Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumPoint Click, Fire: An Undercover Investigation of Illegal Online Gun Sales
On December 14, 2011, the City of New York announced a first-of-its-kind undercover investigation of illegal online gun sales. The recordings below provide actual audio from the investigation, which covered 125 sellers from 14 states advertising on 10 websites.
The investigation uncovered a vast and unregulated online market for illegal guns. City investigators found:
62 percent of online sellers agreed to sell guns to investigators posing as buyers who couldn’t pass a gun background check – a felony under federal law.
82 percent of sellers on Craigslist agreed to sell guns to people they believed to be prohibited purchasers – though the website prohibits online firearms sales.
The accompanying report - Point Click, Fire: An Undercover Investigation of Illegal Online Gun Sales (PDF) - documents the extent of the online gun market, details the City’s investigative techniques, and offers recommendations on how illegal online sales can be prevented.
For media inquiries about the investigation, contact the New York City Mayor's office at 212-788-2958.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/cjc/html/news/gun.shtml
&
---------------------
What do you think of the City of New York's findings? Does this investigation change the way you think about the firearms industry? What do you think, if anything, ought to change with our firearms laws?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)NYC had no business nor jurisdiction to do this. They were calling private sellers, not FFLs. Anyone can joke about "maybe not being able to pass" none of them said they could not. Private sellers are barred from doing background checks even if they wanted to. There is no crime. Also, all of these are out of state sellers. Under current federal law (Gun Control Act of 1968 to be exact) all interstate sales must go through a licensed dealer. Had the NYC buyer been real, the seller would send the gun to a FFL holder in NY. That dealer would do the NICS background check and what ever is required by NY law. If the seller did not send it to a dealer (which would be unlikely and really stupid, since the ATF could be doing similar projects.) it would not by NYC's jurisdiction to do anything about it. NYC would have to report it to the ATF, which might also put their investigator at risk for prosecution. It is also a federal crime to sell to someone who is not a resident of the same state. In other words, it is a federal crime for me to buy a gun in Arizona. It is a federal crime for me to sell one to a snowbird.
To answer your questions:
I think NYC's finding are bullshit and Bloomburg's minions probably went to the James O'Keefe school of video editing. He might get another cease and desist order from the ATF for sticking his nose in their business. If I were a resident of NYC, I would be pissed that NYPD wasting time making political points instead of enforcing New York law.
It has nothing to do with the industry, it was private sellers. I want to see unedited video. I also want evidence that these were real sellers and not just created by MAIG.
The most important change I want to see is gun control advocates learn current firearms laws, and be honest about them in their propaganda.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172772
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It's amazing the number of fans Michael Bloomberg can get here at DU as long as he tells them what they want to hear
about the subject of guns.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I'm for gun control because I'm tired of seeing headlines like this in my daily paper:
Edison shooting: 3 dead, 2 wounded in rampage
December 16, 2011 | 6:15 pm
The gunman who shot four people -- two of them fatally -- before killing himself at a Southern California Edison office Friday appeared to target specific victims, a witness said.
The unidentified man, an Edison employee, began shooting after 1:30 p.m. at the sprawling Edison facility at 4910 Rivergrade Road. The witness told the Los Angeles Times that the gunman did not fire randomly.
"He told people to leave and he was very deliberate about who he shot,” said the employee, who spoke on the condition of annoymity. “He did not like management.”
One of the victims died at the scene and the other died on the way to the hospital. The conditions of the two other victims were not immediately available, said Capt. Michael Taylor of the Baldwin Park Police Department, which is helping with the investigation.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/gunman-targeted-victims-in-edison-shooting-rampage.html
If you care about your fellow citizens, if you care about law enforcement, and if you care about the U.S. Constitution, you care about the best gun control we can legislate, otherwise you're just playing around with other peoples lives.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)is there any place that a gun law actually lowered a murder or violent crime rate? The answer is no.
What do you propose on a federal level?
What do you know about current federal or California laws?
Where did he get the gun?
In one year, guns murdered 17 people in Finland, 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 60 in Spain, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States.
The United States is an outlier, in part, because our gun laws are woefully inadequate.
The United States remains an outlier when you control for population. To see gun murders by population and to read academic research supporting the poster, click here.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/
How else do you explain this phenomena - are American's just angrier than other industrialized countries or is because just about anyone who wants it has access to guns?
I think we need limits on the amount of dealers, types of weapons dealers, types possessed and ammo possession, and local organization and regular inspection. We do all these things for many other products in this country; it's high time we do it for firearms.
I'm not being subjected to a quiz; I am familiar with current federal and some state laws through reading about the failures of gun laws in preventing lunatics and criminals from obtaining them. It's too early to tell where the man in the story above obtained his weapon; that happened today.
[div class = excerpt]I think we need limits on the amount of dealers, types of weapons dealers, types possessed and ammo possession, and local organization and regular inspection. We do all these things for many other products in this country; it's high time we do it for firearms.
Could you be more specific? This is all very vague. Are you suggesting a cap on the total number of FFLs in the country? How would they be apportioned? Would it be on a first-come-first-served basis? What do you mean by "types of weapons dealers"? Are you talking about the particular items they sell? What do you mean by "types possessed"? Rifles vs. handguns? Revolvers vs. semi-automatics? Ammo possession? Are you talking about quantity, type -- what exactly are you talking about?
It's quite clear to me that you have only the sketchiest familarity with the web of regulation that already surrounds firearms ownership in the United States. Most of it serves no other purpose than to harass law-abiding citizens. The actions that could really put a dent in gun violence are being woefully neglected. I'm talking about things like tightening up mental-health reporting, getting tough on sentencing of felons in possession of firearms, creating a system to allow private sellers to access the NICS system, etc.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Then that's your right...but you'd be very long.
I'm not going to get more specific, because the fact remains that the system is broken. We tolerate smog checks and all kinds of other assorted motor vehicle restrictions but that's not seen as harassment of law-abiding citizens; it's seen as good government. Why should firearms be oh so special?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)no one is saying the current five federal gun control laws should be repealed. Amended maybe, but not repealed. Some stupid local laws on the other hand... There are a number of assorted gun regulations that you are not aware of.
Here is a stupid one: If you are driving to the shooting range, you can not stop at Burger King or deviate from the most direct route. Canadian law. I think New York is too. Remember the pistol is unloaded, in a locked hard container in the car trunk. Does that make sense? If so, why?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)But surely that's something we can ignore....
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)in the Constitution?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)You might find my previous discussion of grammatical structuring in 18th century philosophical texts compelling: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=817844&mesg_id=818669
It is clearly the most significant part of the sentence.
SteveW
(754 posts)"...The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of recognized rights, and the Second is no exception.
The "militia clause" states only the federal government's interest in the Second as necessary to fulfill it's militia duties, as specified in the Articles. Please note that the "militia clause" was only popularized in the 1960s in an attempt to justify restrictions of firearms in accordance with militia functions. One such popularizer, Laurence Tribe, has since recanted his position (1999) and now acknowledges that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause has never garnered much support among those who have studied the Second Amendment's history, court rulings, etc. For some reason, some elements of MSM like it. Most do not:
"What about the seemingly odd two-clause construction, which some commentators have called "unusual," "special," and "nearly unique"? 2 It turns out that there's nothing odd about it at all. During the Framing Era, dozens of individual rights provisions in state constitutions were structured the same way, providing a justification clause explaining the right, and then an operative clause securing the right. The 1842 Rhode Island Constitution's Free Press Clause, for instance, reads
'The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . .' 3
"Just as with the Second Amendment, the second clause secures a right, while the first justifies it to the public."
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm
______________
Note also that "press," even with its "public justification," does not limit citizens to the use of a wooden, spiral screw machine, or you wouldn't be using a computer under the jaundiced eyes of the grammar monster!
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)You're the second person this week to try and pawn him off as some sort of authoritative source when there's zero indication the guy knows squat about the 18th century.
"Volokh supported former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson in the 2008 presidential election, saying Thompson had good instincts on legal issues and that he preferred Thompson's positions on the First Amendment and political speech to McCain's sponsorship of campaign finance reform. Volokh also liked Thompson's position in favor of individual gun ownership.[4] Volokh also noted that Thompson "takes federalism seriously, and he seems to have a fairly deep-seated sense that there is a real difference between state and federal power."[4]
[edit] "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Volokh
So much for your James Brady is a Republican line of attack.
Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia. He shows how the modern "collective right" view of the Second Amendment, the one federal courts have accepted for over a hundred years, owes more to the Anti-Federalists than the Founders. Likewise, the modern "individual right" view emerged only in the nineteenth century. The modern debate, Cornell reveals, has its roots in the nineteenth century, during America's first and now largely forgotten gun violence crisis, when the earliest gun control laws were passed and the first cases on the right to bear arms came before the courts. Equally important, he describes how the gun control battle took on a new urgency during Reconstruction, when Republicans and Democrats clashed over the meaning of the right to bear arms and its connection to the Fourteenth Amendment. When the Democrats defeated the Republicans, it elevated the "collective rights" theory to preeminence and set the terms for constitutional debate over this issue for the next century.
A Well-Regulated Militia not only restores the lost meaning of the original Second Amendment, but it provides a clear historical road map that charts how we have arrived at our current impasse over guns. For anyone interested in understanding the great American gun debate, this is a must read.
Winner of the Langum Prize in American Legal History/Legal Biography
http://www.amazon.com/Well-Regulated-Militia-Founding-Fathers-Origins/dp/0195147863
Mele Kalikimaka
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)James Brady is or at least was a Republican. He was Reagan's press secretary. The last head of their operation was Paul Helmke, Republican former mayor of Ft. Wayne.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I could give less than a damn about ipso facto political association. What does it tell you when even reason minded Republicans think the gun culture in this country has gone off the deep end? Besides, you're fellow supporter above just quoted Volokh who endorsed Fred Thompson. If a Republican came to oppose the Iraq War would we say they were wrong just because they were Republican? 
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I don't care about political association as an ipso facto determinant of intelligence. Trust me, if you were shot by a madman like John Hinckley, Jr you'd want stricter gun control too. Slander, slander, deny - I'm starting to see a pattern here.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)denying what?
It seemed you did not know who James Brady was then. I was surprised by that, so I had to ask your age. My son has no idea who he even is.
You know who else agrees with Fred Thompson about guns? The same governor that is trying to set up a single payer health care system in Montana. Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul agree on military spending, the fed, the war on drugs, and sometimes guns.
Ron Paul is full of shit on everything else.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)End Discussion.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I will have to step out of it and into the darkness.
If you are in my area, swing by and we'll have a beer and talk about something else.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Come to L.A. Bro - I'll take you to Inglewood. 
SteveW
(754 posts)is recognized in the Second.
You can deny this all you want, but the "standard model" of an individual right is held by the big majority of scholars, Cornell notwithstanding.
There are some things which have such abundant clarity and accessibility. It's there if you want it.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I don't get my understanding of history from the NRA and a Russian-born Fred Thompson endorsing academic majority of maybe 15%.
SteveW
(754 posts)ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...that more guns has reduced crime. How I wish I still had access to academic journal databases.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Nobody has said more guns has reduced crime. What has been said is the increase in gun sales has not led to an increase in crime. The two statements are different.
SteveW
(754 posts)which state that those who have studied the Second Amendment, and written on it in "academic journals," have concluded that the "standard model" of Second Amendment interpretation is just that. Standard. And that standard model sees the Second as recognizing an individual RKBA. Kates and Kleck cite a University of Tennessee Law School study in which the standard model is well established. You may also wish to read what Laurence Tribe -- the "svengali" of the militia clause -- had to say about an individual right to keep and bear arms in his 1999 revision of his law school works.
As for "more guns has reduced crime," that is an assertion by Lott, not widely-held here or in many other "pro-2A" web sites. That assertion IS regularly promoted by gun-controller/banners as a straw man; I suppose in hopes of then disproving the Gerry-built cellulose when and if violent crime rates begin to rise again. It's always smart to have one's pet theories and arguments in pre-production!
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
And the only significant part is how it has been determined by SCOTUS, and that is that gun ownership for individuals is a RIGHT. Period. End of discussion.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I'd note it's not an unlimited right for everybody and that's been upheld by the courts.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)what is your point? Everyone is for reasonable regulation. The difference is the definition of reasonable. DC and Chicago are not reasonable. The AWB was more theater than anything else.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)The foremost being that you only really need a few weapons to be equipped otherwise you could be out to cause trouble and that would be directly counter to a Militia's task of protecting the community from external threats such as bandits, Indians, and other threats where there was no need for a Militia, there was no need to equip.
America’s love affair with the gun is the eternal stuff of fiction. It has not always been the stuff of fact*
Jul 1st 1999 | washington, dc | from the print edition
RICHARD HENRY LEE, one of the signers of America’s Declaration of Independence, wrote that “to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” This association between guns and liberty seems hard-wired into the American consciousness. It has produced a country with more guns than people. It has made national heroes of the armed frontiersman, the cowboy and Teddy Roosevelt, the president who carried a big stick and a hunting rifle. Above all it has engendered such a powerful cult of the gun that whether you glorify it, fear it or accept it as a necessary evil, hardly anyone questions its basis in fact. Have guns really been an essential part of American life for 400 years?
At first glance it seems absurd to doubt it. From the time of the earliest settlement on the James river, the English colonies required every freeman to own a gun for self-defence. More than a century and a half later, the notion of the citizen-soldier was enshrined in the constitution. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed,” holds the second amendment of the Bill of Rights, which establishes additional safeguards for Americans’ freedom.
Yet in ordinary life people were not armed to the teeth a couple of centuries ago. Wills from revolutionary times present a different picture. Probate records that list the belongings passed on to heirs often give valuable insights into everyday activities and possessions. Michael Bellesiles, a professor at Emory University in Atlanta, has trawled through more than 1,000 probate records dating from between 1765 and 1850**. Here is a typical finding: “He takes note of his favourite chocolate pot [says Mr Bellesiles]. The record notes broken bottles, bent spoons. It notes every scrap of land and every debt and credit he holds. There’s not a single gun listed. And this is the commander of the Virginia militia.” Between 1765 and 1790, fewer than 15% of probate inventories list guns of any kind (see chart 1), and more than half of those listed were broken***. The larger-than-average proportion in the South was probably due to difficulties in persuading people to be slaves by peaceful means.
Related topics
Official surveys of private-gun ownership show much the same thing. (Amazingly, to modern sensibilities, state and federal governments were able to undertake surveys of this sort without any debate in state legislatures about their right to do so.) The state of Massachusetts counted all privately owned guns on several occasions. Until 1840, at any rate, no more than 11% of the population owned guns—and Massachusetts was one of the two centres of gun production in the country****. At the start of the war of 1812, the state had more spears than firearms in its arsenal. What was true at the state level was true nationwide. “It would appear,” says Mr Bellesiles, “that at no time prior to 1850 did more than a tenth of the people own guns.”
http://www.economist.com/node/218080
DonP
(6,185 posts)Do you know who Micheael Bellisles, formerly of Emory University, is and what he did?
You really need to do more actual backgrounding on your sources and heroes.
The short version is ... he wrote a book title Arming America making primarily the claims in part you have cited. Gun control supporters were eager to embrace his findings; that America didn't really have a long history of private firearms ownership. He was awarded the prestigious Bancroft prize for history and lauded and made a spokesperson for the Brady bunch for a while.
A basic peer reveiew of his research turned up a large number of "inconsistencies"; like the claim that he had reviewed a large number of probate records in California from San Francisco in the late 1800's. One problem, the records he claimed to review were destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and the Chief Librarian in Costa County, (sp?), where they kept the records, said he had never even been there.
When asked for his notes as support for his findings, he claimed they had all been destroyed in a flood and all his hard drives were corrupted too.
They not only revoked the Bancroft award, but after a lengthy hearing by his fellow historians, he lost his tenure at Emory and was summarily fired and disgraced. His publisher pulled the book from circulation and several libraries actually moved it from "History" to "Fiction" to make a point.
