Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: DOJ: Gun violence down, semi-automatics a minor issue « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 14

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19530
Offline
#135 : June 26, 2013, 08:06:47 PM

I'm not saying those are your views, just venting and trying to illustrate that any tightening down of those types of things are always in my view at least... really, really bad.  Anyway, some pages back there were some arguing about "taking guns from crazies". as if it would be that simple or that it would stop there. Dangerous waters.

Edit: My bad on the guns for crazies thing.  I'm actually confusing this thread with Miss morgans idiotic thread.

it probably doesn't seem like it because of my views on guns but I am very much a small, less intrusive government person


jbear

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1038
Offline
#136 : June 27, 2013, 09:36:40 AM

Well it is true that we need the rule of law no matter how limited of a government you want so I do understand where you're coming from.  I just think we've reached the tipping point where we need to be backtracking on government micromanagement of individuals.  I think we've already got to many federal laws regarding everything and the things you add...be it laws, taxes, or welfare almost never get pulled back.  That's why we have some of the problems we have today.  It's a century long accumulation of government overstepping its bounds.  Especially on the federal level.  I think we have enough gun laws and rules.

: June 27, 2013, 09:39:27 AM jbear

Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#137 : June 27, 2013, 09:55:02 AM

"Accumulation." That's how you lose your rights, a little at a time. Frog Vin ain't noticed that the water is slowly getting hotter.

Do you recall anything about the passage of the Brady Bill, Vin?

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19530
Offline
#138 : June 27, 2013, 09:55:34 AM

Well it is true that we need the rule of law no matter how limited of a government you want so I do understand where you're coming from.  I just think we've reached the tipping point where we need to be backtracking on government micromanagement of individuals.  I think we've already got to many federal laws regarding everything and the things you add...be it laws, taxes, or welfare almost never get pulled back.  That's why we have some of the problems we have today.  It's a century long accumulation of government overstepping its bounds.  Especially on the federal level.  I think we have enough gun laws and rules.

I think you are right about government and I even think you are right about the sentence in BOLD.  However, by design the current gun laws do very little.  I say "by design" because many current gun laws are laughable on their face because they are infected by the lobbying of gun interests and the cowardice of lawmakers. THere are many examples, but here are two:

1. Assault rilfe ban -- Several years ago Congress passsed an "assault rifles ban" that didnt actually ban "assault rifles,"  This law was the government wanting to create the illusion of action by jumping on a largely symbolic issue (assault rifles) and then passing a law that intentionally left out many, many guns that fall within the category.  Many gun laws are just like this, cowardly lawmakers trying to create the illusion of addressing the proiblem while not pissing off the lobby.

2. Background checks -- they work. period. full stop.  They are NOT a perfect solution, but they do work.  HOWEVER, what difference does it make if I have to go through a background check at the gun shop on 123 Main Street when I can just go online or to a gun show or to my neighbor and buy the gun without a background check.  This is an example of alobby "infecting" legislation. The NRA represents GUN MANUFACTURERS, not the 2nd Amendment. Gun manufacturers want a secondary market, and an easy one at that, because they want gun buyers to have an easy way to get rid of old guns to buy new. They also want as many people as possible to be able to sell guns.


So, to your comment in bold, there are a lot og gun laws and rules, but many of them are essentially meaningless


Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#139 : June 27, 2013, 09:59:52 AM

"Less than 1 percent of state prison inmates who possessed a gun when they committed their offense obtained the firearm at a gun show, the report said."

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19530
Offline
#140 : June 27, 2013, 10:06:27 AM

What is the social interest served by requiring a background check at the gun dealer on 123 Main Street but not at the gun show at 456 Main Street?

"Officials say girlfriend bought guns
By Mark Obmascik, Marilyn Robinson and David Olinger
Denver Post Staff Writers

April 27 - Three guns used in the massacre at Columbine High School were bought last year by Dylan Klebold's girlfriend shortly after her 18th birthday, investigators said Monday.

The woman was interviewed Monday by authorities, but not named as a suspect.

Though police declined to say where she bought the firearms, the manager of the Tanner Gun Show, a weapons market held nine times a year at the Denver Merchandise Mart, confirmed that the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms on Monday asked for a list of recent exhibitors.

The same gun show was the subject of controversy in June when an exhibitor sold an SKS semiautomatic rifle with a 20-round clip to an undercover congressional staffer for $200 cash. The staffer never was asked for any identification for a background check.


In the case of the Columbine weapons, prosecutors said three of the four guns - the woman bought two shotguns and a rifle - fired in the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history may have been purchased legally.

"We think three of them were provided by the girlfriend of Klebold,'' said Mark Paulter, a Jefferson County chief deputy district attorney. "She bought them because she was older. She was 18 at the time. She bought them in November or December.

