Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWith all the talk
about the Martin shooting, why is there no mention of how things were in Chicago this past weekend?
At least 10 people were killed, including a 6-year-old girl, in shootings over the weekend in Chicago.
The slain were among at least 49 people wounded in shootings from 5 p.m. Friday to 6 a.m. Monday, according to information compiled by the Chicago Tribune.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-weekend-shootings-killings-violence-crime,0,5199265.story
A 16 and an 18 year old, members of the Latin Kings, appeared in court in the shooting death of Aliyah Shell. I don't watch a whole lotta corporate news, but I haven't heard anything about Aliyah. Had to pick up the story off the Gun Wire site. I wonder why. Both deaths are tragic, but it seems to be a better story if the shooting occurs by a concealed carry holder, who apparently really screwed up, in a state that allows people that feel threatened to defend themselves, rather than a couple of gangbangers that shoot a young girl in one of the leading gun banning cities in America.
If last weekend is any indication, looks as though its gonna be a long hot summer in Chi-town.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TheCowsCameHome
(40,270 posts)All this shooting crap going on.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)there are over 20 with similar statutes
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)But the rest of your statement was accurate.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)his freedom is based on our stand-your-ground law
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)his freedom is based on either stupidity or racism of Sanford PD. He would still be walking around under duty to retreat. Most of what you hear is repeating Brady talking points. Even Thom Hartmann had to correct himself when he misquoted the law and was corrected.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)see it as flawed.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but duty to retreat is simply unjust. An attempt to bring back duty to retreat will destroy any chances in November.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the burden is on you to prove your innocence
the state has to prove nothing
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)how is that liberal or progressive? Do you share Ramsey Clark's opinion that defending yourself is immoral?
Sorry, the burden of proof should always be on the state.
Had Martin killed Zimmerman under the old law with the same facts
he would be arrested and charged with murder
he would have to get a lawyer, and prove he was attacked.
he would have to prove to a jury the tried to retreat. No witnesses? That is his tough shit.
win or lose, Zimmerman's dad sues Martin for wrongful death
Martin will either be in jail or deep in debt with lawyer fees because he fought off a racist asshole while walking home with a bag of skittles and a can of iced tea.
That is assuming Martin is white or Sanford PD isn't full of stupid racists.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)precautions possible before shooting someone?
I guess because I put a value on life.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)unless you are a total sociopath. I put a high value of innocent until proven guilty. I put a high value on people not having to prove a negative.
Actually think about the ramifications and put yourself in that situation.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Shootings there aren't news anymore regardless how many innocent people die.
ileus
(15,396 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I fully support your right to make that choice!
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I choose not to trust to luck.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I'm not saying luck is the only factor, but it certain plays a part, and if you're choosing to trust it, then that's your right. But don't try and act like you aren't, because it only makes you seem disingenuous.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)disingenuous? Perhaps in the eyes of gunners who cannot survive without a gun in their pants. I doubt non-packers feel that way - just a hunch.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)And I fully support your right to make that choice!
zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)You realize the axiom of "Man bites dog" is at play here right? "Dog bites man" doesn't make the newspaper. "Man bites dog" does. It's not national news that drug dealers and other criminals shoot each other, and innocent by standers. You'll find the stories regularly in local pages. But especially in Chicago, it's not going to be big news, unless someone is going to be using it as part of a story about the need for gun control.
However, it is relatively rare for a CCW holder to track down and kill and unarmed 17 year old, and not be charged with something. "Man bites dog" so to speak. If anything, it is the "exception that proves the rule" with respect to CCW holders.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)While the Martin shooting illustrates the tragic consequences of "Stand Your Ground" laws, the continuing gun violence in Chicago and elsewhere demonstrates the need for tighter gun laws across the nation. Chicago itself has tight gun laws, but it is far too easy for criminals to acquire and traffic guns from one place to another. If Chicago was located in the middle of continental Europe, the amount of gun violence there would be far less.