Nice "Experts" you cuddle up to. Try again.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I'm sorry, I enjoyed a nice lunch with my grandparents. My grandfather had his right eye knocked out in a robbery in the late 1970s in Inglewood when a bullet shattered the front glass window blinding his right eye. I really don't give a shit about perhaps the single incident of such distortions, I have better things to do with my life than hug my guns in a desperate attempt to show that I am in fact control in a world gone mad. At this point, I could probably start posting photographs of children who died in accidents where firearms were left out in the open, but that would be too much of an "emotional" appeal for the zealots. A zealotry predicated on a complete misreading of the Founders intent in regards to the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
DonP
(6,185 posts)Several people have tried to educate you on the details of the current laws and their background, some in a very polite way directing you to other sources than Brady for information like the actual FBI UCR, and you respond to each effort like a spoiled child who's being told "no".
You can continue to embrace frauds like Bellisle, Sugarmann, Bloomberg and Brady and pretend they know what they are saying. All you're doing is displaying your abysmal ignorance and intransigence on the issue.
And frankly, your grandfather's 40 year old criminal incident, even if true, is offset by over 1 million defensive gun uses each and every year where citizens successfully defended themselves (using DoJ figures). So for the good of society, we'll just keep our guns, watch the violent crime rate continue to drop and repeal what we consider the more onerous gun laws we don't like through the NRA and other organizations. And you, well you can pretend to actually support gun control by typing on your keyboard.
You just seem so upset by the fact that there are way more of us than there are of you and your friends and we're much better organized.
Now tell us all about the big backlash that's coming in favor of more gun control. Ha!
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal, unintentional or suicide-related shooting than in self-defense. When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in less than 2% of home invasion crimes.
You're full of it. The mass distribution of guns just produce a senseless cycle of death and violence. Less guns would mean less violent crime - in fact, one could credit increased gun control almost exclusively with the drop in crime rate. I get the distinct feeling most posters in the forum have never had a basic sociology course.
I'm not upset. If I didn't think I could make my point, I wouldn't bother - one day you might know the pain that so many of us feel, and ask why it has to be this way.
"Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man." – Pope John Paul II
Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2011 10:00 am | (3) Comments
LAS VEGAS (AP) — A 37-year-old Henderson homeowner is facing charges after an 11-year-old boy shot and killed his 5-year-old nephew with a 9 mm handgun left in a toy box labeled "treasure chest."
Sidney J. Jacobs is charged with one felony count of child abuse and neglect with substantial bodily harm in the Sept. 25 shooting that killed Robert Martin.
Police say Martin was visiting the house with his mother and her 11-year-old brother.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported he told police he expected confetti to come from the barrel when he pulled the trigger, but instead fired a fatal shot to the younger boy's chest.
Read more: http://elkodaily.com/news/state-and-regional/article_6663e40a-273d-11e1-b306-001871e3ce6c.html#ixzz1gxWyvQLh
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)you got that from. One of which it was funded by the same foundation who astro turfs Brady. It was not done by a sociologist nor criminologist, but an MD and an economist. That is a parallel with climate change deniers. It amounts to an echo chamber, just not as well funded or sophisticated as the Kochs'
If you want to read a real criminologist
http://crim.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php
http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Violence-America-Institutions/dp/0202304191
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)"Instead, gun theft is central to the channeling of guns into criminal hands." - So logically wouldn't it hold that arming every Billy in Bob in the country to the hilt facilitates guns getting into criminal hands. Considering that about half a million guns are stolen every year, that's a lot of guns in the hands of criminal. This guy seems to have found his niche, pandering to the gun culture by pretending to re-invent the wheel - I mean: "“The Missing Link in General Deterrence Research.” - “How not to study the effect of gun levels on violence rates.” - “The worst possible case for gun control: mass shootings in schools.”
I've read plenty of B.S. academic articles with titles like those and don't find it to be convincing to the prevailing wind of research that mass gun distribution dramatically increases gun theft, criminality, accidents, and spree shootings.
Seriously, when you have to claim that it's a "real criminologists" you're diminishing the intelligence of the probably 85% of academia that vehemently disagrees with such narrow-minded findings.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)When he started his research, he believed as you. The science spoke for itself and he saw the light. That is the pattern of criminologists that actually took the time to study the issue. That is a real criminologist. That is why your side cites the same ten economists and MDs that take grants from gun control groups and are published in medical journals instead of criminology journals. They also send out press releases to publications like USA Today and Time. People like Kleck, Rossi, and Kessler do not.
The rest of academia, I am sure they are professional and objective in their own fields.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Yet Garen Wintermute, a professor of emergency medicine at the University of California at Davis, is regularly
trotted out for his support of further gun restrictions.
One supposes the new metric for expertise is now "they agree with me"...
SteveW
(754 posts)That's why the right to keep and bears arms is "...oh so special."
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)See my link in the post above, go read hundreds of 18th century writings and histories, and get back to me about the Founders intent.
SteveW
(754 posts)I am back to you.
You may wish to examine the term "standard Model" in the debate over the Second. It is the one most scholars subscribe to, one that the Second recognizes an individual RKBA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The authors [Kates & Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate] do note, however, that the academic literature on the Second Amendment is so heavily weighted in favor of interpreting it as protecting the right of individual Americans to possess a firearm that this interpretation has come to be known as the "Standard Model."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n4_v29/ai_20521324/
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[114] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[115] Regarding a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29:
A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[48]
Regarding regulation and training of the militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29:
"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".[48]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...then start getting upset at your state government for neither subsidizing your arms purchases nor providing adequate officers and training.
Punishing those who are doing the right thing even though the state is failing on its end is not the way to address the problem.
Any other ways you'd like to use your abysmal understanding of the issue to enable us to further humiliate you?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)"further humiliate you?"
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)I love knowing that it irritates you that you cannot do a damned thing about it either. 
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Have a cartoon 
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)If that cartoon is all you have, you did nothing to counter my argument.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)
I haven't even scratched the surface of all the fine work political cartoonists have done over the last decade to denounce this insanity.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)you're welcome of course to point out the circular and ahistorical portions. Simple? Certainly. I try to keep them that way in the hopes you will understand.
SteveW
(754 posts)ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...is more important than the notion of the individual right, because it in fact confers a collective or civic right.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)The 2nd Amendment does not confer ANY rights - collective or individual. It protects a recognized pre-existing right. That is a critical point.
Further, it most assuredly does NOT grant any additional powers to the government. Nothing in the Bill of Rights does in fact.
Last but not least, even IF your claim were correct, the right to keep and bear arms would be implicitly covered by the 9th Amendment.
Bluntly put friend, there is nothing in the Constitution granting the federal government any authority to control or restrict private weapons ownership.
Last but not least, we are a nation built on the concept of individual rights - not collective ones. Nothing in our Constitution places society above the individual, and in fact, makes it quite clear that the individual is superior to society.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)1. The courts have consistently ruled First Amendment grants to government the right to regulate such things - hence no yelling fire in a crowded theater.
2. We've already discussed this.
3. "but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
4. "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,"
5. "unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia"
6. "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed"
7. Builds on the 6th in regards to civil suits.
8. Gives government the right to establish bail, fines, and punishment for crimes.
9. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness all of which this silly misreading of the Second Amendment is needlessly depriving many thereof.
10. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States"
"Nothing in our Constitution places society above the individual, and in fact, makes it quite clear that the individual is superior to society."
Care to try and bullshit General Discussion with that hokey? Seems like a direct contradiction of almost every single amendment.
Check mate. 
SteveW
(754 posts)It means that a militia member must report with his OWN firearm, suitable for military service, and with the knowledge of how to use it, and be subject to some minimal training.
It should be instructive that the various militia laws require an individual to PROVIDE HIS OWN SUITABLE FIREARM. That kind of assumes that for some reason the individual is armed with a military-grade weapon to begin with.
There is no "conference" of a right in the Second; it is a recognition.
As for "collective or civic rights," this is in the purview of "state's rights" and other theoretical schemes which stretch the Constitution's abundantly-clear wording that the federal government recognizes (not confers) individual rights. Perhaps you confuse the notion of "the people" in the Second as comparable to some kind of "collective" right. Not so. Read the Fourth in which "the people" is referenced, and within the same sentence describes the things and "...the persons or things to be seized." Therefore, "the people" is not a "collective" right.
In any case, even the so-called "collectivist" or "states' rights" view acknowledges what the federal role is:
"
2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
Even here, the fed's role is barred. And states and localities must contend with the incorporation clause of the 14th Amendment, (1868) which denies a state or other entity from restricting the "privileges and immunities" of citizens of the United States.
But since Heller, there is little to argue about here. Not much left of the "communal rights" theory but the squeal.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...and as far as I can tell the Founding Fathers would have never expected this level of contorted logic unttery.
How's it feel to be on the same side...as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas?
I'll stick with John Paul Stevens.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Still want to rock the associational fallacy?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I don't buy into right-wing fear-mongering and I read the Constitution correctly.
SteveW
(754 posts)You can speculate on the Founding Fathers all you want, but associating yourself with them doesn't improve your poor argument.
Might want to stick with that Heller quote. Who wrote that?
BTW, if a militia was called up and trained "up to military standards," the argument over the "confusion" between "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" and "assault-style weapons" and "assault-style rifles" would be obviated: We'd all have to purchase full-auto rifles, and dump the AR 15s, AK clones and SKS stuff. That's what "military standards" gets you, bud.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)
"Speculate"
Do you endorse the various "Militia" movements we have in this country?
SteveW
(754 posts)The authorization and limiting measures governing militia are in the Constitution. You would have to do away with or change an Article, which would lead to -- a corresponding modification in the Second Amendment? In other posts, you seem content with allowing the militia to be brought "up to military standards."
But here, you are off on some peculiar angle with this royalty-worthy cartoon. Which is it?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Not loons running around the woods with whatever weapons they please...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1792
You obviously don't know what the heck a Militia is within the context of the Constitution as it was written...
SteveW
(754 posts)As Obama said, he prefers the individual right to keep and bear arms. Remember that?
As you said, the militia would be brought up to military standards quickly. Remember that?
As you squid-squirted, some royalty-worthy cartoon about outfits calling themselves militia. Remember that?
Please try to keep your stuff consistent. Remember that.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
hack89
(39,181 posts)I have no problem with the Federal government subsidizing my gun purchases.
HALO141
(911 posts)Actually, it is.
DonP
(6,185 posts)"I think we need limits on the amount of dealers, types of weapons dealers, types possessed and ammo possession, and local organization and regular inspection. We do all these things for many other products in this country; it's high time we do it for firearms."
Cool! Perhaps you can give us a few examples of other products that are as tightly regulated at Federal. State and local levels? There are already 22,000 firearms regulations, what do you want to add?
Is there a required waiting period for fast cars? Can you name any other product that requires an FBI backbground check at purchase? Have you ever actually seen or filled out a fucking Form 4473?
Are you wiiling to violate the bill of rights for goon squad in-home inspections just for ammuntion storage and quantity or for anything else that you don't like? How about copies of the Koran or the Bible?
What the hell is a "type of weapons" dealer anyway?
Let me phrase it another way, do you know anything beyond what the idiots at Brady put in their press releases that you read or do you just blindly worship at the altar of Dennis Hennigan and Paul Helmke thatr haven't actually won a case in court for at least 5 years?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Government impinges on our lives in many ways you might not even think about...why are firearms so special?
I do own a gun and have no desire to do so, thus obviously I have never "filled out a fucking Form 4473?"
Online, trade show, store, person-to-person...
I read the newspaper like anyone else...
DonP
(6,185 posts)Or have you never bought a gun and as a result have no idea what's actually involved?
That's like a nun giving advice on sex. All philosophy, no experience.
But if you never filled out a 4473 then you bought it with no background check. How do we even know you are a legal gun owner then? Why, OMG you could be a felon or an unqualified purchasor like your buddy Bloomberg is finding!
"Trade show"?
I'm gonna make a wild ass guess that you actually mean a Gun Show, right? Do you actually think that the usual rules and regulations don't apply at a gun shows for some reason?
Oh, that's right, you rely on Brady for your "insight". So, like my sisters, you probably think you can buy anything you want at a gun show. Like those cheap conversion kits to turn your rifle into a machine gun.
And what the hell does reading the newspaper have to do with anything? Is that supposed to make you an authority?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Then how could you know anything about war?
DonP
(6,185 posts)What's your point?
How is that relevant?
Nobody I served with answers questions like that from a REMF.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Just because you don't do something yourself, doesn't mean you can't have any idea what it's all about. A friend of mine was robbed at gun point in Oakland last week of her purse and iPhone - how did that guy get a gun? Why should Oakland be like that? One false step, and one slip of the finger, and she could be dead because some stupid kid was a able to get a black market weapon easily and cause mayhem.
You of all people should know and appreciate the destructive force of mass weapons distribution. Something is seriously wrong with America today and proliferation of firearms in this country is part and parcel of that; people are scared.
DonP
(6,185 posts)OK, your questions and comments are making absolutely no sense at all now.
Aside from obviously having no real experience with firearms or firearms related laws, I'm gonna guess you don't know much about the military either. In the military you don't fight for "God and Country" or LBJ, Nixon or Clinton and Bush; you do it for the guy next to you. That's who you're willing to jump on a grenade for, not some assholes in Washington.
We'll let all that pass for now, because frankly people that haven't been there just won't understand it anyway.
BTW, If you figure out a way to stop the criminal element from getting firearms, without infringing on the law abiding, let us all know. The NRA will be probably right behind you in supporting it.
But ... The question of this thread is; "what are reasonable restrictions"? Any ideas that aren't already current law?
You do know what the current laws are, right?
I think we need to reinstate the assault weapons ban without loopholes. I think we need to limit the number of firearms one can owns without special license for sport/hunting. I think we ought to mental health evaluations before one can receive a weapon. rather than just being on some list. I think you ought to have a firearms license to buy ammunition. I think your local police force ought to know who has weapons and they ought to have to clear you as being of sound, capable mind every year. I think we ought to limit legal gun sales to only local stores, prohibit person-to-person sells, gun shows, and online selling in any form. You can only buy and sell to a licensed and regularly inspected firearms business establishment. I don't think any of these ideas are ridiculous, I think they're entirely consistent with the Constitution, and I don't think we ought to be putting select individual rights way far ahead of public safety.
I was simply trying to posit that one can know what an experience could be like without having done it, like your nun comment. You should know that many people in the States knew what you were going through and actively opposed the Vietnam War. It is the same today.
Thank you for having a reasonable manner of discussion.
Aloha.
DonP
(6,185 posts)After all, why shouldn't my POV on that issue be as relevant as NARAL's is or yours or is on the second ammendment, right? I read all about it in the papers.
But let's cut to the chase, there is no way in hell any legislator that wants to be re-elected is going to bring up the utterly failed AWB again. IT just ain't gonna happen.
I'm going to assume that you actually know that the AWB was purely a cosmetic issue, had nothig to do with "real" select fire assault rifles, and that "assault weapons" is a toally made up term by Josh Sugarmann and the Brady bunch, and even then, it was only passed with a sunset requirement.
(Hint: there has been no change in the crime rate with rifles since it expired 6 years ago)
Maybe you can also tell the class what those "loopholes" in the AWB were, while we're all here and why you think it can get passed in either house of Congress now?
A note of caution, FWIW, there are people here that can quote you the details, by line of that law, not what they read in the Honolulu newspapers.
Now, a key question. What are you actually doing to try and get your POV supported in Congress? I mean besides writing angry posts in an internet thread?
Sent Brady any checks lately? Ever?
hack89
(39,181 posts)so few murders are committed by rifles of any kind - it is the most unlikely murder weapon I can think of .
hack89
(39,181 posts)I mean, besides racial profiling, illegal wiretapping and entrapment, when haven't the police been a model of fairness and progressive ideals.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Where is this taking place? I missed the notification and want to get mine.
I suspect you are here with the intention to sling hyperbole, insinuation and veiled accusations, but with no intent to debate the subject honestly. You've already dodged several direct questions about specifics.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)You do know that knife robberies often involve injuries don't you. The knife robbers often feel like they have to make a cut to show that they are serious.
How about beaten up in a strong arm robbery. Would that have been better?
Most gun robberies do not involve injury.
BTW. Puerto Rico has super strict gun control and is an island so nobody is driving to a neighbor state to bring in guns. Yet PR has a murder rate that is almost as high as the DC murder rate. How do you explain that?
