The Brady Anti-Gun Campaign Wish List

[JohnRich 4]

From their recent press release:

17 Common Sense Recommendations for Change:

1) Close the" Gun Show" Loophole: Extend Brady Background Checks to All Gun Purchases
2) Close the Terror Gap: Prohibit Gun Sales to Suspected Terrorists
3) Stop the Sale of Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines (aka Big Bullet-Blasting Boxes)
4) Restore Justice to Gun Violence Victims: Repeal the Gun Industry Legal Protection Act
5) Repeal Tiahrt Restrictions on Disclosure of Crime Gun Data
6) Require Licensing of Gun Owners and Registration of Gun Purchases
7) Strengthen ATF Authority to Regulate Gun Dealers and Crack Down on Corrupt Dealers
8) Require Gun Owners to Report Lost or Stolen Guns
9) Improve the National Violent Death Reporting System Date, and restore firearms research funding for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
10) Restrict Large-Volume Gun Sales
11) Require Licensed Dealers to Adopt Safeguards to Prevent Gun Thefts
12) Require Licensed Dealers to Perform Background Checks on Employees
13) Prohibit The Transfer of Gun Inventory Without Background Checks After a Dealer's License Has Been Revoked
14) Prohibit Gun Possession by People Convicted of Violent Misdemeanors
15) Prohibit Gun Possession by Persons Convicted of Violent Acts as Juveniles
16) Repeal the 24-hour Brady Record Destruction Requirement
17) Support new technologies to help law enforcement more effectively trace crime guns and supporting development of safety features to childproof guns

Source: http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1359/

There are already 20,000 gun laws in effect around the country, but if we can just get these 17 more, then everything will be just fine!

[D22369 0]

There are already 20,000 gun laws in effect around the country, but if we can just get these 17 more, then everything will be just fine! ***

and not one of those laws stops a criminal from getting their hands on a gun, they just restrict everyone else.

I am sure someone will have to mention that the laws stop them from buying them from stores that sell guns, but they are very easy to get from other sources - these laws dont seem to stop criminals much...




Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

and not one of those laws stops a criminal from getting their hands on a gun

Seriously, can somebody explain this logic to me?

No law will ever stop all people, no law will stop criminals (they by definition break laws). How is this possibly a logical reason against gun laws? It just sounds silly when people say or type it....

(No, this does not mean that I think all guns should be banned, or that people in the US should not have a right to their firepower. I just don't understand the logic of the statement)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Seriously, can somebody explain this logic to me?

No law will ever stop all people, no law will stop criminals

You answered it yourself. No law will stop a criminal, all they do is hurt an honest person.

Quote

How is this possibly a logical reason against gun laws?

You yourself said that, "no law will stop criminals". So why push for new laws when you KNOW they will not actually stop criminals and only hurt innocent citizens?

That makes zero sense.

Quote

It just sounds silly when people say or type it....

You yourself said that laws will not stop criminals... so why is it silly to say that?

Now you have some idea why we bristle when people say we need more gun laws... History shows (and you agree) that they do not stop criminals.

So why bother making new laws when we have 20,000 on the books already?

The last good gun law was 1968 and it had parts that were not good. The rest have been "feel good" BS that does nothing to actually prevent crime.

And if you want to prevent crime... Why not just increase punishment for crimes?

Do you really think a "No guns allowed" area will prevent a criminal from taking a gun somewhere? All it does is limit an honest persons right to self defense.

That makes no sense.

[wmw999 2,603]

If no laws will stop criminals, why do we have any laws? Speed laws don't stop all speeders. Drunk driving laws don't stop all drunk drivers. Etc.

I'm not advocating for banning guns, but having only laws that allow us to punish, rather than prevent, is very non-cost-effective. Both financially, and for society.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

And if you want to prevent crime... Why not just increase punishment for crimes?

You already kill people as punishment, that doesn't stop criminals. What punisment should be introduced that you think will eradicate crime?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

If no laws will stop criminals, why do we have any laws?

Have laws against ACTIONS, not objects.