Gun violence in the US is not restricted to areas with extremely lax gun laws. Like pollution, the negative effects of guns are also felt outside of the area where the guns originate. The gun registry that Rahm Emanuel has proposed is a good start.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)instead of just legal owners, you might have a point. Emanuel has influence in Chicago. By your own admission, criminals acquire guns and move them from one place to another (I'm assuming you mean from one state to another). Without some sort of national registry (which will never happen), his idea wouldn't affect criminals in the least and wouldn't reduce the number of shootings one iota.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)the paranoia on the part of owners is astounding. They will register their dogs and vehicles with nary a grunt - but when it comes to their guns . . . another story.
burf
(1,164 posts)16 and 18 years old. They were already in violation of possibly both state and federal laws depending on what type weapon was used. It appears they didn't give a shit about that fact, so what makes you think they are gonna comply with a registration requirement? How many were armed during the days of pre-McDonald Chicago?
DrDan
(20,411 posts)help solve these cases, when needed.
Would you begrudge the police this tool?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)of any cases being solved with registration? Since most of our murders are gang related, they use black market guns, and do they leave the gun behind?
It makes a nice talking point, but how about evidence of it actually solving crimes? Or even a basic cost/benefit analysis.
burf
(1,164 posts)that the hoodlums were using "community guns". They were hidden in places that only fellow bangers knew and they would use them and then return them to a hiding place All the registration in the world wouldn't solve a problem like this.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)But it would affect law abiding people (who would be the only ones to obey the law).
DrDan
(20,411 posts)must be - no arrests yet - plus he was able to perform the ultimate - judge-jury-executioner.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Ah ... exceptionalism at work.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)is any tool universally useful?
burf
(1,164 posts)But, I doubt that it would be an effective tool. How many shootings are done by criminals who under existing law are barred from gun ownership in the first place? Are they going to register their firearm with law enforcement? Probably not.
So, we cause the law abiding gunowner to jump through another hoop to comply with another feel good law that does little if anything to prevent crime. Then when we find out the program doesn't work, we pass another law under the guise of "protect the public" or "for the children" because the previous laws didn't work. Wash, rinse, repeat. All the while, the rhetoric becomes more heated and the criminals keep doing what they are doing. Reminds me of the Einstein's definition of insanity.
BTW, what ever happened to the old program of locking up repeat offenders? The recidivism rate in this country is insane, somewhere around 70% depending on the source. I remember a program called "three strikes" from years ago. But that seemed to whither on the vine so to speak when the media came out with stories of third strikers going to jail for stealing a pizza or some other nonsense.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)would like to do away with Miranda, need for warrants, etc
DrDan
(20,411 posts)sorry - I favor a registry
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)to know better. Although a lot of street cops think the registry is theater at its best.
burf
(1,164 posts)who were opposed to concealed carry laws being enacted because it would not only lead to more police officers lives being lost (didn't happen).
More on this:
http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/police.pdf
When our DGU law in MN was being debated in the legislature the police organizations were opposed to passage. They were concerned that officer lives would be in danger due to a "shoot first" mentality. The major newspapers printed stories in support of the police organizations stand. There were however letters from rank and file officers who supported the bill, and they got printed in some small affiliate papers, but not in the metro editions.
DonP
(6,185 posts)Would you begrudge the police these valuable crime fighting tools?
After all, if you have nothing to hide, why should you object?
It always surprises me how quickly so called progressives sound like Dick Cheney and are ready to throw rights out the door if it involves firearms.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)of course I would not support enhanced interrogation.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Otherwise, the cops had best be prepared to argue 'exigent circumstances'...
DonP
(6,185 posts)We call that situational ethics, or being hypocritical, choose one.
The only time "after the fact" warrants are used and any evidence produced accepted in court, is in case of proven exigent circumstances (e.g. crime in progress) or national security issues, per the patriot act. Big supporter of that are you?
Then again most gun control people suddenly love the Bush/Cheney rules, now that they are thinking they can include gun owners on no fly "terrah" lists and illegal searches.
That kind of thinking is one of the reasons gun control has become a pointless joke.
Callisto32
(2,997 posts)Ask Canada. I mean, one example is all it takes to prove something, right, Dr.?
DrDan
(20,411 posts)"while the cost of the registry had become an embarrassment, the program works and provides a valuable service. In a typical domestic violence situation, he says, investigating police officers rely on the registry to determine if guns are present. Onboard computers in police cruisers, or a call to central dispatch, alerts [sic] officers to any firearms registered to occupants of the house"
RCMP reports that 81% of police officers support the registry.
but what do police professionals know about this. . . right?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)where did you get that?