Have you looked at the murder rate of El Paso, TX? They are a large city and have more guns than people and are on the border with Mexico. In 2010 they had only three murders from all types of weapons. Would you care to explain that?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Knife's are less prone to accidents.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)Not sure that's true anyway, I've had guns for over 20 years and haven't got a scratch, yet I've had many knife cuts in the same time period. I bet emergency rooms stitch up more knife cuts then they do work on accidental gun shots.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Strong arm robberies are the most violent of all, almost always producing injuries.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)I can think of many other times, several exacto-knife cuts while building models as a kid, many while stripping various wires (one of which required a hospital visit), a several while cooking, once while washing dishes...
In almost 40 years of shooting my sole injury has been to get scoped.
That means the scope on a new rifle I tried was too far back, and the rifle had more recoil than I thought, and the scope hit me in the forehead when I fired. I didn't even know I was bleeding until it started dripping into my eyes. It stopped quickly with a little pressure from a few gun-cleaning patches..
Now which one is more prone to accidents?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Seriously, how many people kill themselves or others accidentally with a knife?
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...so who knows?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Top 10 Causes of Accidental Death
http://www.notsoboringlife.com/ramblings/top-10-causes-of-accidental-death/
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)It isn't tracked and not all are reported.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Is it really that difficult to accept that accidental knife deaths are extremely rare. Think about it. At the same time accidental gun deaths are extremely common.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)I'm not grasping at squat. You asked how common they were and I said I had no idea as they do not appear to be tracked.
As far as accidental gun deaths, your own link shows it is quite rare. On average, there are less than 1000 accidental gun deaths per year amongst people of ALL ages. 1000 out of 300,000,000 people. Yeah, I'd call that pretty damned rare.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)That's why it made the top ten causes of accidental death list. Tell me, do you ever concede anything in any discussion? Or are you always right, regardless of facts presented?
Tell the families of those 1150 accidental deaths that they are so rare they are insignificant.
Accidental knife deaths aren't tracked because there haven't been any reported. Care to guess why?
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)How do you figure that 1150 isn't rare? Look how many car accidents there are for comparison.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Nobody disputes the fact that people cut themselves by accident. That's what Bandaids are for. This forum is about guns.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)Then talk to the person who brought in the issue of knives.
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)A gun is sometimes used as a bluff. The person displaying the gun assumes that the sight of it will assure them control of the situation.
Knife attacks are rarely a bluff. From that standpoint, someone attacked by a knife-wielding opponent is almost always cut on purpose and taken by surprise.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)BERFORE being relieved of his wallet. He survived, but his recovery has been extremely painful. Had the blade been inserted a few inches higher, he would have likely died. Should we as a nation initiate a discussion of knife control?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
Straw Man
(6,947 posts)What makes you think that the government doesn't already impinge on our lives re firearms in a very large way?
Do you know what a 4473 is and what is on it? That might be a good place for you to start your inquiries into the current status of gun control in the US.
If your information comes solely from the newspaper, it is my sad duty to inform you that you are sadly underinformed, and possibly misinformed.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Where do you get your information about guns in society? The NRA? Soldier of Fortune magazine?
A Firearms Transaction Record, or Form 4473, is a United States government form that must be filled out when a person purchases a firearm from a Federal Firearm License holder (such as a gun shop).
The Form 4473 contains name, address, date of birth, government-issued photo ID, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check transaction number, make/model/serial number of the firearm, and a short federal affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase firearms under federal law. Lying on this form is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison in addition to fines, even if the transaction is simply denied by the NICS.
The dealer also records all information from the Form 4473 into their "bound-book". A dealer must keep this log the entire time they are in business and is required to surrender the log to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) upon retirement from the firearms business. The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person in a five day period must be reported to ATF on Form 3310.4.
If a person purchases a firearm from a private individual who is not a licensed dealer, the purchaser is not required in most states to complete a Form 4473, though some states require individual sellers to sell through dealers.
These forms are given the same status as a tax return under the Privacy Act of 1974 and cannot be disclosed by the government to private parties or other government officials except in accordance with the Privacy Act. Individual dealers possessing a copy of the form are not subject to the Privacy Act's restrictions on disclosure. Dealers are required to maintain completed forms for 20 years in the case of completed sales and 5 years where the sale was denied by the NICS check coming back disapproved or other disqualifying information.
There is a part I to form 4473 which is seen by persons who buy guns and which they sign. They sign that they have read form 4473 on pain of perjury and criminal punishment for lying. Yet there is a Part II which is sort of a secret for the ATF. It cannot be downloaded from the ATF. One has to approach the ATF specially to get a Part II.[1] Part II is for "making a disposition of a firearm to a nonlicensee who is purchasing or otherwise acquiring a firearm by other than an over-the-counter transaction and who is a resident of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located."[2]
Contents
In response to the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), Public L. No 105-277, signed in 1999, and based upon requests from the firearms industry, the ATF has developed the e-Form 4473 to assist in the proper completion of the Federal Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473). The ATF eForm 4473 is designed to help eliminate errors in completing Form 4473 for both the firearm purchaser and the Federal Firearms License (FFL) holding seller. The eForm 4473 is provided to the public, including major retailers, free of charge via the ATF eForm web site. ATF eForm 4473 is a downloadable application that runs locally on the FFL's computer and supports both Windows and Mac OS X operating systems. (see "External links" section below)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0oGdXWYRexO20cAnxxXNyoA?ei=UTF-8&p=form%204473&fr2=tab-web&fr=yfp-t-701
Why is it that the Gungeon can't/won't answer any of my questions, but I can answer yours?
Straw Man
(6,947 posts)As far as answering your questions, I did, but perhaps not clearly enough. Therefore, I'll do this again very simply and directly.
[div class = excerpt]What do you think of the City of New York's findings?
I think they are skewed and deliberately misleading. Bloomberg's hacks are attempting to foment hysteria in order to bolster public support for New York's de facto handgun ban that will probably face challenges in the wake of the Heller and McDonald decisions. Bloomberg is an elitist 1%er all the way.
[div class = excerpt]Does this investigation change the way you think about the firearms industry?
No, because it has no more to do with the firearms industry than the sale of stolen cars has to do with the auto industry.
[div class = excerpt]What do you think, if anything, ought to change with our firearms laws?
I would like to see 50-state reciprocity for concealed-carry permits. I would like private sellers to be able to access the NICS system or something very much like it. I would like to see mental-health reporting expedited. I would like my New York State handgun permit to be recognized in New York City. That'll do for now.
SteveW
(754 posts)You float a question:
"Why is it that the Gungeon can't/won't answer any of my questions, but I can answer yours?"
Actually, you can ask any number of questions here, and get answers. It's just that in all probability, you won't like the answers.
You seem to know something about Soldier of Fortune and whatever NRA journals you may reference, but I don't subscribe to them. So, no, I don't get my information from them. I get my information from good argument, data, statistics, etc. These can and have come from the CDC, FBI, National Safety Council, and even gun-control sources (you have to know the "other side's" best arguments in order to effective counter them.
You might be more credible if you don't lead with such stuff as Soldier of Fortune -- it sounds like you are trying to disrespect pro-2A posters.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)SteveW
(754 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)No ridicule intended, I'm just having a bit of difficulty understanding the sentence as it's written.
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)Person to person sales, or any other sale that does not go through an FFL and a NICs check is illegal.
But so is buying weed in Inglewood.
SteveW
(754 posts)The alphabet agencies (and many others) regulate as long as they do not violate the constitution.
A constitutional right must and should have little regulation.
I note: "I do own a gun and have no desire to do so,..." Is this what you meant?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I quote:
"I am familiar with current federal and some state laws through reading about the failures of gun laws in preventing lunatics and criminals from obtaining them."
Until you can point out what specific regulations you desire to be changed, and what changes you'd like made, we will
not have very much to talk about
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Let's start with a real assault weapons ban and work our way from there.
What do you suggest? How do you think the system is failing? Are these findings just falsified?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)First off, define "assault weapon" and tell us why you think they should be banned.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, that's less than "fists and feet". And btw- Loughner used a handgun.
You really aren't very well informed about this, are you?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Which would have been banned under the previous legislation...
Weapon in rampage was banned under Clinton-era law
The now-expired assault weapons ban made it illegal to make the type of magazine used in the Giffords shooting
By Justin Elliott
The high-capacity magazine of the semiautomatic pistol used in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and more than a dozen other people on Saturday would have been illegal to manufacture and difficult to purchase under the Clinton-era assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
According to police and media reports, the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, legally purchased a semiautomatic Glock 19 with a high-capacity magazine in November at a gun store in Tucson. Under the assault weapons ban, it was illegal to manufacture or sell new high-capacity magazines, defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds. The magazines used by Loughner had 31 rounds each, according to police.
If Loughner had been using a traditional magazine, “it would have drastically reduced the number of shots he got off before he had to pause, unload and reload — and he could have been stopped,” Daniel Vice, senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, tells Salon.
Between 1994 and 2004 when the assault weapons ban was in effect, gun manufacturers such as Glock could not market handguns with high-capacity magazines. If the ban were still in effect, it’s less likely that Loughner could have obtained a gun with a high-capacity magazine. Stores could legally only sell used high-capacity magazines at that time, and new magazines could not be manufactured.
http://www.salon.com/2011/01/09/giffords_shooting_assault_weapons_ban/
You don't really like examining news that makes you uncomfortable, do you?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You will note the second-to-last sentence in the last quoted post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=362693
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=362693#364001
friendly_iconoclast (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-19-11 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #72
79. Your repeated Lovejoying aside, the proposed ban wouldn't have helped in two notorious cases
It has happened at least twice:
Virginia Tech and the Luby's massacre in Texas (mishandling the reaction to that cost Ann Richards reelection as governor of
Texas and put George Bush on the road to the White House).
There the spree shooters packed 2 guns and/or a bunch of "normal" magazines, reloaded, and went on about their demented business.
I'll grant you a sincere concern for children- but said concern doesn't affect the validity of what you say about guns.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=362693#364234
friendly_iconoclast (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-19-11 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. Then you'll have to ban all guns with detachable magazines.
Unless and until you manage to do such a thing, any idea that lowering magazine capacity will limit spree killers
is ahistorical. The maniacs at Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafeteria simply reloaded with McCarthy-friendly magazines
and kept on with their infernal business.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=362693#364280
friendly_iconoclast (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-19-11 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. I saw post #72, and raise you post #86: How will you stop them from simply reloading?
All your insults and claims to speak for "the children" aside, your proposed ban has already been shown not to work,
in two high-profile spree shootings- Virginia Tech and the Luby's Cafeteria one in Texas. The shooters there used
"McCarthy friendly" magazines, and both managed to kill and injure more people than Loughner did with his "WMD" magazines.
You may choose to deny reality, but you damn well can't force us to.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/11721111#post10
I said a real Assault Weapons Ban and we could work from there.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11721111#post19
Please don't distort my words.
End of my discussion.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Unless I am very much mistaken, you seek to reignite a culture war that has mostly been lost by your side.
And the fact that you are using Michael Bloomberg as a role model speaks volumes...
DonP
(6,185 posts)We have several threads applauding Walker for banning CCW in some state buildings and, even as Bloomberg was arresting OWS demonstrators, we had threads here applauding his gun stings.
Hell, how many people here do we have supporting the Bush/Cheney Terrah watch list ... as long as it's used to stop gun purchases?
Situational ethics seems to be the last refuge of the gun control crowd lately.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)You came here to toss word salad, obfuscate, incite and accuse.
To bad for you we're well innoculated to such "tactics".
P.S. You've dodged again.
hack89
(39,181 posts)how many lives do you think it will save?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the magazines were easy to find, just kind of expensive. The standard magazine for a Glock 19 is 15 rounds.
Had he used a standard magazine, his gun would not have jammed.
Since you get most of your gun knowledge from Brady, did you believe the Al Qaida guy who said you can buy machine guns at gun shows with little problem?
I read it all long time ago, and your powers of telepathy is very poor.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)and you have no idea what you are talking about.
You are begining to look quite hirsute. Is your primary dwelling located beneath an elevated road-way, perhaps one that spans a hydrological drainage channel?
spin
(17,493 posts)just the production of new ones.
Almost everyone that I knew who had a Glock or similar handgun during that period of time bought high cap magazines for their weapon for an highly inflated price. They were plentiful and readily available as the manufacturers had worked 24/7 to produce such magazines before the cut off date.
As far as reloading a pistol, an inexperienced person can easily swap a magazine in a couple of seconds. With practice an individual can reload in far less time. It's really quite simple and doesn't require much dexterity, just practice.
That's the reality. Watch this video and learn something.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)...from legally purchasing 30-round magazines for his Glock, don't you?
edit added for discussion.
Feinstein's 2004 attempt to merge AWB reauthorization with the Protection of Lawful Commerce of Arms Act caused the bill to fail (8-90). With the AWB removed the bill passed easily.
McCarthy's 2007 attempt to revive the AWB failed in committee.
Even when moderate Republicans propose the AWB it fails as in Mark Kirk's failed attempt in 2008.
President Obama, who once campaigned on supporting reauthorization of the AWB, has not mentioned it since. I'm not sure if he has had a change of heart on the issue, but he certainly doesn't appear to have any political interest in pursuing the AWB now.
The AWB was a failure and only a shrinking number of people are interested in it coming back.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Have polluted that damn mind of our country. More and deadlier firearms, does not equal a safer society.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)ellisonz
(27,776 posts)But in light of the continuing violence that plagues our society, I'm not satisfied by those who wish to simply dig their heads in the sand and throw bombs at the City of New York and the James Brady Campaign.
DonP
(6,185 posts)I know that doesn't sound nearly as inflammatory, but it is a fact.
After all, you acknowledged that vioent crime is at a 35 year low, even aqfter 49 states allowed CCW and with record firearm sales for the last few years. So, whether you like it or not, things are getting much better as far as crime, including crime with guns goes.
Maybe you should start by explaining it to our President and many of the Dems in Congress with NRA A ratings, who mistakenly think that firearms ownership is an individual right and gun bans are clearly unconstitutional.
Now, an important question, how much have you donated to the Brady campaign you embrace? Most, if not all the gun control supporters here seem to be all talk and never really do anything besides spew bumper sticker slogans here.
Maybe you're different and actually put your money where your mouth is ... but I won't hold my breath.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)My money is being sucked up by student loans.
Violent crime is down because of better gun control.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Gun control laws are dropping left and right. Ownership is at an all time high both in terms of per-capita and absolute numbers. 49 of the 50 states have some form of CCW. 39 of them are "shall-issue". 4 have no-permit-required open or concealed carry with more discussing it in every session. Stand your ground and castle doctrine are rapidly becoming the standard rather than the exception.
Claiming violent crime is down because of better gun control is so far from the obvious reality as to make me question your hold on reality.
Do you have ANY clue what you're talking about?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)The drop in violent crime is almost entirely due to better gun control and better policing.
Do you have any clue how brainwashed you sound? Please, go talk to some police officers about how they feel gun control influences their jobs.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Hint: The CDC wasn't able to do so, and they are notoriously anti-gun. I doubt you can do better.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I just don't think you're worth the time anymore - feel free to spectate, bye
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)It's an open forum. I'll challenge your unsupported assertions as I wish.
DonP
(6,185 posts)I'm pretty convinced you're a certified Monty Python quality "loonie", claiming that "They" are making things up, when the "They" is the DoJ, the CDC and the FBI. That, combined with the fact that you are the last living human that believes Michael Bellisles is a credible authority.
But in the real world is gun control is considered a pariah subject by anyone hoping for re-election, outside of a handful of major urban areas, and then it's mainly used to get money from suckers. They are suckers because no new gun control has been passed in over a decade and none is going to pass.
Unless of course that big backlash you guys are always predicting comes around.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I don't think winning by intimidation is anything to be proud of - seems that's the basis of tyranny.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...and what really matters is being a responsible society?