"We're not sure she committed a crime under Colorado statute. If you provide a handgun to a person under 18, that's a violation of the statute. If you provide a shotgun or a rifle, that's not a violation.''

District Attorney Dave Thomas said the woman's intent with the weapons was unclear. "I don't know when it happened or what information she had about the purpose for the weapons,'' Thomas said.

The woman, a National Honor Society member who turned 18 on Nov. 4, could not be reached for comment. At her Jefferson County home Monday, a man who drove into the driveway shouted to reporters: "You're terrorizing the mother.''

Jefferson County sheriff's Sgt. Jim Parr said the woman was interviewed "as a witness and she is not considered a suspect.''

Disclosures about the guns Monday gave the first public hints at the way police are broadening the investigation into last week's rampage that killed 15, hospitalized 23 and shocked the nation. They also focused attention on the way powerful firearms may be bought and sold by teenagers still attending high school.

President Clinton today will call for tighter regulation of gun shows while announcing an anti-crime package today, congressional sources said.

On their April 20 rampage at Columbine High School, Klebold, 17, and Eric Harris, 18, packed an arsenal of an Intratec TEC-DC9 semiautomatic handgun, a HiPoint 9mm semiautomatic carbine and two sawed-off shotguns. It's illegal for anyone to saw the barrel off shotguns, the weapons that Klebold and Harris apparently used to kill themselves in the school library."


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19530
Offline
#141 : June 27, 2013, 10:12:07 AM

What is the social interest served by requiring a background check at the gun dealer on 123 Main Street but not at the gun show at 456 Main Street?

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A Nashville gang member told NewsChannel 5 Investigates that he often went to local gun shows to buy guns.

Jonathan Gutierrez said he and other gang members went to gun shows with large amounts of cash and had no problem buying guns despite having a criminal record.

He spoke to NewsChannel 5 from inside a high security prison in West Tennessee where he is serving life in prison for killing a rival gang member.

"I do regret the life I lived," Gutierrez said.

He said he joined a gang when he was nine years old, and by the time he was 13, he tattooed "Brown Pride" around his neck.

A few years later, he was convicted of shooting a rival gang member to death in what he called a war waged on the streets of Nashville.

"Where did you get the weapons that you used?" NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked.

Gutierrez responded,"Most of the weapons that were used were coming from the gun show."

Gutierrez said at age 15, he and other gang members went to local gun shows with cash and were easily able to buy four to six guns each visit.

"Anybody will sell you a gun," Gutierrez said. "I mean no matter what, if you want a gun and you show them the money, and tell them you want to buy it, he's going to definitely sell it to you."

Gutierrez said he bought most guns in the gun show parking lot, after going inside the show and picking out which guns he wanted.

Licensed dealers must run background checks, but private sales at gun shows require no background check.

NewsChannel 5 Investigates asked, "What if you had to go through a background check?"

Gutierrez responded, "I guess we wouldn't be buying none."


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19530
Offline
#142 : June 27, 2013, 10:15:45 AM

What is the social interest served by requiring a background check at the gun dealer on 123 Main Street but not at the PRIVATE HOME at 456 Main Street?

"In March 2010, John Patrick Bedell strolled up to the Pentagon and started shooting at two police officers with a semiautomatic handgun. Months before the attack, he tried to buy a gun in California but was denied, after a background check showed he had a documented history of mental illness. So Bedell instead went to neighboring Nevada, where gun laws are more lenient, and bought a 9mm handgun from a private seller who didn't have to check out his history."

The loophole serves the interests of gun manufacturers and gun sellers but what it the broad social value served by the loophole?




VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19530
Offline
#143 : June 27, 2013, 10:21:31 AM

What is the social interest served by requiring a background check at the gun dealer on 123 Main Street but not at the gun show at 456 Main Street?

Samaha walked back into the gun show, and within minutes he was out again, this time carrying a Colt AR 15, a semi-automatic assault weapon very similar to an M16. We asked if there were any questions asked.

"Nothing," he said. "I just went up, gave him cash. He's like, 'Cash is all you need.'"

Over the course of the hour, Samaha purchased 10 guns: three rifles, four shotguns, one handgun. He could have purchased many more handguns, but he wanted to abide by Virginia State law, which allows the purchase of one handgun per month, and two assault weapons.

Samaha was never asked to fill out any type of background check. At one point he was asked to show identification. When Samaha said he didn't have any, the seller quickly relented, not wanting to lose a sale.

"He's like, 'Give me $100 more and I'll let you go and take the risk.' I got two guns for $600 without any identification check," Samaha said


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7297745

The person discussed in this article had a sister killed at VA Tech:

For over a year, ABC News has followed Omar Samaha on a very personal quest to hold those lawmakers to their word. Omar's sister Reema was one of 32 shot and killed at Virginia Tech. We went with Omar to a gun show in Richmond, Va. -- one of hundreds held every weekend across the state of Virginia and the country. We gave Samaha $5,000 and one hour to see how many guns he could buy, and how many questions he would be asked.