Why would RCMP poll what individual cops think?
I have never seen any street cop, RCMP, Provincial, or city support it.
Notice he did not say it solved any crimes
cops always show up assuming the worst.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Canada's murder rate has been dropping just like ours have, regardless of weapon. Firearms are used in one third of Canadian murders.
How many of these murders were committed by PAL holders (license to own)? All the cops have to check to see if someone in the household has a PAL.
The four mounties that were ambushed in Alberta was with a rifle, that is true. It was an HK-91 to be exact. The killer did not have a PAL, in fact he was a violent pot farmer who murdered the officers, a couple of them kids fresh out of Depot, to protect his fucking crop. Since he did not have a PAL, he did not get his rifle from canadaammo.com, Wal Mart, or any gun show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayerthorpe_tragedy
iverglas
(38,549 posts)... Baumgartner testified the gun used to shoot the four officers had been imported into the country by an Edmonton man in the 1980s, then sold to Roszko.
Roszko was carrying two other guns at the time of the shootout. The pistol tucked in his belt had been first purchased at a Utah pawnshop by a friend of Roszko’s in the early 1990s, then bought by Roszko and brought across the border. The bolt-action rifle slung across Roszko’s shoulder during the shootings was a registered firearm, which was initially reported stolen by a relative of Shawn Hennessey’s. (Hennessey has since admitted to giving the firearm and ammunition to Roszko. He and his brother-in-law, Dennis Cheeseman, are currently serving prison terms for manslaughter for assisting Roszko in the hours leading up to the killings.)
Of the five other firearms found in the Quonset, Baumgartner testified three had been stolen from a cabin near Barrhead in 1997. He said there are no records of how Roszko came into possession of the other firearms.
Would the man who sold Roszko the gun that was used to kill the RCMP members have sold it to him if there had been a registry? That is, would he have sold a gun to somebody who did not have a licence to possess it, knowing that doing so was a crime?
Maybe. Hennessey did transfer a firearm to Roszko illegally. Licensing and registration don't prevent all criminals from getting and trafficking guns.
How about that handgun from Utah? I wonder what its trajectory from the pawn shop to Roszko looked like. Purchased for trafficking in the first place? "Innocently" transferred on to somebody who trafficked it? My guess would be the former. Would a trafficker purchase a gun with the intent of trafficking it if there were registration?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:13 PM - Edit history (1)
IIRC, the long gun registry was passed in 1995. The murders took place in 2005.
most likely stolen from the guy who bought it from the pawn shop. His friend who bought it from the pawn shop had to be 1)a Utah resident, and 2) citizen or permanent resident (you would be amazed how many "snowbirds" get laughed out of gun shops around here thinking their PAL is a substitute for that requirement.) This friend then violated US federal law by giving it to person he knew was neither of the above. Not being a citizen or permanent resident, Roszko violated US federal law by possessing it. Then he went home to violate several Canadian laws in addition to the ones he already committed.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)There was no long gun registry in the 1980s. There was therefore no registration of the firearm in question at the time it was imported. I would read that sentence as meaning it was imported legally, but I don't know, and it sounds as though there may have been a record of the importation. I also don't know when it was transferred to Roszko.
The legislation providing for the creation of the registry was passed in 1995. The registry was not in effective operation until later. The deadline for registration was 2003. The Mayerthrope shootings occurred in March 2005. If the transfer was after the registry was created but before the registration deadline date, the weapon was not in the registry but the transfer without registration was illegal, as I understand it.
A transfer before the registry was in operation may have been illegal, if Roszko was required to have a licence in order to accept the transfer. Right, licensing for long guns became mandatory in 1977. So the transfer, after the importation in the 1980s, was illegal at least on Roszko's part because he did not have a licence. (I'm not going to spend the ages it would take to figure out what the legality of transferring a firearm to an unlicensed person before the registry would have been, but I will assume it was illegal.)
That's why registration is needed as well. Otherwise, it's like having speed limits without licence plates. Traceability -- and the requirement that subsequent private transfers be registered, and the fact that they cannot be if the transferee is not licensed -- is what deters owners from engaging in illegal transfers. If they transfer a firearm without registering the transfer, the firearm can be traced to them and, unless somebody believes that they had an unfortunate kayaking accident and the firearm was rescued by a stranger, the illegal transfer will be obvious.
I overlooked the bit about it being a friend of Roszko's who bought the gun in Utah, duh:
No theft involved as far as I can see - ? Roszko got the thing from a straw purchaser / trafficker. That transfer was in the US, so it was illegal under US law. But as we know, criminals don't obey laws when given an option. That's why limiting their options is wise. The pawn shop sale to someone with no qualms about trafficking is the problem.
And we have no information to confirm your hypothesis that the person who made the pawn shop purchase was a Utah resident and US citizen/resident. I mean, I won't buy the hypothesis that every pawn shop firearm sale in Utah complies with local law.
Roszko would almost certainly never have got a handgun from a straw purchaser or trafficker who had bought it legally in Canada -- precisely because of registration, and the relatively stringent requirements for a handgun permit. Whoever bought the handgun in Utah would not very likely have been able to buy a handgun in Canada, even had he been a Canadian resident. If he could have done that, than apparently he was deterred from doing it by the registration requirement.
And if long gun registration had been in effect when the firearm used for the killings was imported into Canada, if it was imported and not smuggled, it's very arguable that he would not have got his hands on that either, as registration is a deterrent to illegal transfers and not a whole lot of people are willing to take the risk involved.
But had he been unable to obtain firearms trafficked from the US, he would apparently still have got that rifle from his good buddy locally. That rifle was registered, and the transfer to Roszko was completely illegal on both sides. Obviously, the fact that it was registered meant that when it was found on the scene, it was traceable to the person who had transferred it to Roszko, and that person is now serving a sentence for manslaughter as a result.
I guess registration just never solves any crimes. Giving a firearm to Roszko was a rather serious crime. And it just may be that somebody thinking of transferring their legally owned, registered firearm to somebody like Roszko in future might have thought a second time, seeing what it got that fellow. Of course, without the long gun registry, that door is now wide open again.
No one has ever said that any measure, be it licensing or registration or anything else, will prevent all firearms from falling into the hands of any criminal user, any more than speed bumps prevent all speeding.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)That is not my hypothesis, it is simply knowing my country's federal gun control laws. That is a requirement under the Gun Control Act of 1968. When the buyer purchased it at the pawn shop, proof of state residence and SSN (or equivalent for residents) would be entered on the ATF form 4473. Putting false information on the form or lying to the dealer is 10 years in federal prison. If the ATF inspector sees an pistol being logged in as received, not in the inventory and no 4473 showing it sold and to whom, the dealer is in deep shit. If he pawn shop did not have an FFL, they violated the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and the 1968 update.
Under the Gun Control Act, any interstate transfer can only done by FFLs. I can not go to another state an buy a pistol, but may buy long guns in a few states, but only from an FFL. I can not sell any gun to any non Florida resident. That is also a violation of the gun control act. If a church in Kansas City, MO is having a "buy back" for Wal Mart gift cards, and you live in Kansas City, KS and decide to give them the pistol that has been sitting in the sock drawer for 30 years, you have committed a federal felony.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)They don't obey the law. If a pawn shop sold a handgun illegally and an inspector was not there to see it happen, did it make a sound?
Very possibly, probablyk even very probably, the sale was legal, in that the vendor followed the rules and the purchaser passed a NICS check. However, if the purchaser was making a straw purchase or purchasing for the purpose of trafficking (we can't guess since we don't even know the time between the pawn shop purchase and the transfer to Roszko), then the sale was illegal even if all the formalities were complied with. Just no way to prevent such sales under the laws in question though, eh?
A firearms registry like Canada's, on the other hand, identifies unusual purchase patterns and is a deterrent to straw purchases and trafficking.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)AFAIK, ATF inspectors can show up unannounced and without warrant to FFLs, and they do.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)No pawn shop in the US (or hell, anywhere else) has ever taken a handgun under the table, and sold it under the table, in any of the 99.9999% of their business hours when no inspector was present.
Okay.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and it went out under the table, that is black marketing. I don't know about pawn shops there, here the reward would be too small for the risk.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Thinking that no guns are present because there are no guns registered to an occupant of an household is a recipe for tragedy.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, James Roszko (murderer of four Mounties) didn't have any registered guns and was, in fact prohibited from
possessing any at the time. Didn't make a difference, did it?