Besides all your rags on potheads and seeming acceptance of drunks.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)what is a "assault weapon"? It is not not a technical term, it is a made up propaganda buzz term. Since twice as many people are murdered by bare hands as all long guns combined (all of these "assault weapons" are rifles, and a small subset of long guns) what is the point? Much of Europe and Canada has no problem with private ownership of them. Oh yeah, assault rifles (which are capable of automatic fire) have been for all practical purposes banned since the 1930s.
I suggest listening to real criminologists instead of moral crusaders that are funded almost exclusively by one foundation and a couple of rich people.
The system is failing by the drug war.
Are you asking if the Brady one are falsified? No, but it is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)assault weapon
noun
Definition of ASSAULT WEAPON
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; especially : assault rifle
First Known Use of ASSAULT WEAPON
1973
I've read my fair share of criminology, sociology, anthropology, economics, psychology, history, political science, literature, and current publications.
Who in their right mind thinks the current system is serving anyone's proper legal rights? The victims of gun violence certainly don't think the system is working.
Time for change.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)1973, assault weapon refers to tanks, mortars, etc. Those, like assault rifles, have been kind of banned since 1934. In other words, theater.
What about the victims of knife violence? People who would be dead if they did not have a gun to defend themselves?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)The same is not true with a semi-automatic AK-47 variant or a Glock-19 with a pair of extra capacity magazines...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)diesel fuel and fertilizer.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Do you know Timothy McVeigh's background? Read that and then get back to me about the gun rights movement in this country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_mcveigh
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Can you come up with an argument that isn't a logical fallacy?
How about MAIG members that are felons?
Vigilante Million Mom March member who put an innocent person in a wheel chair?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)It's in it's nature; it's a hobby that's devoted to weapons, and weapons have only two uses - sport/hunting and killing.
End discussion.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Moral crusaders have an extreme militancy. When you go to other progressive sites and the gun issue come up, why do the comments look like something from Free Republic? Regional bigotry not only gun owners but working class rural people in general.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Why do working class rural people need a small arsenal of military grade weapons? Hunting? Home defense?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)or all things rural.
as for "military grade", it is simply the evolution from tactical to practical. Military rifles like the SKS and AR platforms are becoming a common hunting rifle in the US and Canada. The SKS (which uses the same round as the AK-47) is popular in both countries. Few guns started as sporting weapons first. Ed Schultz's bolt action rifles were "military grade" in the first half of the previous century.
Who are you to decide what someone needs? Given your apparent lack of knowledge of firearms (outside of propaganda tracts), you telling me what kind of rifle or pistol I need is kind of condescending. Does John McCain have any business asking why I "need" a Linux over a PC or Mac? Same thing.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Perhaps you can answer with specifics without posting an irrelevent youtube distraction this time.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Assault weapons, semi-automatic handguns, 50 caliber sniper rifles. None of those weapons are useful for hunting/home defense, none of them do a job that a simple revolver, shotgun, hunting rifle couldn't.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)"assault weapons" (i.e. semi-automatic rifles) are merely rifles. Actually far LESS powerful than the typical hunting rifle. Of course, you do not realize this because you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Semi-automatic handguns? No more or less deadly than a revolver. They simply are a different design. They do no job a revolver does not also do. Of course, as above, since you don't know what you're talking about, you do not understand this.
.50 caliber rifles? Funny you should think those are military weapons as they are actually a non-military weapon adapted to military purposes. Again, since you're clueless....
What you believe any of those weapons are or are not suited to does not matter. Really - it doesn't.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Also, I know my firearms pretty damn well - it's just convenient for the denialists to believe that someone could be smart and be against the mass gun distribution that goes on in this country for no other reason than ego conflation.
If you guys didn't know you were wrong, you still wouldn't be trying to argue would you? What's so threatening about the tapes above - did they expose the nuttery just a little too much for public consumption?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)does not sound like it. No one said you were not smart, just not knowledgeable in this area. John McCain is smart, just does not know shit about computers (or keep from crashing fighter planes).
ellisonz
(27,776 posts) PavePusher
(15,374 posts)1. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting.
That said, an AK-pattern rifle with a hunting-legal magazine (generally 5 rounds or less) is slightly more modern but ballistically equivalent to the .30-30 lever action rifle (many of which hold well over 10 rounds). Some people do use them for hunting, all quite legal and ethical. I use the AK's slightly older cousin, the SKS, with a removeable magazine. Same ammo, same performance, very reliable, reasonably accurate, built like... well, a soviet tank; durable and simple.
Numerous handguns, including some semi-auto's, are specifically designed with hunting in mind. You can mount scopes on them and some come in calibers big enough for bears. Grizzlies, in fact. Moose. Wild hogs (very hard to kill).
.50 "sniper" rifles with light loads would be good for large game as above.
2. All of the above have legitimate sport-shooting (target competition) purposes. Just because that may not be your cup of tea doesn't de-legitimize the usage.
3. The Second Amendment is at least partially about home- and self-defense, as the security of a free state argueably starts with the security of the home and the individual. All of the above items are legitimate home-defense items. Admittedly, you probably would only use a .50 if you had a lot of land, and only against some very specific and low-probability threats. AR/AK/many other "assault weapons" are excellent home defense items, especially in their shorter-barreled versions. With purpose-designed defensive ammo, they are accurate, light weight, easy to manuver. Bull-pup designs are superbly ideal for this. Try defending the average home with a 24" barrel bolt-action (almost certainly far more powerful ballistically than an AR or AK) and see the difference. My bolt-action hunting rifles will go through numerous walls, and of at least two houses here in my development. My AR, not so much.
Hand-guns of all types are also excellent for defensive purposes. Easily portable (Have you ever carried a rifle all day, every day for any length of time? Serious P.I.T.A.), capable of one-handed operation while holding a phone and/or child, or grappling with an attacker, simple to use, easy to learn. Semi-autos have an advantage of carrying more ammo, simpler reloads, easier trigger pull (which can lead to better accuracy in some circumstances) and easier to carry concealed on average.
As far as shotguns go, well, you'd probably classify mine as an "assault weapon" because it is black, has a plastic stock (that holds additional shells) that is adjustable (useable by people of varying body size/clothing state), can be (is) fitted with a bayonette and holds more than 2 rounds. I can also swap barrels on it in only a few minutes, giving me a modular firearm useable for defense, sport (skeet/trap/etc) and hunting with shot or slugs.
Now, what is it you still don't understand?
Edit: All of the above have militia usage, if you really want to go down that road....
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Facts, the anti-hysteria medicine.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Maybe in Alaska or somewhere you might actually encounter bears you might need a .50 cal. In Florida, Texas, or Connecticut - give me a break. Frankly, I'm starting to think you should just be told that the Militia is the National Guard (which frankly is closer conceptually anyways) because you can't seem to get through your head how all those modifications such as increased capacity compared to older weapons by no means actually improve self-defense will increase the odds of stray fire.
Here, have a cartoon:
It's like a gun, but full of ink! 
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Good luck with that.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)You get another cartoon:
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)rifles are about $10K each, yet to see one in any gun shop. In fact, the only one I saw was owned by my (last) base's bomb squad (can't disarm it, shoot it.) They have never been used in a crime in the US. And no, they don't have heat seeking bullets. So, who cares?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Also, that's not true: http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm
You win another cartoon:
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)eight gun crimes (other than the attempted smuggling). Typical VPC dishonesty. Maybe three could have been obtained legally. Having one sitting on the shelf while getting busted for selling steroids does not count, neither does having one in the back seat while being pulled over (felon in possession.) How many were obtained legally? Stolen from the cops? Notice some of them were drug dealers? The guns were illegal in Mexico and Canada.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)It is an increasing concern though...and it just proves my point that the black market is composed of legally bought guns.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)right, and all of those machine guns, rocket launchers, and grenades going through Mexico's southern border are all coming from gun stores in Texas and Arizona.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...and actually you're making a really good argument against international arms production and distribution. Way to self-defeat.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)"machine guns, rocket launchers, and grenades going through Mexico's southern border".
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Got anything at ALL to prove a substantial portion of Class III and DD weapons come through gun shops in AZ and TX? Really?
I'd even be happy if you could present proof of ONE.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Want to take them away. Buying a gun or guns is an excellent act of defiance toward Gun Prohibitionists.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...a drunk. You don't need anything but food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. You *want* guns, not need guns.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)After all - without them, its pretty damned tough to ensure I have food. Guns are merely one possible weapon.
Healthcare is not a necessity.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Read that and get back to me about the gun control movement in this country."
Sauce for goose, meet gander...
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Just bought a whole crapload of it not too long ago.
Believe what you want though. Its so much easier than worrying about actual facts.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)You stated the product was tightly controlled. You are wrong. Period.
See how that works? When you don't know what you're talking about, you look like an idiot. Starting to get the picture yet?
Incidentally, ANFO explosives are not illegal to make, use or possess. There are numerous legitimate, or at least non-criminal, uses.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)They've passed them - they're just not enforcing: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/07/1004291/-Restrictions-on-ammonium-nitrate-still-not-implemented
I'd rather "look like an idiot" than not give a damn about my fellow citizens safety.
Don't go Tim McVeigh no the Gungeon.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Besides, it has nothing to do with not giving a damn. My uses of it are perfectly legal and the specifics of those uses are none of your concern.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
Euromutt
(6,506 posts)...but it's wrong.
Yes, the term "assault weapon" very likely does date back to 1973, but not that definition. As originally coined, an "assault weapon" is any weapon intended to be used by infantry to breach or destroy enemy fortifications; we're talking about stuff like satchel charges, flamethrowers, Bangalore torpedoes, rocket launchers, and the like. Here is an example of such an assault weapon:
That's a Mk135 Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW), a modification of the Israeli B-300 rocket launcher, used by the USMC since 1984. In other words, since before Josh Sugarmann of the VPC misappropriated the term "assault weapon" to broadly mean "semi-auto-only version of a firearm design that was originally capable of automatic fire."
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Euromutt
(6,506 posts)Weapons terminology is a law unto itself, and one that dictionaries are hard-pressed to get right.
Plus there's the recurring problem that dictionaries are at least as descriptive as they are prescriptive, if not more so. If a sufficiently large number of people use a word incorrectly for a sufficiently long period of time, dictionaries will ultimately incorporate that incorrect usage into the definition, thereby legitimizing it. By way of example, look up "decimate" and "Olympiad" in Merriam-Webster.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Lawyers, judges, nor legislators use terms based on Merriam-Webster, they use terms based on legal definition/law dictionaries which very often differ dramatically from common definitions.
Hint, there currently is no legal definition of "assault weapon". Why? Because even the ATF can't come up with a way to define the term. this video is a 'must see' for anyone who really wants to understand the "assault weapons" issue.
edit, pay particular attention to the Congressional testimony of the BATF at 8:35 in the above video.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)US violent crime has been falling for 20+ years, corresponding with a 20+ year liberalization of firearms laws specifically directed at law abiding, mentally stable individuals. It is far easier and more logical to make the statement that; 'liberalized concealed carry laws increase the chances for a criminal's causality, thus reducing the desirability of committing violence/crime' (based on the overall violent crime statistics for the last few decades), than to state; 'proliferation of firearms results in higher violent crime', given that the violent crime rate is falling and there are exponentially more firearms in private hands each day, month, and year...and more people carrying those guns for defense against those who, because of non-firearms socioeconomic/health care conditions, are inclined to do violence/crime.
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are very specifically enumerated freedoms and restrictions on government, not limiting individual freedom. Therefore, before a limitation of an enumerated right can occur, some sort of justification must be presented to justify the limitation. This is why the "assault weapons ban" was not reauthorized, it had no quantifiable statistical impact on anything, including societal safety...zero
I think we all agree that the current system isn't perfect, and needs work. The disagreement is which current system needs the attention. In my opinion, regulating firearms is the least likely to impact violence in the US (I believe the term "gun violence" is buzz term for those who simply don't like this enumerated freedom). I believe that any argument put forth for control must be prefaced by action on these far more likely causes for violence in the US: 1. Wealth disparity 2. easy availability to obtain mental health services (this would impact the effectiveness of the NICS system by identifying more effectively those with mental illness) 3. unemployment 4. availability of health care 5. availability of social services for the poor 6. availability of higher education regardless of monetary resources. Until these actual causes of crime are addressed, violence/crime will not free fall..the desire to do violence/crime are simply not effected by the availability of the tools, be they guns, knives, clubs, or rocks.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)By MICHAEL LUO
Published: January 25, 2011
Ultimately, the conundrum in firearms research comes in establishing what scientists call “causality.”
An analysis, for instance, of the 62 most urbanized counties in the United States conducted for The New York Times by Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, found that higher rates of gun ownership correlate with higher rates of per capita homicide, after adjusting for residents’ ages.
On average, counties in the top quartile when it comes to the prevalence of guns — determined by a proxy that academics use based on the ratio of firearms suicides to overall suicides — had an age-adjusted homicide-rate that was 63 percent higher than those in the bottom quartile.
But as anyone familiar with basic statistics knows, correlation does not equal causation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26gunsresearch.html
Michael Luo: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/michael_luo/index.html?inline=nyt-per
Just about any sociologist would tell you the same exact thing. The factors you suggest are important, but I think it's easy to point out too that other countries still have crime, it's just other countries manage to do it without shooting each other by the thousands. You cannot possibly tell me that those caught on the tapes above are not perfectly happy to engage in illegal firearms sales. In absence of the funds to carry through your noble intentions, more and better gun control is likely to produce less gun deaths.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I am a senior citizen. Older people are often the targets of violent street criminals because they view us as easy victims. Obviously I won't be able to defeat the typical young male street criminal, except by using a gun. If you remove from honest citizen their ability to defend themselves then you embolden criminals.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Gets stolen. How many firearms do you think you need to defend yourself?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Each gun has a specific use. Right tool for the right situation. It is possible for anything to get stolen, including guns.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Over 50% of the House and almost 50% of the Senate have an NRA rating of "A". Most states have pro-RKBA legislatures.
There are about 300 million guns in the US. So a theft in one year of 1/2 million is fairly small, merely 1/3 of 1%.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)The government does not have the legal authority to determine my firearms needs, regardless of how many think it has the power.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)You seem to be confused on where the powers of government flow from.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)You second amendment right is more important than their rights.
Pusher.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)And I saw what you did there. Fair warning, others on this board are not so tolerant. Good luck with that.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)The individual who violated the rights of those victims is punished accordingly. I see no problem with this and in fact, I support it entirely.
However, the victim has no right to direct his frustration and anger towards those who had nothing to do with the crime merely because they exercise their right to be armed - a right the criminal used irresponsibly.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)You just made my point. Thank you, you're more concerned about having your precious second amendment right further regulated than giving a damn about the victims.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Then go ahead. You're not going to somehow guilt me into giving up my rights.
If you have such little concern for your freedoms that a simple tale of woe causes you to give them up to make the person feel better, that is your choice. I do not have such a weak will, and therefore would not behave as you would.
one-eyed fat man
(3,201 posts)steals your car as a get away car for a bank holdup, it's your fault? Yeah, he is a moron for stealing a popular and common late model car like a white or silver Camry, he'd be a lot more successful if he steals a 1948 Studebaker.
Career criminals tend to mirror the police in their selection of firearms. Fifty years ago, it was .38 special revolvers from Colt or Smith & Wesson. Now it's as likely to be a "Glock Foh-tay."
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/685589/more_nypd_corruption:_now_they%27re_selling_illegal_guns/
In a disgraceful and deplorable betrayal of the public trust some of Bloonie's finest have been selling guns on the street and planting drugs on innocent people to make arrest quotas.
Love the guys you hang with....
pipoman
(16,038 posts)to see that violent crime statistics are falling every year, almost without exception. The number of guns in private ownership is rising at the fastest rate in history. The number of people legally carrying guns is increasing at the fastest rate in a century. Gun laws are being liberalized in almost every state. Complex, made up theorems are only needed if trying to disprove simple math...insurance actuaries employed by wealthy insurance companies are masters of muddying otherwise clear waters to benefit their cause..justifying excessively high premiums unjustly.
Suicide rates are pretty static and have been for a long time. Suicide is much easier to see as a societal problem. Some geographic locations and societies have higher rates, others have lower rates both directly related to environmental and cultural issues. Availability of tools is the smallest determinate in the suicide equation.
My peeve is the term "gun violence" or as you state "gun deaths". It is silly to quantify this as if it has any meaning..nonsensical actually. It has no bearing on anything...meaningless...unless one has an agenda of instilling fear in attempt to infringe on a right without real statistics.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)The fact remains that it is still far too easy for too many pissed off people to grab a gun to solve their problems. More guns also means more irresponsible owners. When is enough, enough? Do we really need that many guns in circulation?
http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2011/12/14/cops-boy-fatally-shoots-5-year-old-after-finding-gun-in-treasure-chest-toy-box/
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Nope, you're still ignoring that crime rates and gun accidents are both going down, and have been for some time.
I don't know where your obtusness comes from, but it appears to be intentional.
"circulation"? I've never sold a gun in my life.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Dodge. Again.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)that one is so bad I have never seen it before. Based on any of the other poor defintions of "assault weapon", it and "assault rifle" are mutually exclusive in defintions.
> any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; especially : assault rifle
SteveW
(754 posts)"assault weapon" is a term of art used by gun-controllers and MSM; it is not often used by firearm owners and aficianados. This is the result of some intentional confusion by -- voila! -- gun-controllers.
"In a September 1988 report on 'assault weapons' that he prepared for the Education Fund to End Handgun Violence, gun control advocate Josh Sugarmann candidly observed: 'The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons--anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun--can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these guns.'"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n6_v27/ai_17491710/
Rather telling, the effectiveness of Sugarmann's deception, that the confusion continues.
I see very little specificity in your discussion. A primer: Remington has for generations made a semi-automatic rifle, Model 742 and its derivatives, chambered in powerful deer-rifle calibers, like the .30-06. On the other hand, the AR-15 and the AK-47 "clones" are usually chambered in significantly weaker calibers. The other main differences are with "looks;" you know, those "menacing looks."
While there was once a politically passionate argument to be made on the "looks" angle, as a matter of public policy there is no justification to "outlaw" something based on looks. Other notes: Less than 3% of all firearms deaths are accomplished with rifles -- and the so-called "assault weapon" is just ONE of the rifle-types in that -3% category. Again, what is the justification?
BTW, an "assault rifle" is capable of full-auto fire, not the exclusively semi-auto fire of the so-called "assault weapon." That is why this thing you wish to ban is no longer considered a front-line infantry weapon; in short, it is obsolete.
I don't know what you mean by a failing system. If it is the crime rate, those rates are down, and have been coming down for years. Please be more specific.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)"Guns murdered" them did they? How is the availability of social safety nets and availability of mental health services different in these different countries? How about overall violent crime?
The Brady's ALWAYS preface "violence" with the word "gun", and completely disregard stand alone violence...rates of violent crime, in favor of rates of the very specific "gun crime"..and so many read their foolish diatribes as if it has some significance.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...is a quite prevalent in the US. The US murder rate has not much to do with gun laws. The US non-firearm murder rate is higher than the overall murder rate in many other countries. As a society, US residents are more violent than many other countries.
It is also a fact that the more prohibition-like laws that are passed, the greater the underground (black market) flourishes to profit in the trade of whatever contraband is being prohibited. These laws ensure that, in the case of firearms, the ownership spectrum is exceptionally polarized. In the extreme, only murderous criminals and government agencies will own effective weapons. I believe that laws like the AWB, the DC, Chicago and other municipal handgun bans do little to affect the criminal possession of those weapons.
If you really want the number of murders lower, the action required is not to add more items to the black market menu but to remove some, drugs for one.
Law enforcement is equipped with firearms which are used nearly all of the time for the protection of the officer. Law enforcement employs the tactical use of firearms very rarely and under extreme supervision. Ask any special response team member. For that matter, just ask a regular cop under what circumstances he/she is to fire their gun.
The estimates of firearm ownership in the US are between 80 and 100 million owners in possession of about 210 million firearms. US residents own about 35% of the private firearms in the world. I think our record is rather good.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...in any other wealthy nation. Not coincidentally, the US homicide rate is higher than in other wealthy nation. And it's not because we are a generally violent or high-crime people, because with non-gun crimes, the US typically falls somewhere in the middle.
It is true, as you say, that our non-gun homicide rate is indeed higher than the overall homicide rate in some other wealthy countries, but this is a hugely misleading statistic. What happens is that in many other wealthy nations, the amount of gun violence is extremely low, so non-gun homicides make up for almost the entire homicide rate. In this case, to say that our non-gun homicide rate is greater than their overall homicide rate is almost the same as saying that our non-gun homicide rate is greater than theirs.
And it is not surprising that the US has more non-gun homicides than some other wealthy nations. After all, as I pointed out above, when it comes to non-gun crimes, the US is usually somewhere in the middle. So there will be some wealthy nations with more non-gun homicides than the US, and some with less.
The one thing you won't find, among wealthy nations, is an overall homicide rate as high as the US, due to the US's huge gun homicide rate.
As far as your "black market" theory, this also turns out to be incorrect. The US has far more armed criminals than any other wealthy nation, and this is because it is easier for a criminal to get a gun in the US than elsewhere. It is true that, thanks to the lax gun laws and unregulated private market, illegal guns do find their way into places like NYC that have relatively tight laws. In fact, that's what this OP is about -- the need to better regulate private gun sales.
The comparisons between the US and the rest of the industrialized world when it comes to gun violence could not be more clear. We have more gun availability, we have more illegal guns and we have more gun violence.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...I do sincerely appreciate an opportunity for discussion. Thanks
As you said: "In this case, to say that our non-gun homicide rate is greater than their overall homicide rate is almost the same as saying that our non-gun homicide rate is greater than theirs." I agree here; both statements are equivalent and correct. I repeat: the US non-firearm murder rate is higher than the overall murder rate in many other countries. You could, for example, compare the US and the UK. Saying that the murder rate is so much lower in the UK BECAUSE they have so many fewer private firearms does not logically follow. This is a fallacy known as post hoc, ergo proptor hoc. Saying the US has a non-firearm murder rate higher than some national overall murder rates and lower than others is neither descriptive nor enlightening.
The US has 35% of the world's private firearms. Does the US also have 35% of the world's murders? If firearms cause murder, there must be some science that proves it, otherwise this whole idea is just conjecture.
Sarcasm alert: Are you saying that black markets don't flourish in areas where some type of prohibition is present?
You say, "The comparisons between the US and the rest of the industrialized world when it comes to gun violence could not be more clear. We have more gun availability, we have more illegal guns and we have more gun violence." You have not proven this assertion.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...rate of any wealthy nation. The reason I bring up non-gun crimes is as a type of control. If there were some other cause for our uniquely high gun violence rate besides gun availability, then it would presumably result in high rates for other kinds of crimes, not just homicides and gun crimes specifically. For example, if income inequality were responsible, we'd expect to see the US have higher rates for, say, robbery. But we don't: for crimes other than gun homicide, we are not way out of line with the rest of the industrialized world. So that's a pretty good indication that gun availability is playing a role.
The US has 35% of the world's private firearms. Does the US also have 35% of the world's murders? If firearms cause murder, there must be some science that proves it, otherwise this whole idea is just conjecture.
There are a lot of factors that govern homicide rates. Gun availability is just one of them. In social sciences in general, you are never going to find a perfect correlation like you are seeking. But the data do show that gun ownership rates correlate with homicide rates. As you point out, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but there are pretty strong arguments for causation as well, for example the fact that you don't find nearly as strong a correlation between gun ownership rates and non-gun crime rates, as I discussed above.
Sarcasm alert: Are you saying that black markets don't flourish in areas where some type of prohibition is present?
What I'm saying is that there are many factors that determine how big a black market you will have when faced with restrictions or prohibitions -- it depends on the supply and demand. Pro-gunners often argue that any kind of prohibition is doomed to failure, arguing by analogy using prohibition of alcohol in the US as an example, but, obviously, guns and alcohol are nothing alike. In reality, while some restrictions and/or prohibitions have failed, other prohibitions have been remarkably successful.
For example, in the US, machine guns are mostly prohibited, but there is not much of a black market. In Japan, guns are basically prohibited, and again not much of a black market. It is far easier for a criminal in the US to get a gun than for a criminal in Japan to get one.
So, aside from the reflexive argument that "prohibitions always lead to a black market", I don't see reason to believe that tightening up gun laws in the US will lead to any significant increase in black market activity. On the contrary, laws like requiring background checks on private sales, or national registration of handguns, would actually reduce black market activity by making it more difficult to divert and traffic legal guns to criminal markets, thus cutting down on the supply of illegal guns.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...to ask, from your position, the specifics of what laws need you would change and how. Everyone has their own position on what's a good idea.
I am not a nut who thinks we need to sell full auto at 7-eleven to 9 year-olds. I *am* decidedly against many measures of gun-control but for the sake of discussion, could you expand a bit on your last paragraph, please?
I also see the prohibition analogy between guns and alcohol as not an apples to apples comparison. (Guns are durable goods and alcohol is a consumable, for one.)
As far as the end goal of cutting down on the supply of illegal guns, how would those measures you list accomplish that?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)for black market guns in Japan outside of the Yakusa. If Japan liberalized their gun laws, there might be a few more skeet shooters, but that is all. The same for machine guns in the US. Before NFA, very few machine guns were actually owned or used. Because of cost and lack of utility, private machine gun ownership was almost nonexsitant outside of payroll guards and the mob. Outside of the few high profile roving gangs in the mid west, there were not commonly used in crimes. A Thompson SMG was about half the price of a new car. The Browning Automatic Rifle in today's dollars was about $6K. A total of zero BARs were sold to civilians according to company records. The ones in Clyde Barrow's car when he and Bonnie were killed? Stolen from a national guard armory. Dillinger stole his from a police armory. Fortunately, the police (other than LAPD) and the national guard has better security than in the 1930s.
All economies are demand driven. If there is no demand, there is no market. There very little to no demand for black market machine guns in the the US and Canada. Mexico on the other hand, is a different issue.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Statements of the form "all ________ are ________" are usually mistaken, and this is no exception. The size of any market is governed by both supply and demand. What you seem to be missing is that demand is not just a static quantity, but rather a function of price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_curve
The often-repeated talking point, that "criminals will always get guns", refers to what economists describe as "zero elasticity of demand" -- this is a vertical demand curve, so the quantity demanded remains exactly the same no matter what the price. In reality, this occurs very rarely, and, as with many NRA talking points, there is no evidence at all that criminal gun markets exhibit zero elasticity of demand, or even that the elasticity is particularly low.
With respect to criminal gun markets, "price" refers not just to dollars, but also to the hassle and risk involved in acquiring an illegal gun. Gun control laws aimed at reducing the supply of illegal guns result in a higher "price" in this sense, and so some criminals will find the gun is no longer worthwhile and instead spend the money, effort, and risk on something else. A common misconception is that just because criminals are criminals, they must be irrational, but actually, criminals respond to incentives like anyone else.
A great example of all this is your confident prediction about what would happen if Japan liberalized its gun laws. Currently the "price" of a gun in Japan is very high, and as you point out, demand is low, but the fact that demand is low when price is high doesn't tell us much at all about what would happen to demand if price were much lower.
For example, suppose Japan had gun shows where anyone could buy a cheap handgun with no background check and basically zero risk. A much more likely scenario than what you describe is that, if the "price" were lowered in this way, a fair number of Japanese criminals would in fact find that a gun is now a worthwhile acquisition.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 18, 2011, 06:22 PM - Edit history (1)
Your explanation of the demand curve is basically why private ownership of machine guns were almost nonexistent outside of bankers and gangsters. Why would the average hunter/target shooter/or some guy in a high crime area buy something that is very expensive and useless for their needs (short barreled shotguns were just as legal and much cheaper for the latter.) Remember this was pre minimum wage America, not many people had the disposable income to spend on a toy and turns a lot of money into noise.
A lesser known example is Canada. Until 1977, their federal machine gun laws were laxer than ours (simply needed to be registered, while handguns needed licences since 1934). They were still rarely if ever used in crimes, at least fewer than pistols or other weapons.
Prior to the war on drugs, the average street gang rarely used guns. If they had one, would be a homemade zip gun or a very low quality (I mean made by companies like Clerke). It had nothing to do with gun laws, but simply they did not have the money.
I was simply pointing out what (appeared to me at least) seemed like a dip into supply side economics (criminals don't have them simply because there is no supply).
I don't think anyone here said criminals are irrational, just that they don't care about laws.
While the average Japanese criminal might (after living there an studied enough of their history, I don't know if it would be a certainty.) Even then, violent crime would not increase because their history and culture trumps all of that.
While we agree on that point, there are exceptions to any rule.
When I lived on Okinawa in the 1980s, there was a scandal with a few special forces types stationed at Tori Station. Basically, they would pick up cheap handguns in the Philippines, Thailand etc. while on training deployments, smuggle them with the unit gear and sell them to the local Yakusa for very inflated prices.
The point? They smuggled them from countries that also have very strict gun laws. I don't if they were made locally by underground factories, which I know existed in the Philippines, the news never mentioned. I didn't take the time to check out the trial.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)I was stationed in Japan in 1987-88 and discovered considerable interest in firearms there. A lot of firearms publications, toys, and early airsoft. Many of the Japanese males (& my Japanese girlfriend as well) I had any significant contact wanted to discuss the subject.
However, my experience is over 23 years old so this may have changed.
As for the Chinese, if they ever have the RKBA, the American firearms industry could stand to make a fortune if China would allow importation.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The folks I knew didn't care one way or another. May be different people or different region. I was on Okinawa (which on one level is a different ethnic group, but people are more "Japanized". Where were you?
You may be right. That would be cool.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Camp Fuji. I also spent time on Okinawa and agree with you, few there seemed to care.
An interesting difference. I wonder if it had something to do with the wartime experience.
Good times those were!
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)"bradycampaign" and "facts"
Hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
Oh, that's a good one.
You are are not familiar with much if that's where you get your "facts."
SteveW
(754 posts)I don't care that you should rely upon a pro-Republican source, but don't get too upset when someone cites a source you consider akin to the "NRA" or "Soldier of Fortune."
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)SteveW
(754 posts)You know, you cite GOP-Brady Campaign, then somehow "accuse" pro-2A folks of getting info from Soldier of Fortune.
Check mate.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)One can easily care about all of these these things, yet not believe that gun control is the answer.
edit..In fact, one could believe that gun control advocates wish to disregard aspects of the Constitution, as I do.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Total Line of Duty Deaths: 154
Aircraft accident: 1
Animal related: 1
Assault: 5
Automobile accident: 35
Drowned: 2
Duty related illness: 7
Explosion: 1
Gunfire: 60
Gunfire (Accidental): 4
Heart attack: 10
Heat exhaustion: 1
Motorcycle accident: 3
Stabbed: 2
Struck by vehicle: 4
Training accident: 1
Vehicle pursuit: 4
Vehicular assault: 12
Weather/Natural disaster: 1
Read more: http://www.odmp.org/search/year/2011#ixzz1guqB2PrX
"A well regulated Militia..."
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Why shouldn't potential victims have the ability and means to defend themselves or escape?
■Every 9 seconds in the US a woman is assaulted or beaten.
■Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. Most often, the abuser is a member of her own family.
■Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women—more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined.
■Studies suggest that up to 10 million children witness some form of domestic violence annually.
■Nearly 1 in 5 teenage girls who have been in a relationship said a boyfriend threatened violence or self-harm if presented with a breakup.
■Everyday in the US, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends.
■Ninety-two percent of women surveyed listed reducing domestic violence and sexual assault as their top concern.
■Domestic violence victims lose nearly 8 million days of paid work per year in the US alone—the equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs.
■Based on reports from 10 countries, between 55 percent and 95 percent of women who had been physically abused by their partners had never contacted non-governmental organizations, shelters, or the police for help.
■The costs of intimate partner violence in the US alone exceed $5.8 billion per year: $4.1 billion are for direct medical and health care services, while productivity losses account for nearly $1.8 billion.
■Men who as children witnessed their parents’ domestic violence were twice as likely to abuse their own wives than sons of nonviolent parents.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...see the injury of a public servant to be far more severe than the death of a mere citizen.