I have in about 5 minutes posted news pieces from around the country, from a number of new organizations and from a varierty of times, all illustrating the LUNACY of the law as it exists today.

Simple question, anyone want to answer it:

What is the social interest served by requiring a background check at the gun dealer on 123 Main Street but not at the gun show at 456 Main Street?
: June 27, 2013, 10:23:20 AM VinBucFan


Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#144 : June 27, 2013, 10:33:18 AM

No, Vin, what you've done is show us that existing laws are not being enforced, and that more of the same is just extending the fail.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19530
Offline
#145 : June 27, 2013, 10:38:53 AM

No, Vin, what you've done is show us that existing laws are not being enforced, and that more of the same is just extending the fail.


What is the social interest served by requiring a background check at the gun dealer on 123 Main Street but not at the gun show at 456 Main Street?


Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
#146 : June 27, 2013, 10:49:45 AM

Focus on that one percent. The progress will be remarkable.

You looked up the Brady Bill yet?

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19530
Offline
#147 : June 27, 2013, 11:13:32 AM

Focus on that one percent. The progress will be remarkable.

You looked up the Brady Bill yet?

1. Its not the one percent, as illustrated . . . as an example . . . were the Columbine killers part of your surveyed prison inmates? How about the gang member in the other article?  How many "prison inmates" bought a gun black market  or had a gun in the family or stole it  but the gun originated by private sale or gun show? This stuff is kind of obvious, if we are being fair. . . .  but that might be another point, I guess.

2. What is/are the existing law or laws that you thought were broken in my examples?

No, Vin, what you've done is show us that existing laws are not being enforced, and that more of the same is just extending the fail.

3. Are you going to answer my question (I am guessing "no")

What is the social interest served by requiring a background check at the gun dealer on 123 Main Street but not at the gun show at 456 Main Street?


4. I am familar with the Brady bill
: June 27, 2013, 11:15:23 AM VinBucFan


jbear

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1038
Offline
#148 : June 27, 2013, 11:16:44 AM

No, Vin, what you've done is show us that existing laws are not being enforced, and that more of the same is just extending the fail.

I hate to bring up the same seemingly unrelated thing I always do but I can't help myself.  As was mentioned earlier by Vin:

Quote from: Vin
not quite, I have said that any "solution" has to be multifaceted BUT it makes no sense to do nothing about guns because there are other issues like cultural decay and mental illness.  The latter take decades to improve, if it can even be done, by comparison gun access is easier to control.

I think we could make a lot of social/cultural headway quickly if we decriminalized addiction. It may seem a stretch to some but as Von misses points out, the laws that are truly important are not being enforced because we dedicate so many resources to things that I think are much less important.  Do I have a huge problem with a background check?  No but I think it should be handled at the state level where the people have slightly more control.

As to your question.  I'm not an anarchist.  We need laws against abhorent behavior and bans against violent criminals owning guns as there are.  Background check or no, it is illegal for a convicted felon to own a firearm so if we had law enforcement focused where it should be this might not be as much of an issue.  Again, I don't have a huge issue with background checks so long as they are just checking if I'm a felon however I disagree that a non violent drug offender is treated the same way as a rapist.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19530
Offline
#149 : June 27, 2013, 11:33:36 AM

"Less than 1 percent of state prison inmates who possessed a gun when they committed their offense obtained the firearm at a gun show, the report said."

This quote is  cited in the ADVOCACY piece about the report, as I have pointed out several times.  The ACTUAL report paints a much different picture of the general subject of declining gun violence.  Here are a few examples, not an exclusive listing of facts from the report, just examples:

"While the number of firearm crimes declined over time, the percentage of all violence that involved a firearm did not change substantively, fluctuating between 6% and 9% over the same period. In 1993, 9% of all violence was committed with a firearm, compared to 8% in 2011."

(Note: gun hoseholds declining but percentage of all violence steady?)

The report is an analysis of gun violence since 1993 (which is the year the Brady Bill was signed it was in effective from 1994. Why did the DOJ pick 1993?).  Here's another part you keep leaving out (because you are using the ADVOCACY piece):

"The majority of the decline in firearm-related homicides occurred between 1993 and 1998. Since 1999, the number of firearm homicides increased from 10,828 to 12,791 in 2006 before declining to 11,101 in 2011."

Her's the graph from the report:



Note: why the big drop from 1993 to 1998? The same graph occurs for non-fatal gun violence.  Why was there a big drop from 1993 to 1998?

Here's the actual report, if you ever want to move on from the advocacy piece:

http://info.publicintelligence.net/DoJ-GunViolence1993-2011.pdf

Page: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 14
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: DOJ: Gun violence down, semi-automatics a minor issue « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools