
what do you think of my description of how guns can end up in the wrong hands and not be traced back to gun shows?ReplyDelete
The important aspect of "flow" is where a gun is diverted from legal ownership. In your example, it doesn't matter where the "law abiding" guy got the gun--What would be different if he bought it from a licensed dealer?
In fairness, if I understand the "less than 1% from gun shows" properly, it isn't a particularly useful figure--Most criminals get their guns from other criminals, but it would be worthwhile to find out how the first criminal in the chain got the gun.
By proof I mean show me solid evidence that "gun shows" are now a major source for criminals getting guns.
Also, your wonderful background check system that keeps criminals from getting guns does no such thing. Why? They are not attempting to get them through legal channels like the rest of us.
8 million NICS Brady checks in 2006 resulting in a whopping 73 convictions. That's the effectiveness of your so-called "reasonable gun laws"
The Bradys just (barely) lost a vote in illinois that would require a background check for every handgun sale in Illinois.ReplyDelete
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Requires a person who is not a federally licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer and who desires to sell or transfer a firearm of a size that may be concealed upon the person to another person, who is not a federally licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer, to do so only at the place of business of a federally licensed firearm dealer. Provides that the federally licensed firearm dealer shall conduct a background check on the prospective recipient of the firearm and follow all other applicable federal, State, and local laws as if he were the seller of the firearm. Provides that the purchaser or transferee may be required by the federally licensed firearm dealer to pay a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm, plus any applicable fees.
Sounds reasonable, right? Except Illinois residents are already required to have a Firearms Owner ID card before they can buy or possess firearms. The FOID card requires a background check, and is revoked if the resident becomes ineligible.
So basically everyone who owns firearms has to have at least two background checks, and has to go to a dealer. How are two checks for the same thing, by the same people safer than one?
Could it be that the real purpose is to add cost and inconvenience to gun ownership?
Mike W., Isn't the idea of those background checks to be a prohibitive factor in gun transactions. Only the stupidest crooks would submit to one if it would result in their coming up dirty, so of course the numbers are skewed like that. How about the others who decided not to purchase a gun knowing they couldn't pass? They had to go on the black market, right? If we can diminish the availability there, everyone wins except the crooks. Follow me?ReplyDelete
Sevesteen, I'm with ya. Two background checks sounds totally foolish, as does much of what anti gun people suggest. But what we do agree on, at least you and me, is that the problem is the availability of guns in the criminal world.ReplyDelete
Since we're just talking here, none of us is a legislator that I know of, how about registering every gun. I know you hate that idea for several reasons, but in theory wouldn't that pretty much eliminate any flow to the criminals due to sloppy transactions. Wouldn't it cause gun owners to treat their guns as much more valuable possessions than they do now? Wouldn't it slow down the movement of all guns drastically enough to have a real impact on that small percentage that is responsible for the leaks? Wouldn't that be worth it?
You are starting to sound like an arrogant jerk
Wouldn't it cause gun owners to treat their guns as much more valuable possessions than they do now
You have no idea how the vast majority of gun owners treat their possessions.
If someone's car gets stolen is it because they didn't treat it as a valuable possession?
You make it sound as if the gun owners are leaving their firearms out on the front porch all night, lights blazing so everyone can see them....it isn't happening.
You don't appear to want to expand open carry or concealed carry so people can't have their firearms with them but then when CRIMINALS break into houses ---NOT OBEYING THE LAW--and steal firearms --ANOTHER CASE OF NOT OBEYING THE LAW--- you blame the gun owner.
Are you sure you dont tell rape victims they were asking to for it because of the way they were dressed?
The ability for a majority to revolt against a government that has corrupted the democratic process is one of the checks and balances in the constitution. The people having this ability makes it less likely to be needed.ReplyDelete
Registration nearly eliminates this check and balance.
It also adds friction to every transaction--Extra cost, extra paperwork, extra opportunity to get in trouble for an administrative mistake.
Would universal background checks be enough for you? If we were to accept universal background checks, would you allow us to buy nationwide?
"They had to go on the black market, right? If we can diminish the availability there, everyone wins except the crooks. Follow me?"ReplyDelete
How is restricting legal sales going to diminish availability on the black market?
That approach has NEVER worked for any commodity throughout all of history. Why do you expect it to work now?
"How about the others who decided not to purchase a gun knowing they couldn't pass? They had to go on the black market, right? If we can diminish the availability there, everyone wins except the crooks. Follow me?"ReplyDelete
As I asked before Mike, When has restricting the LEGAL market for an item ever substantially lowered availability on the black market?
Marijuana is illegal, but ask any highschool kid if he could get weed at his school. Most will tell you they can.
Criminals are not buying guns through the legal market. How can you logically conclude that restricting access in that market will affect them when THEY ARE NOT USING THAT MARKET?!
This is elementary stuff Mike. Basic common sense. You cannot possibly be this ignorant. It must be willful denial of the truth.
Mike W. said, "Criminals are not buying guns through the legal market."ReplyDelete
Actually, Mike, I'm not being wilfully ignorant at all. Here's my idea. Let's say you got 100M guns in America in the hands of 40M legal gun owners, just to round it off to make an example.
There's a continual drain on that supply. It flows into the black market by several means. Theft, sloppy private transactions, and legal gun owners who turn criminal, are probably the main ones, which when your talking about such huge numbers account for a lot. So, if the total numbers are cut down, this will impact on the criminal world.
We've been through the math previously and you are wrong.
First, you can't cut down on the availability. You can only reduce the demand, didn't Prohibition & the War on some Drugs prove that to you?
As long as there is a demand -- i.e. Bad guys wanting guns to do Bad things-- somebody will find, create or manufacture the supply.
If you cut the number of guns in half, that only means the crooks have to break into twice as many houses to find one to steal.
Do you think you can stop people from selling guns to criminals who shouldn't have them by passing another law....it is already against the law.
If the crooks want them...they will offer enough money to make even you turn criminal.
This is basic economics Mike...supply and demand. READ something about the frakkin subject. This isn't pie in the sky, liberal pipe dreams (starting to wonder what you are smoking over there). This is real life, proven by thousands of years of history.
Name any successful effort to ban an object.
Actually, Mike, I'm not being wilfully ignorant at all. Here's my idea. Let's say you got 100M guns in America in the hands of 40M legal gun owners, just to round it off to make an example.ReplyDelete
You are way low, which may be part of your problem. We are within a few percent of one gun per American, and somewhere between 1/4 to 1/2 of all households having at least one gun.
So, if the total numbers are cut down, this will impact on the criminal world.
What about that pesky constitution? What about zip guns and other homemade expedients? Illegal imports?
The ratio of armed honest people to armed criminals is important. Gun control inevitably shifts this ratio the wrong direction. Do you seriously think it possible to reduce the ratio of criminal vs. defensive guns with legal restrictions that only one side will follow?
Sevesteen said in his usually incisive way, "Do you seriously think it possible to reduce the ratio of criminal vs. defensive guns with legal restrictions that only one side will follow?"ReplyDelete
That's exactly the right question because it addresses two important parts of our discussion. One is how much does "flow" from the good guys to the bad guys add up to. And two, where do the rest of the criminal guns come from?
The first is answered by me like this, "a lot more than you guys want to admit." Numbers are hard to come by on this one. The second might be the more important point and one which we've overlooked a bit. Are huge supplies of guns going directly from the factory to the underworld? Are legitimate shipments being diverted, again accounting for huge amounts? If you say no, then my first idea gains strength. If the bad guys aren't getting the weapons in huge shipments, either from the factory or shortly thereafter, then they're getting them from you guys (so to speak, don't be offended) Where else, how else can it happen?
It would be possible to reduce the total number of illegal guns by severely restricting legal guns--However, this would increase the ratio rather than reduce it, giving criminals an advantage.ReplyDelete
There is a certain threshold level of criminal guns that we can't get below. Eliminate all legal guns, and organized crime now has a new market--See England as an example. The mix will change--Instead of semiauto AK lookalikes, we'll get the real full-auto versions. We will likely see South American brands of handguns rather than European, brought in with drug shipments.
Get below a certain level of legal guns, the criminals don't need them anymore either--If you know the victims in the home you are going to rob are unarmed, a buddy with a baseball bat or kitchen knife is as effective as a gun, you don't even need to wait for the occupants to be gone. See England for an example.
"There's a continual drain on that supply. It flows into the black market by several means. Theft, sloppy private transactions, and legal gun owners who turn criminal, are probably the main ones, which when your talking about such huge numbers account for a lot. So, if the total numbers are cut down, this will impact on the criminal world."ReplyDelete
Ah, so we see your real agenda Mike! You quite clearly want to reduce the number of legally owned firearms in civilian hands. Good to know where you stand.