SteveW
(754 posts)"If you care about your fellow citizens, if you care about law enforcement, and if you care about the U.S. Constitution, you care about the best gun control we can legislate, otherwise you're just playing around with other peoples lives."
You set up some kind of morally-derived goal based on "care," then advocate "the best gun control we can legislate."
Neither your "cares" nor your "best" is defined; in short, it is a passionate and demagogic appeal.
It would appear from the article that gun-buyers were obtaining firearms from non-FFL dealers. When one purchases a firearm from out of state, you must secure the purchase through an FFL -- at both the receiving and the sending end of the deal. You can obtain drugs over the internet, quack cures for cancer, prostitutes, child porn, etc. If there is evidence of law-breaking, report it to the appropriate authority.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)You're not shocked at the lack of morality displayed by the sellers in those tapes? I'm sorry, but I'll make a moral appeal at this point, because clearly logic and reason aren't working.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And "the lack of morality displayed by the sellers" is strictly an opinion placed upon them by others, as apparently
no illegal sales to disqualified persons actually occurred.
SteveW
(754 posts)If there is law-breaking, then report it. Measuring "shock" value is meaningless if no one makes the effort.
You can make all the moral appeal you wish, but clearly you do so because YOUR "logic and reason aren't working."
You have played dodge ball to much here to be given much credibility, but that is a common ploy which clearly undercuts ANY sort of moral appeal you profess.
I think the City of New York would disagree with your rush to judgment. If they're willing to sell to someone like that they're willing to make an illegal deal. I have a strong feeling they reported this to the ATF and would be shocked if they haven't.
New York City is tired of this type of gun crime and is fed up with being silent about the senseless firearm violence that plagues this country. Enough is enough. If the laws are failing in fostering "a well regulated Militia," the firearms laws need to change IMHO.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Bloomburg has a reputation for this nonsense. The ATF has sent Bloomburg and MAIG cease and desist letters in the past. Were any guns actually shipped without going through a NY FFL? If not, no crime was committed.
The "well regulated militia" in 18th century language it means well equipped. The collective right theory has never been accepted as precedent.
New York City needs to clean its own house instead of trying to play fed, or Bloomburg being his usual conservative plutocratic authoritarian self, he should deal with his cops who mace peaceful protesters, steal guns from the armory and sell them to gangs, rubber stamp CCWs to rich racist coke heads like Don Imus.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I think it basically means ensuring that criminal and other dangerous elements i.e. "Indians" don't get their hands on them by allowing unscrupulous traders to stock up on weaponry before heading upstream.
I'm not defending Bloomberg, but to deny that there isn't a problem with reckless gun distribution in this country is to deny the reality. This report should only serve to emphasize that fact. Responsible gun owners should be encouraging this sort of action, not condemning attempts to bring the problem to public light. Why act like a herd of scared antelope who smell a lion prowling?
Pave pointed out, the fail rate was very low.
All of us are for making it harder for crooks and gangsters to arm themselves. That is the job of the ATF.
There are always a few reckless, or amoral, types in any population. They need to be rooted by real police work by people who have the jurisdiction to deal with it without making it a publicity stunt. Really, Bloomburg made a publicity stunt out of it. That makes me wonder if he isn't using city funds for his personal hobby horse.
Who is acting like a herd? More like watching something from Entertainment Tonight.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...because the task is far too big. I think we need to take responsible steps to ensure the laws can be enforced; and to make it more difficult for the types of spree shootings were seeing to be carried out. Do you agree that the present system is broken?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I doubt they are any more common here than they are in Europe once you adjust for population. They only seem common because they show up on the news, because it is rare. A couple of days ago some guy in some parolee in Belgium threw a couple of hand grenades at some Christmas shoppers. Is their system broken?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172796
Here is the real problem:
Our murder rate is about 4.8 per 100K, which is a 35 year low. That said, that is an average. When you break it down by locality, most of it is concentrated in places that are either drug smuggling routes or major distribution centers and gang activity in places like Chicago. Europe's illegal gun trade uses the same routes as the illegal drug trade.
Most murders and victims are basically the same demographic and have criminal records. Gangsters killing other gangsters.
That is why places like Vermont and Wyoming are as safe as Japan and Norway even with their very lax gun laws, and Chicago, Southern California, parts of Arizona are higher. The worst in the US is the US Virgin Islands, which has very strict laws, but has an astronomical murder rate (60/100K, like Jamaica after their gun ban).
That said:
I do not use drugs, I do not sell drugs, I do not sell guns to drug dealers. Why should my rights be curtailed because of a problem I do not contribute to?
When are bong owners going to face the fact that their money is fueling most of US and Mexican gun/gang violence?
How about pot smokers start a movement for violence free/fair trade certified weed? At least until prohibition ends.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)1. Gun violence happens everywhere.
2. I think the marijuana activists are advocating for legalization in large part because they think it'll put a stop to the cartels that feed off a senseless war on drugs.
3. Why should you have to take a drivers license exam and pay motor vehicle registration, it's not like other people cars affect you? You've never been in a crash right?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)appeal to emotion?
They did not get their guns legally. The straw buyer went to federal prison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_school_massacre
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)That incident required a lot of effort and ingenuity...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)some additional law will change that? No. Does USVI's strict gun laws do anything for them? Brazil's? Russia? Costa Rica for that matter? They all make us look like Norway. Russia has few gun murders, but their murder rate is five times ours.
Europe's murder rate is basically the same as it was when their laws were more like Vermont's. They passed their laws after the first world war because the governments feared left wing revolutionaries. They were more concerned with Amy Goodman than this guy in California.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)It's clear that the major social and economic changes of the last two decades have had a major impact on Russian crime rates, including violent crimes. The crime rate doubled between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s, when Russia was in the throes of its transition from the Soviet system to a market economy. Criminologists believe that the social problems associated with the transition, such as rising alcoholism and drug addiction, and strains on family life caused by economic difficulties, explain the sharp increase in violent crimes.
The 1990s also saw the emergence of business-related violence and organized crime. But these represent a relatively small share of all violence in Russia, which is mainly the result of domestic disputes. In a country long known for its love of hard liquor, alcohol abuse is a major factor, contributing to around two-thirds of all Russia's murders. When former President Gorbachev briefly restricted alcohol sales in the late 1980s, the rate of violent crime fell dramatically.
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/oct2006/gb20061019_110749_page_2.htm
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You will also note that the US's crime and murder rates have dropped since then.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I'm not arguing rates; I'm arguing horrific cases in which the system has entirely failed the victims.
End discussion.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Those seem to be rather nice places otherwise...
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)We just keep on doing our business because people get shot everyday in America. The Belgian case is interesting; I wonder where he got grenades, but again just more good arguments that there are far too many guns available and anyone can get them.
Do you know any victims of gun violence?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)What schools have you attended? They should recind any qualifications they bestowed upon you and give you a refund of any fees charged.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I simply pointed out that this man clearly had access to black market weapons.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)But I do know a good case.
Suzanna Hupp was in a restaurant with her parents, and being a law-abiding citizen kept her gun in the car as was the law.
Then a guy came in and slowly and methodically started shooting people execution-style.
She reached for the gun in her purse, but it wasn't there, because of the law.
Then the guy murdered both of her parents, her father when he tried to rush the gunman, her mother as she cradled her dying husband in her arms.
It's people like YOU who caused laws that disarmed this poor woman, preventing her from saving her parents.
It's people like YOU who killed her parents.
The guy with the gun certainly wouldn't have cared about a little gun charge on top of a couple dozen murder charges, but he planned to kill himself anyway so he didn't even care about those.
This law-abiding woman did care about a gun charge, and now her parents are dead.
I'm sure she thanks you.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...and two legally purchased semi-automatic handguns.
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20111193,00.html
I wonder how the merchant who sold him those weapons felt afterwards.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)How vile of you.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Just shows you've got nothing to stand on in this argument - all you've got left is fear and intimidation.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)You are the one trying to sell fear and intimidation.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I just want common sense gun control.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)I have asked this of many, and to date have recieved no answers.
Will you be the first?
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I wrote above: I think we need limits on the amount of dealers, types of weapons dealers, types possessed, ammo possession, local organization and regular inspection.
I'm no fool. I am just tired of seeing senseless death and violence because we refuse to control firearms in this country. None of these restrictions would infringe on the Second Amendment rights.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Would you accept "regular inspection" of your hard drives and storage media?
I think not. What you propose not only infringes the Second Amendment, but the Fourth, as well.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)You need to show that you still possess your legally owned firearm and that it is properly stored to prevent theft when not in use and absent from your home. I don't think that is unreasonable in the least.
Don't change the subject.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)You see nothing wrong with that?
Lets see, ownership of weapons is a protected right. What is in my home is mine and legally considered mine whether I secure it further or not. Theft is illegal already.
You're seriously suggesting people should have to regularly allow the state into their home to prove their property is theirs and secured to meet some arbitrary standard against theft?
Are you insane?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Do you feel the same way about the DMV? How do you feel when a police officer requests to see your license and registration during a traffic stop?
A law abiding citizen would have nothing to fear.
Are you aware of all the suffering caused by your privileged false interpretation?
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)The DMV does nothing but give me my license to operate a vehicle on public roads. If I chose to drive on private property only, I would have no need to become involved with them.
If I'm being stopped by a police officer, I have obviously done something illegal in his opinion. At that point, his request for my license and proof of financial responsibility (they don't ask for registration in Texas) is 100% legitimate as I need both to legally operate a vehicle on public roads.
These are analogous to a CCW permit - not to firearms ownership.
As far as your comment of a law abiding citizen having nothing to fear...that is without a doubt the most disgusting mentality you could have. There is NOTHING right about that attitude in my not so humble opinion. Such a view is much more suited to a member of the Stasi or SS. I find such a statement to be repulsive and repugnant.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)If you wish to alert on it, fine- but it's not your call to make.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Let's not have a discussion, just show how virulently disrespectful we can we be.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)I think we need limits on the amount of dealers, types of weapons dealers, types possessed, ammo possession, local organization and regular inspection.
What limits on the number of FFL dealers. Type , limits on number per city, county, state?
Types possessed. Limits on what types of firearms they can sell? Bolt action rifles and revolvers only? Single shots only? No pumps and lever actions? Only "California legal" semi-autos?
Ammo possession? Caliber, type, ammount?
Local organization ??????
Regular inspection. Store, home , shop?
Now can/will you finally answer the questions. Or are you going to mumble something and run.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Bottom line: gun control as it currently exists is failing to do protect public safety and needs to be improved.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)WHAT IMPROVEMENTS WOULD YOU SUGGEST?
Specifics please, not vague suggestions. Please identify how those "improvements" would only protect public safety, not infringe upon rights or make any of the public unsafe.
Its OK to admit you don't really have a clue and you're simply demonizing guns and their owners because you feel helpless to effect any of the real changes in human nature which would be required to accomplish even your implied goals.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)That's a shitty way to run a government.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)That's what the legislative process is for. 
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)The devil is in the details. You can not write down the changes that you would have happen, because you do not know enough about the subject in hand. You scream CHANGE IT!! CHANGE IT NOW!!! Yet you have no idea of what the current law is, or what changes you want, nor how these changes will effect those law abiding citizans who would be effected by those changes.
All you want to do is cry in your hanky and scream like a small child.
Way to go! That will garner a lot of support for your cause.
Untill you can come up with a resoned plan to present to the people who will be effected, then you are just another in a long line of controlers who want their way. No matter what the cost.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)What cost? What tangible cost would real gun regulation bring to your life?
I've stated several other places the outlines of what I would like to see. Maybe I'll draft/or find some legislation, but I think I've been pretty clear.
"All you want to do is cry in your hanky and scream like a small child."
If I didn't have a point there wouldn't be 7 or 8 posters trying to silence my right to express my desire for real gun control.
Also, the insults to my intelligence on the subject are really wearing thin, and are self-discrediting. If I had not been treated with such incivility I would have probably made my point and moved on.
ellisonz
Scared and Livin in L.A.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Lets see - using your suggestion as the baseline (2 guns max without approval and justification, enforced and confirmed safe storage, no carry allowed, checks on ammunition purchases and total ownership, restrictions on type of firearm)
First there would be the obvious tangible cost of losing a large amount of firearms and ammunition - some permanently, others until I could obtain the appropriate dispensation from the priests, er i mean, permission from local law enforcement. Thats in the thousands of dollars.
Then there's the additional tangible cost of having to incorporate your prescribed method of safe storage, which would apparently not be left to my discretion but would have to meet an arbitrary standard certain to include an expensive safe.
Then there's the loss of time from my job to enable state agents to check on my storage at their convenience and discretion.
Now the intangibles would be the loss of my freedom to make my own choices. The loss of my security in my own home as I would be obligated to allow government agents in at any time. The loss of an effective tool to protect myself and/or my family.
There's some costs for you my friend. All of those costs assume I actually comply with such laws. Non-compliance would of course increase those costs dramatically. Incidentally, I wouldn't comply...
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Buyback programs are nothing new.
You have to buy a child safety seat before a hospital will let you take a new born - if you can afford the gun, you can afford a safe or a trigger lock.
Complaining about your time? You really are selfish. Do you want to be part of the "well regulated Militia" or do you just want toys?
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...the government couldn't afford the cost of compensation. Besides, if they're going to simply ignore the 2nd Amendment, why not ignore the 5th as well?
"buyback" programs are quite new, and utterly mis-named. They are not buying anything back as it was never theirs in the first place.
No, i do not have to buy a child safety seat before I bring home a newborn. Hate to break it to you.
Claiming I can afford a safe if i can afford the gun proves you really don't know what you're talking about. Priced a gun safe lately?
Yes - my time. My time that I would be forced to give for free to some mindless drone of a government agent simply to meet his schedule.
You asked what the costs were. I provided them. Calling me "selfish" because I believe I own my time is nothing more than a childish insult.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I don't think it'd be hard to find funding for such a program.
Umm...does your state not require children to use them?
So obviously, your time and money is more important that those of the victims of violence carried out by criminals who steal firearms from people exactly like you.
You don't really seem to feel much of a sense of civic responsibility there citizen
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...impossible to find such funding.
Yes, my state does require it, but the hospital is not an enforcement arm of the state.
Yes, my time and money is far more important to me than the acts of criminals. I fail to see why I should think otherwise.
You don't really seem to have much understanding of a free society, comrade.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...the price free society pays for your privilege.
Abbreviations: FMVSS = Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard • AAP = American Academy of Pediatrics • NHTSA = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
All newborns discharged from hospitals should be transported home in car safety seats that meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 213 and that are selected to meet the specific transportation needs of healthy newborns, premature infants, or infants with special health care needs.
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;104/4/986
"my time and money is far more important to me than the acts of criminals."
You should listen to the other posters who do have safes/trigger locks and why they have them.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)However, what I have is none of your concern.
As far as what you posted, that is a recommendation from a non-government agency which has no enforcement ability.
Thanks for playing, but once again, you fail.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)You'd be breaking the law as soon as you hit the road. The hospital would be liable.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)However, that does not give the hospital the authority to enforce the law. Whether or not I would be breaking the law when I hit the road is irrelevant. The hospital is not liable, and it is none of their concern.
Do you really not understand how things work in the real world? You post like a 12 year old who thinks he has a clue.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Please, go ask a nurse how this works.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Perhaps I should fill you in on a little piece of information.
I'm married to a NICU nurse. I assure you - i am aware of these policies and laws on a level you cannot comprehend.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)This nutcase, guns acquired legally or illegally, could have been stopped right in the beginning by Ms. Hupp.
Yet types like you disarmed her, removed her ability to protect herself and her parents.
How does that make YOU feel?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)We'll never know - stop pretending like you do. It would be a split second decision.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)He started shooting others, she reached into her purse.
Many times he was concentrated on others, she was helpless.
Shot or not, she would have had a chance.
You played God. You decided that she should not have that chance.
How does it feel to be God? Righteous?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)If I had my way, he would have never had been able to walk in a store and buy a gun.
Stop defending irresponsible gun owners and sellers.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)Alternatively, he could have bought it on a street corner from a gang member. Where he got his guns doesn't really matter, since someone who wants one can get one illegally.
You know, illegally, breaking current laws and any new laws that you may propose. Illegally, just like the Columbine kids got their guns. Under current gun law the psycho at Virginia tech shouldn't have had a gun either, but the health care system failed that.