DrDan
(20,411 posts)I say - listen to the professionals.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)They're professionals too, you know...
DrDan
(20,411 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I'd think the Roszko case alone would demonstrate the foolishness of such an attitude.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)only with the registry
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)why can't a cop just as easily look up if anyone at the address has a PAL? If someone does, it is reasonable to assume there would be a firearm there and what basic type (unrestricted, restricted, or prohibited). It would be just as effective and cheaper than the registry. I saw a debate on long gun registry issue once. The (I think) NFA guy (their NRA) pointed that out. It was also apparent that most gun owners (other than maybe machine gun collectors) support the 1977 law.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)They support it as a tool for their profession. I have no reason to doubt the usefulness to them.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)you know, the ones that actually carry guns and patrol streets, thought it was absurd.
Police chiefs are basically politicians here or there.
The RCMP runs the thing, so it would affect their funding.
Always question why.
Here is the important thing. Canada is a democracy. Most of their ridings are rural. The parties that supported the registry are in a small minority or no longer exists.
Progressive Conservatives, no longer exist and merged with the social conservative party
Liberal lost major party status
Bloc Quebecis, Greens, very small
the issue isn't in the NDP platform. Urban NDPs are for it. Rural NDPs are against it.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)A registry is a deterrent to "law-abiding gun owners" handing off their guns to anybody without absolute assurance that they are entitled to possess them.
We just do not have straw purchases (and the subsequent transfers to ineligible individuals) in Canada.
Because every purchase at the original point of sale is registered, and every private transfer after that must be registered. If you buy a firearm and transfer it to someone and that transfer is not registered, you have committed a crime. "Law-abiding gun owners" don't actually go out of their way to commit crimes. And straw purchasers just know better than to put themselves on record.
Of course, our current far right-wing government, governing without anything but the most technical mandate, is eliminating some of the protection we have in that regard. But handguns, the average criminal's first weapon of choice, will still be subject to registration, and even that is better than the nothing that most US states have.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...illustrate "the tragic consequences of 'Stand Your Ground' laws? This is something I hear said a lot but no evidence is provided to underscore exactly how this makes any sense at all. You're saying that this shooting wouldn't have taken place without this law? Impossible to prove. That the shooting wouldn't have been deemed legal without this law? Given that the jury is still out on the case, it's too early to even make that conclusion.
So basically, you have no grounds for making any statement at all about this law, but you're doing it anyway because you see an opportunity to vilify a law and its supporters in the eyes of those not willing to put much thought into the situation in the first place.
Yep, you're keepin it classy over there, Dan.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)El Paso, TX is a major city, is on the border with Mexico, has next to no gun control, has more guns than people, and has a very low murder rate. (Only three in 2010) By your logic El Paso should be a murder capital.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Two cities very similar in size- but the one with laxer gun laws has a lower murder rate.
I have a deep suspicion both our questions will be studiously ignored...
DrDan
(20,411 posts)please provide the scientific evidence for that
he is saying that there is no correlation.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)I sure don't see that from the one post I responded to.
"Two cities very similar in size- but the one with laxer gun laws has a lower murder rate. "
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)just because antis like to make it that simple does not mean we do. Size of the city is less important than economics and wealth distribution. That is New Orleans' problem.
El Paso also has a lower murder rate than Vancouver, and other Canadian cities.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)I thought we were in agreement regarding no correlation.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)For that matter, what good are the laws now extant in Chicago? They don't seem to have done Chicagoans much good.
You might have had a point if Chicago had a lower murder rate than Houston- but in fact, it doesn't.
Let's remind everyone of what you stated upthread:
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)have a lower murder rate than Vancouver, BC and Thunder Bay, ON?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)You see, there's the problem. That's a murderous, right-wing, GOP (moran) controlled site. It's just a shill for the NRA whose goal is to run down and discredit every politician who advocates even the simplest and most commonsense laws for gun-control. Please search for real news on an impartial site and you'll find that all of those killed were murderous law breakers who own illegal guns and are shooting themselves, each other or their children.
Please, search for real news; do it for the children.