Meanwhile, those people who obey the law are DEAD because you took that option for self protection out of their hands.
If you propose things, I suggest you propose a system that doesn't put blood directly on your hands.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)His feelings about someone committing an illegal act months after being sold a legal product have no bearing on a damned thing.
I suspect he was as concerned about it as the liquor store owner is after selling a guy a bottle of Jack Daniels in February and then discovering the customer was involved in a drunk driving accident months after the fact. In other words, not at all.
SteveW
(754 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but yeah it was the red scare, just like Canada was immigrants.
poverty, inequality, and social problems.
Compare our poverty, inequality, residual racism etc, with western Europe. Oh yeah, the drug war.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Laws (printed words on paper) do little or nothing to stop anyone from doing anything in and of themselves. Laws deliniate what society (or lawmakers, not always the same thing) has determined to be acceptable behavior, and set forth punishments for violating the boundaries of that behavior. They are only as effective as their enforcement, and only so long as enough people agrre that they are appropriate.
In other words, you are trying to deal with the effects, not the causes. Any engineer can tell you how effective and efficient that will be.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...and continues to fail.
Time for a change.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)Yet you seem to think more laws, not enforcement of the current laws, would prevent events such as Columbine.
What makes you think your new laws would be enforced any better than the old ones?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)We're not constructing a fricking Lego set
Here, learn something from a Constitutional law instructor:
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Your answers have been notably short on specifics, to date.
Granted, you *are* an improvement over another poster here, who changes his answer depending on what
site he posts on. However, debate is much like football- punting doesn't win, it only staves off defeat...
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)How they acquired their weapons was ALREADY ILLEGAL.
How can you make that "better" that could have stopped it?
Do we make it more illegal?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the purpose of motor vehicle registration is to pay for roads. Most people take the driver's exam once maybe? I took one in Wyoming when I was in high school, one for Japan, and one for Korea.
You can own a car without a license. You don't have to register your car either, just can't take it on public roads.
rare is not acceptable, but simply a reality. The worst school mass murder in the US was not carried out with guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
This post is after a Dutch mall shooting. I think Wilhelm Heitmeyer is worth listening to.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=401308&mesg_id=401895
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)because they think it'll put a stop to the cartels that feed off a senseless war on drugs. Call my cynical, but I think it has more to do with not wanting to go to jail themselves. Most of them really don't give a rat's ass about the violence as long as they have the NRA as a scapegoat, or too dim to ponder how the local dealer can afford a gun.
Just like Brady does not give a rat's ass about violence or suicide, only those committed with guns because it serves their purpose.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)People know shit is fucked; they're not stupid.
DonP
(6,185 posts)Ummmm, Maybe you should just go to bed now and try again in a different forum in thie morning.
Maybe something less controversial, like Israel/Palestine?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I'll do I/P tomorrow.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11345
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113449
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1138
You can find me in the Democracy for America, World History, American History or Hawaii Groups. Or go to my journal to access political cartoons 5 days a week.
Seeing those recordings on Maddow tonight just pissed me the fuck off, along with what happened to my friend in Oakland.
"My intent was to cancel my fb but as I just got my phone robbed at gunpoint on my way home. Im using fb as my means of communication for now"
"Thanks everyone and no Im not joking Kellie. I tried to use my pepper spray and when he noticed it on the keychain i was already holding he assured me I would only get shot in the leg if I used it. If Im going to continue in Oakland I gotta get a bicycle the cops told me they've had no reports of bicyclists being robbed while riding."
"Thoughts while in the shower: If you have nothing of monetary value-than you have nothing to fear."
All the guns in the world, aren't worth a single innocent human life...
DonP
(6,185 posts)I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Rachel is an idiot as far as gun laws go.
There have already been several cases where she has proven to be, let's say, less than poorly informed by her staff, on the actual laws and facts.
But if you're one of those "Rachel is always right" followers, bless you for having a faith based religion to believe in.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)This country has a problem with putting putative individual rights over actual human rights.
You might want to add a tag next time. It's easy - just type : sarcasm : without the spaces.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Though I'm not sure what the distinction between to two catagories is. Perhaps you can enlighten us. Hope, after all, springs eternal...
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)"I tried to use my pepper spray and when he noticed it on the keychain i was already holding he assured me I would only get shot in the leg if I used it. "
changed to
"I tried to use my .44, and when he noticed it pointing in his face he shit his pants and ran."
People like you often say things like pepper spray are good alternatives for self defense, women don't need guns. Obviously this woman needed a gun rather than pepper spray.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I'm practically a frickin' Buddhist - give him what he wants - what use is it getting shot over an iPhone and a hundred bucks. Seriously, there's a reason all businesses advise do not resist a robbery attempt. She is not the sharpest tool in the shed. If you have a gun, and he has a gun, and you make a move for it you're likely to get shot and lucky to live.
You seem to watch far too many movies, I suggest reading more newspapers
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)The business is insured, the business is responsible. It's about money.
It has no bearing on an individual person being able to defend himself.
So you're practically a Buddhist?
There was an earlier thread: Those into meditation can make good shots.
You should try it.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but seems like you have been watching too many 1970s cop shows.
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” the Dalai Lama
What he does not know is that shooting someone in the leg is very hard and just as lethal. There was a case of a lady here in Florida that shot an armed robber (who decided to kidnap her toddler) after she gave him the money, IIRC. The bullet hit the femoral artery, he bled to death in less than three minutes.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010515&slug=dalai15m0
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,3916,0,0,1,0
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Which just goes to show that people treat guns like toys in this country and the laws and culture need to change towards responsibility.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the knife welding robber kidnapped her child after she gave up the money. That is what got him shot. Who was treating it like a toy?
I fail to see irresponsibility on her part. You are starting to rattle off inane sound bites.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I've got better things to do. But if you need me to hold your hand to understand the damage this failed system of gun control is causing and how we can fix, I'm here for you buddy. 
:pray: - wait, we don't have that one
You guys threw everything but the kitchen sink and I'm still not even remotely convinced you have a point.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I'd say this illustrates the difference between statistics and anecdotal media accounts.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-preliminary-semiannual-crime-statistics-for-2011
FBI Releases Preliminary Semiannual Crime Statistics for 2011
FBI Washington
December 19, 2011 FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691
Statistics released today in the FBI’s Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report indicate that the number of violent crimes reported in the first six months of 2011 declined 6.4 percent when compared with figures from the first six months of 2010. The number of property crimes decreased 3.7 percent for the same time frame. The report is based on information from more than 12,500 law enforcement agencies that submitted three to six comparable months of data to the FBI in the first six months of 2010 and 2011.
Violent Crime
■All four offenses in the violent crime category—murder and nonnegligent homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault—decreased when data from the first six months of 2011 and the first six months of 2010 were compared. The number of murders declined 5.7 percent, and the number of rapes decreased 5.1 percent. Robbery declined 7.7 percent, and aggravated assault decreased 5.9 percent.
■Law enforcement agencies in all six city population groups reported decreases in violent crime. Cities with populations of 50,000 to 99,999 inhabitants recorded the largest decrease in violent crime at 7.2 percent. Violent crime also declined in metropolitan counties (7.6 percent) and in nonmetropolitan counties (6.4 percent).
■Violent crime declined in each of the nation’s four regions. The largest decrease (9.7 percent) was in the Midwest, followed by 6.6 percent in the West, 5.8 percent in the South, and 3.6 percent in the Northeast.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Gun control and better policing - consider the changes: computers, DNA, hand held video camera, forensic improvements across the board. Logically, if people think they're going to get caught they're less likely to transgress. Your argument is not the least bit convincing to a serious historian or sociologist - only one's have made a political bed - you can't make a 1:1 correlation - it's too complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_arguments_of_gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Logical_Pitfalls_in_the_Gun-Violence_Debate
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And *that* after the same rates dropping in 2010 over 2009 as well:
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2010-crime-statistics
FBI Releases 2010 Crime Statistics
Washington, D.C.
September 19, 2011 FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691
According to the figures released today by the FBI, the estimated number of violent crimes in 2010 declined for the fourth consecutive year. Property crimes also decreased, marking this the eighth straight year that the collective estimates for these offenses declined.
The 2010 statistics show that the estimated volumes of violent and property crimes declined 6.0 percent and 2.7 percent, respectively, when compared with the 2009 estimates. The violent crime rate for the year was 403.6 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants (a 6.5 percent decrease from the 2009 rate), and the property crime rate was 2,941.9 offenses per 100,000 persons (a 3.3 percent decrease from the 2009 figure).
These and additional data are presented in the 2010 edition of the FBI’s annual report Crime in the United States. This publication is a statistical compilation of offense and arrest data reported by law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program.
The UCR program collects information on crimes reported by law enforcement agencies regarding the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, as well as the property crimes of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. (Although the FBI classifies arson as a property crime, it does not estimate arson data because of variations in the level of participation by the reporting agencies. Consequently, arson is not included in the property crime estimate.) The program also collects arrest data for the offenses listed above, plus 20 additional offenses that include all other crimes except traffic violations.
In 2010, there were 18,108 city, county, university and college, state, tribal, and federal agencies that participated in the UCR program. A summary of the statistics reported by these agencies, which are included in Crime in the United States, 2010, follows:
■Nationwide in 2010, there were an estimated 1,246,248 violent crimes.
■Each of the four violent crime offenses decreased when compared with the 2009 estimates. Robbery had the largest decrease at 10.0 percent, followed by forcible rape with a 5.0 percent decline, murder and nonnegligent manslaughter with a 4.2 percent decrease, and aggravated assault with a 4.1 percent decline....
I suspect your animus is against guns themselves, not gun crime....
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I don't know what your definition of success is, but this ain't it. I suggest you're reliance on ad hominem attacks reveals your intellectual dishonesty in not considering all causal factors. Merely trying to construct a nice chart and simple argument to support the position that the massive availability of guns has nothing to do with our still unacceptable gun crime rates is just endorsing NRA talking points.
I don't know how to get this across: how you select your data set determines the result you'll get. This is why sociology ultimately fails as a discipline and needs historians to clean up their theoretical mess.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Since you seem to have more than a smidgen of anhedonia in regard to our demonstrably declining violent crime and murder rates,
one might reasonably conclude that it's the actual *gun ownership* that you object to.
That seems to run perilously close to Robert Bork's theory of moral harm:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x394308#394404
X_Digger (1000+ posts) Wed Mar-23-11 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. I'm sure it's the Robert Bork 'moral harm' principle in action..
As writer Dan Baum said in a recent Harper's article (August, 2010)..
.....My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"
Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that “knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.”
It’s as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revile—smoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gun—but if we aren’t adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe....
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I'm not talking about feelings. I'm talking about clearly factual lines of negligence and civic responsibility.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You haven't been as safe in decades, yet you claim that gun control has failed and more laws are necessary.
1994 is long in the past in political terms, and to use a Southernism: "That dog don't hunt".
Adjust.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)And again, the crime rate is down much more because of better policing, medical care, and gun control than anything else, but it's not working as it should.
Ever hear the phrase: when you throw a rock at a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one you hit.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)The quantity of propaganda items you've posted is impressive. The Anti-Saloon League would be proud.
Personally, I find the various Brady Campaigns and the Violence Policy Center to be weak reflections of
moral crusaders like the ASL and Women's Christian Temperence Union.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Well hold the horses, the rest of the country that thinks our gun control isn't working quite right and the solution is more guns must be quite off base.
Here, you get three political cartoons (btw - just searching "gun control" in the database produces almost entirely anti-gun lobby cartoons - maybe these pen-men are onto something):
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)umm like basically every criminologist that objectively studied it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all
So studies done by economists (popular in climate science denial too) and MDs, funded by the same foundation and couple of rich people who gives Brady their astro turf money isn't propaganda?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)This article actually supports the fundamental idea of real gun control and disproves your claim that my characterization of academia and other professionals being dominantly for gun control is incorrect...nowhere in the article do any of the conservatives interviewed claim the opposite is true.
-----
The individual rights view is far from universally accepted. “The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion supports the near-unanimous view of the federal courts that the constitutional right to be armed is linked to an organized militia,” said Dennis A. Henigan, director of the legal action project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The exceptions attract attention precisely because they are so rare and unexpected.”
Scholars who agree with gun opponents and support the collective rights view say the professors on the other side may have been motivated more by a desire to be provocative than by simple intellectual honesty.
---------
“The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all,” Mr. Burger said in a speech. In a 1991 interview, Mr. Burger called the individual rights view “one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Burger - The former Chief Justice of the United States - 1969-1986 - appointed by Richard Nixon. I might just have to make that it's own thread...
Is keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable not a good reason?
And you get another cartoon...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...a small detail that you seem to have overlooked.
And if sheer amount of ink/and or electrons expended to promote a point of view is indicative of truth and/or importance, we must also likewise be concerned with missing cute white girls, the war on Christmas, and the adventures of the Kardashian family...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)do you have any evidence to support your theory on why the drop? Canada's is also dropping (it rough mirrors ours. Rises when ours does and drops when ours does)
What gun control is that? You mean the local laws being repealed?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I mean databases, forensics, DNA etc...
Please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_arguments_of_gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Logical_Pitfalls_in_the_Gun-Violence_Debate
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)read the whole thing.
hack89
(39,181 posts)do you support the banning of certain types of booze? Or do you support banning the sale of alcohol to certain types of people?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)And yes, I think that if you pick up a couple DUIs you should be prohibited from purchasing alcohol because obviously you cannot do so responsibly - this could be easily accomplished with a slight modification to existing drivers licenses and would be a common sense step to reduce alcoholism in society and make the roads safer.
hack89
(39,181 posts)by law abiding citizens. Why not treat guns the same way? Restrict certain people and hammer people that break the law?
Because often times hammering people that break the law only comes after other people have died/been injured.
That's like saying the death penalty is a deterrent to crime.
hack89
(39,181 posts)if not , why?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I think that if you get convicted of multiple DUIs - you probably shouldn't be able to buy alcohol. Call me a fascist but how many times do we see people will a lengthy DUI record still driving and causing mayhem because they can still get their hands on alcohol.
Do you believe this country has a problem with gun violence, if not, why?
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...you don't want someone restricted from purchasing alcohol until they have been actually convicted of multiple criminal acts in which they misused alcohol AND vehicles. You some how seem to think though that the innocent should have to prove they've done no wrong and be continually subjected to searches and repeated proof of their innocence so as to exercise a constitutionally protected right....
Does this country have a problem with "gun violence"? No, not really. It has a problem with violent crime, largely as a result of the drug trade and guns are frequently misused by those criminals, but that is not the same thing as "gun violence"....
Guns do not commit violence, nor are they responsible for the act of a human being. We have a violence problem Simple as that.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Stop enabling criminals. I'd say it should be one and done for people who are way way way over the limit - not just at 1.2 - but if you're going to get behind the wheel at 2.0 plus then yeah - you probably shouldn't be able to buy alcohol for a time. I'm really starting to get the impression you've never known anybody who's been harmed by gun violence or drunk driving. If not, please stop, because you don't have any idea what the rest of us go through because of this insanity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System - Or are you not familiar with what gets one prohibited from buying guns.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)But again, why let facts get in the way. I've lost friends to drunk drivers and in fact, I NEVER drive with alcohol in my system. I'm usually the DD in fact. As far as losing people to your mythical gun violence, I've lost 3 friends to suicide who used firearms to do it, and known a few people who got into altercations with others and got shot for their trouble. I have not once considered that the solution would be to disarm those who have done no wrong.
I'm far more familiar with NICS than you are as well as what gets one prohibited from buying a new firearm through an FFL and makes it illegal to own one. I know this because of what you have said which have demonstrated your utter lack of understanding.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Our problem is not with guns per se - gun violence in America is influenced by two easily correctable problems:
1. Adequately fund mental health programs to reduce not only maniacal spree shooters but also suicides.
2. Rationalize our drug laws, legalize recreational drugs and treat it as a public health problem. Our murder rate is drastically skewed by drug gangs fighting for business and territory. Violent crime is not evenly distributed in America while gun ownership is - that should tell you something significant.
The one thing I keep in mind is that I have never been safer in my 50 years of life - violent crime is at historic lows and steadily falling (incidentally while the number of guns in America has steadily increased). So I do not subscribe to the notion that we are experiencing an epidemic of gun violence that calls for drastic changes in gun laws. The simple fact that gun violence has decreased while gun laws have been liberalized tells me we are on the right track.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)30 years ago there were no background checks. No NCIS - so basically gun control is both correlative and causation. With better gun control - we'd have low violent crime levels like most other modern Westernized nations.
It's still far too easy for criminals and the deranged to get their hands on guns.
hack89
(39,181 posts)I think we need limits on the amount of dealers, types of weapons dealers, types of firearms possessed, ammo possession, and locally organized, regular inspection. You know, like a real Militia.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Why not concentrate on criminals if gun crime is the issue? Why are you punishing those who have never committed a crime and will likely never commit a crime?
I personally hope you continue pushing your agenda - gun owners need people like you to keep the issue on the front burner.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)What can we do stop this? Why do you see civic responsibility as "punishing?"
Would you care to comment on this case: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11721735
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)There are no "illegal guns".
There are illegal owners.
The distinction may be too subtle for some....
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)The gun of an illegal owner is an illegal gun.
More verbal pretzel logic from the Pusher.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)By the way, I wasn't quite correct. Cutting a rifle or shotgun barrel to short without government permission makes a gun illegal. Converting a semi-auto to full-auto makes a gun illegal (and generally very dangerous... to the user).
hack89
(39,181 posts)that is a tragic example of what happens when mental health care is put beyond the reach of most people. It is an easy problem to fix.
I will also point out that it is a rare event and that police shootings have also been steadily declining.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)You want to punish everyone for misdeeds of a few.
As an extrapolation, if you treated alcohol like guns, you would require breathalyzer interlocks in every vehicle in the US on the grounds it "might save X number of lives a year due to DUI." Even though the majority of people do not DUI, you would punish everyone because of your moral posturing.
In other words everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent.
That is not the way this country works.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Julio González, arsonist at Happy Land Social Club in the Bronx, NY, March 1990. 87 people were killed.
He killed more than any firearm mass murderer has killed.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)They are one of the top ten leading causes of accidental death for all age groups outside of newborns and infants.
In 2007, there were 122 unintentional firearm deaths in children, and an additional 3,060 nonfatal gun and shooting accidents, which resulted in an estimated 1,375 children needing to be hospitalized for their injuries.
These gun and shooting accidents, all tragedies, highlight the importance of learning about gun safety and discussing gun safety with your pediatrician.
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/safety/a/gun-accidents.htm
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The word "child" is normally used to mean a human who is below puberty, usually between birth to 12 years old. The data is searchable at http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html. To get 122 deaths one has to include people up and including 17 year olds.
Out of a population of 53 million children even 122 deaths are fairly rare and 51 is quite rare. Fifty-one deaths is a bit less than one in a million. In that same year, dhildren 12 and under suffered the following accidental death rates:
1,358 Suffocation
728 Drowning
474 Fire
149 Poisoning
165 Walking - Does not include struck by cars
If you are truly concerned about child accidental deaths then there are other causes that are more urgent.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Because most people in major cities will tell you that illegal firearms are a preventable problem.
If I saw minor it's a valid statement....they're not old enough to vote.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The one I carry concealed on a daily basis is completely legal and isn't a problem.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)That's the problem - are you prepared to tolerate non-compliance or would you just do nothing to stop the distribution of firearms to criminals?
Here in Los Angeles, some hospitals won't let you take home an infant unless the child seat in your care has been inspected for proper installation by either hospital staff or law enforcement.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Just because I don't like criminals using them does not mean I wish to do nothing about it.
However, I recognize that forcing those who have done nothing wrong to prove they are innocent does nothing but waste energy better spent pursuing the actual crimes.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...restricting those who have not committed a crime prevent crime exactly?
Using that logic, we are all merely children - incapable of thinking for ourselves who need a bureaucrat to be our surrogate parent and guide us through life, lest we make a mistake and fail to be a productive member of the hive...
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Were you home-schooled? Are you not familiar with child welfare laws? Have you ever been in a classroom as a teacher?
What don't you understand about the hundreds of thousands of gun thefts in this country usually by criminals who then go on to use them in criminal acts.
Either you have bought the NRA lies totally or you live a very sheltered life.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)...i obtained my education is none of your concern. I am somewhat familiar with the overall concept of child welfare laws, but hardly heavily conversant in them. I have never been a teacher. I am, however, a parent, and that gives me far more insight and experience into child rearing than either of those professions.
I understand regardless of the number of gun thefts, the solution is not to make it illegal for the law abiding to own something criminals like to steal. That's like making cars illegal because they get stolen, or money illegal because people get mugged. In other words - fucking stupid.
Couldn't care less what the NRA says. They're nothing but a lobbying group and whether or not my life has been sheltered is as much of your concern as my educational pedigree.
Do you actually have the words to support your position, or does your entire argument distill to making random irrational statements combined with attacks on those who ask you to support them?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Government has an interest in how you raise your children, why shouldn't it have an interest in how you keep your guns?
You just lost the argument.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Government is tasked with educating my child, not raising her, and it has no "interest" in how my child is raised unless I do something to harm her.
As far as why it has no interest in how I keep my firearms, it has not been granted such power so it simply does not have it.
I have not lost any argument, unless your definition of "lost" comes from the same fantastical dictionary as so many of your definitions.
Let me know when you actually have some facts to lend to the discussion. Your wild flights of fancy and mental masturbation do not in any way rise to the standard of intelligent debate.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Every time your child goes to school/the doctor/church it's a de facto check on your parenting - if there were signs of neglect you would likely be reported, investigated, and possibly submitted to legal action.
Why guns shouldn't be subjected to reasonable responsibility tests is beyond me...I hope for the sake of your child you keep them unloaded and locked the fuck up when you're using them. Seriously, get a machete for your bedroom or something.
Aloha.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)It is a check to ensure the child is not harmed, not a check on my parenting. BIG difference. What you propose is akin to having a child taken away because the teacher disagrees with the color combination she is wearing that day, or how her hair is done.
Guns are not subjected to a responsibility test simply because guns have no responsibility. They are tools. Their owners are assumed reasonable and responsible unless and until they prove otherwise. That's how things are done in a free society inhabited by adults. Children must prove they are responsible, adults do not.
How i keep my firearms is not your concern.
Keeping a machete around would be far more dangerous. There's that whole sharp edge thing and the fact that one need not actually have to understand how to use it before cutting oneself with it. Frankly, your suggestion is borderline retarded.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Differences in definitions of child neglect in State laws and in community standards reflect the significant variations in the judgments of professionals and nonprofessionals concerning what constitutes child neglect. Some State statutes emphasize the condition of the child without any mention of parental fault; others stress the condition of the child resulting from parental actions or fault. Some communities have determined that no child under age 10 should be left at home alone, while other communities "permit" working parents to leave their children unsupervised after school.
Defining neglect is complicated by the necessity of considering the following:
What are the indispensable, minimally adequate types of care that children require?
What actions or failures to act on the part of the parents or other caretaker constitute neglectful behavior?
Must the parent's or caretaker's action or inaction be intentional, willful or not?
What are the effects of the actions or inactions on the child's health, safety, and development?
Is the family's situation a result of poverty, or a result of parental neglect?
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/neglect/neglectb.cfm
Hopefully, one day it will be a police concern...
It takes a substantial amount of force to inflict harm with a bladed object that most young children lack. Ever used one for outdoor work or similarly an axe? It's not like a gun or a knife which can cause fatal injury. Seriously...I hope you keep your firearms safely.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Once again. you're wrong.
It takes 1 psi to cut the skin. That's it. It would be very easy for a young child to harm himself with one.
As far as how I store my firearms and the precautions I take, they are none of your concern. That is my responsibility alone. Thank you for your concern, however, your concern does not justify your desire to restrict the rights of free men.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Christmas gift.
I built him a custom 20"HB AR-15a2. For him to use in competition, and hunting.
Complete with 5 20rd mags, hard case, and softcase.
Pretty neat present for a 13yr old boy.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)How do you need 20 rounds to hunt?
Have you ever seen the Deer Hunter? If not, I suggest it as a start to reconsidering your position on the greatness of such gifts.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)In Florida, you can only have a 5 round mag for hunting. At a target range, does not matter. In Wyoming, the most common caliber is not legal for deer hunting (too small caliber) but if it the .308 version it is.
Maybe it is for target shooting.
Since some hunting areas in Scandinavia require silencers, should all hunting rifles in Norway and Finland be fitted with silencers by law?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)The rifle is for competition AND hunting. As for the 20 rds I would guess that you have never hunted wild hogs.
As for the movie, I do not watch Viet era movies. I was there.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Well you should watch the Deer Hunter - Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken, Meryl Streep.
I hope you buy a trigger lock/keep it in a safe.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)he was actually entered in the bow hunters hall of fame.
Either I need to see the movie again or you are going off on a tangent about Russian roulette.
Locks usually come with them. My Walther has one built in. The kids are grown and my safe is meth head proof.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Too many people are not responsible...I don't get why responsible gun owners defend the rights of irresponsible ones. Seems counterproductive, no?
The Russian roulette scenes are metaphor for the insanity of doing nothing to stop the inevitable.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Yes all of my firearms are locked in one of four safes. With the exeption of my and my Loving Wife's carry arms. Those reside in their holsters by our sides.
I really don't care how you hunt pigs on the Islands, as it has no bearing on Texas.
Have you decided on what restrictions you would "allow" honest owners of firearms collections?
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)But since all firearm owners can't be as responsible as you we need to take steps to ensure "a well regulated Militia."
You can find my ideas on restrictions all over this thread.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)Less than 20% of gun owners hunt, and hunting is not a requirement to own firearms. Never has been.
I've never been hunting in my life - have zero desire to do so. Yes, I am fully aware as to the origins of meat, but I am personally very uncomfortable with the idea of killing an animal out of anything other than necessity or kindness.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)Mainly it's poor allocation of resources. They spent over a decade going after one dealer, Jim's Guns, because of incorrect paperwork. They revoked the license. They went to court.
Jim's had a documented history of constantly taking successful measures to improve recordkeeping to comply with the myriad complex laws, they had a documented history of internally stating to employees that they must follow the law. Yet the ATF still wanted to shut them down, claiming a willful violation of the law.
At the time of the store's worst performance, the error rate was less than one percent (and remember, the store improved considerably since that). The ATF still wanted to shut them down.
And then the judge asked an interesting question: ATF, do YOU have such a low error rate in YOUR paperwork?
The ATF had to admit they didn't. Jim's Guns won.
Perhaps if the ATF concentrated on unscrupulous gun shops, those who knowingly sell to strawmen, those who knowingly sell to ineligible people, then they could do their job better. Why the ATF isn't doing stings like this is a VERY good question. Instead, they tell gun shops to let straw buyers through so they can rack up more gun deaths in the Mexican drug wars.
The real problem is that the ATF is run by people like you. They do not want to see the current gun laws work. They prefer to harrass honest businesses and citizens to discourage legal gun ownership, while letting crime get by so they can lobby for even more strict and absurd laws.
BTW, about the ATF's error rate. Anybody who gets an NFA tax tamp weapon is told (not by the ATF, by others with experience) to put their original tax stamp in a safe deposit box and only carry a copy with the weapon in case local police ask questions. The reason is that the ATF is notorious for losing their copy, and you go to jail if you can't produce your original when asked, and the ATF lost theirs. This is the kind of "crime" that receives immense ATF resources to prosecute. It's easier than going after criminals, and it takes out another lawful gun owner who is willing to go through background checks in order to get a gun.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)And you have thereby admitted that nothing illegal transpired, thus giving the lie to your title.
Bu-bye.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)We don't know if they were reported to ATF.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Because nothing illegal took place.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)Bloomberg couldn't pass a reality check.
I guess it's okay to use deciept and fraud to entrap people.
Straw Man
(6,947 posts)...yet they only completed five purchases out of 125 contacts. That's not 62% -- it's 4%. The rest is just some crap that people said on the phone: agents told some lies, sellers made some promises. No deals were consummated in 96% of these cases. Was the intention there? Probably -- there's no denying that there are some unscrupulous sellers out there. But they pre-selected their sample by going to the sites that have the fewest controls. Anybody selling firearms on Craiglist is starting off on the shady side, since they ban firearms sales to begin with.
The invocation of bogeyman Cho is completely irrelevant, since his purchases were cleared in person by a licensed dealer. His case has everything to do with faulty mental-health reporting and nothing whatsoever to do with internet sales.
How does this make me feel about the firearms industry? Say what? This is based on internet classified ads. A friend of mine recently bought a classic car that he found in an online classified. It turns out that the title was bogus. How does that make you feel about the automobile industry?
Euromutt
(6,506 posts)Why should it? We're talking about private sellers here. As Straw Man alludes above, the findings of this "investigation" no more reflect on the firearms industry than the sale of a stolen car reflects on the automobile industry.
The report goes out of its way to emphasize how a large percentage of the sales--had they actually taken place, which they didn't--would have been illegal. Evidently then, the problem is not that the laws aren't stringent enough: these activities are supposedly already illegal. In related news, it's possible to purchase crack cocaine and heroin in New York City, even though doing so would be a violation of federal and New York state law.
I'm also distinctly unimpressed by the mention of how Craigslist "prohibits online firearms sales." Selling firearms via Craigslist is, in and of itself, a violation of the terms of service; it's not a criminal offense.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)Your wrote: What do you think of the City of New York's findings?
My response: I doubt most of what comes from Bloomberg on gun control especially on edited tapes (a la James O'Keefe). I think the real measure of what they found will be if they turn over their evidence and it results in convictions. If not, I'm not impressed. If these people are doing what Bloomberg portrays, then I say prosecute them. If law enforcement says there is not enough cause to prosecute or convict, why should I think a crime has occurred?
Also, I'd be more impressed with the investigation if the caller said, "I am a convicted felon", instead of the vague, "I probably couldn't pass a background check."
Your wrote: Does this investigation change the way you think about the firearms industry?
My response: This has nothing to do with the firearm industry. Private sales are outside the industry, per se.
Your wrote: What do you think, if anything, ought to change with our firearms laws?
My response: I think NICS should be open to public or id numbers be published on state IDs for use in private sale NICS checks but the government and many gun control proponents seem uninterested.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)I thought I posed some reasonable discussion questions and aikoaiko finally was willing to address them head on without attacking the City of New York for being concerned with black market gun sales. Do you think in a way the "private sales" constitute a parallel "grey market" to the "white market" of legal sales and the "black market" of illegal one's. I mean the law is being broken and there's really no easy way to enforce this across state lines with an overwhelmed ATF and reluctant local authorities.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)I think Bloomberg should be concerned about black market guns, but I'd rather Bloomberg focus his energies and money on why New Yorkers are buying guns illegally and using them in criminal activities rather than trying to further restrict my private sales in GA.
I would never sell to anyone who even joked about not passing a NICS check. In fact I require seeing a state issued ID and a signed bill of sale stipulating that the buyer is not a prohibited person. One guy didn't like that because it wasn't strictly required by law and he argued with me. I said I was fine with walking away with my firearm and he not complying with my request. He acquiesced.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Happy Christmakkah!
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It's amazing the codswallop people will swallow when you're telling them what they already believed to be true...
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)It's pretty simple: The federal government cannot regulate the sale of private property within the boundaries of a state.
So if someone in a state wants to sell a firearm to someone else in that state, no federal background check is required.
Many of the people that the NYC investigators called were outside of New York. If they had attempted to complete the sale, then those sales, being inter-state sales, would be required, by federal law, to be shipped to an FFL dealer in the buyer's state, and a background check would then be run.
The way I have proposed to solve this problem is by issuing FOIDs with all drivers' licenses or state-issued IDs, unless the person opts out of receiving one.
In this way nearly every person with a state-issued ID will also have an FOID, but it preserves anonymous firearm ownership because just possession of an FOID does not mean you are a firearm owner.
Then require sellers to keep records of the buyer's FOID for 10 years. This is how it is currently done in Illinois.