Quote

Speed laws don't stop all speeders. Drunk driving laws don't stop all drunk drivers. Etc

To make this an equal comparison:

Pro-gun: Make speeding and driving drunk illegal

Anti-gun: Outlaw any car over 100 hp and require breathalyzers on all cars.

See the difference?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

You already kill people as punishment, that doesn't stop criminals.

We already have 20,000 gun laws, that does not stop criminals from using guns. How many more do you think will stop them form using guns?

Quote

What punisment should be introduced that you think will eradicate crime?

How will preventing an honest citizen from owning something prevent crime?

[quade 4]

Quote

How will preventing an honest citizen from owning something prevent crime?

If I make it against the law for you, a presumably honest citizen, to not have nuclear material, then dishonest terrorists have less access to them because they can't steal them from you.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If no laws will stop criminals, why do we have any laws? Speed laws don't stop all speeders. Drunk driving laws don't stop all drunk drivers. Etc.

We don't have thousands of laws against speeding. In fact, we have very few. CA has a max speed limit, a basic speed law (you have to slow down if its raining or foggy), and some specific zones where you slow down (school zones). I think there's also an enhancement for reckless driving (speeding over 100).

These laws cover the problem. Nothing is gained with additional. These added gun laws just add to the burden on citizens as it gets increasingly hard to avoid breaking one unintentionally. There has long been a book published called "How to own a gun in California and avoid going to jail." It summarizes the never stopping legal environment.

[wmw999 2,603]

Thanks. That makes sense.

So we shouldn't have laws against drugs, either.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

We already have 20,000 gun laws, that does not stop criminals from using guns. How many more do you think will stop them form using guns?

That's not what you said, you said laws don't stop criminals. Then you said you need to increase punishment to stop criminal behaviour. I have asked you what punishment you think would work.

Why are you refusing to answer?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

We don't have thousands of laws against speeding. In fact, we have very few. CA has a max speed limit, a basic speed law (you have to slow down if its raining or foggy), and some specific zones where you slow down (school zones). I think there's also an enhancement for reckless driving (speeding over 100).

These laws cover the problem. Nothing is gained with additional. These added gun laws just add to the burden on citizens as it gets increasingly hard to avoid breaking one unintentionally. There has long been a book published called "How to own a gun in California and avoid going to jail." It summarizes the never stopping legal environment.

See, that is a replyy that makes sense and that I agree with. The motherhood statement that normally get's thrown out is so fucking stupid, specially in comparison to this.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

And if you want to prevent crime... Why not just increase punishment for crimes?

You already kill people as punishment, that doesn't stop criminals. What punisment should be introduced that you think will eradicate crime?

I've always thought the death penalty made more sense as a deterrant the further you lowered the threshhold. If, just for example, you gave the death penalty to litterbugs then I wouldn't have to clean up all the drink cups and fast food bags that the contractors drop out of their car window every single day as they go past my house.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[DanG 1]

Quote

There are already 20,000 gun laws in effect around the country, but if we can just get these 17 more, then everything will be just fine!

I hear this a lot. Where does this number come from?

- Dan G

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

If no laws will stop criminals, why do we have any laws?

Have laws against ACTIONS, not objects.

Quote

Speed laws don't stop all speeders. Drunk driving laws don't stop all drunk drivers. Etc

To make this an equal comparison:

Pro-gun: Make speeding and driving drunk illegal

Anti-gun: Outlaw any car over 100 hp and require breathalyzers on all cars.

See the difference?

Pro gun: anyone can drive, no license or test needed, no mandatory insurance, no standards for brakes, crashworthiness, tires, lights...

Anti gun: I don't think anyone IS anti gun, just in favor of better enforcement of sensible rules that help to keep guns out of the hands of felons and whackos.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

If I make it against the law for you, a presumably honest citizen, to not have nuclear material, then dishonest terrorists have less access to them because they can't steal them from you.

Then you should be fine with not allowing individuals to have airplanes since a terrorist could use one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

So we shouldn't have laws against drugs, either.

Cool... You wanna sit around your house and get wasted.... Fine by me.

You wanna sit around and get wasted then drive? Not fine by me (of course we have laws to already cover this... No need to add more).

You wanna sit around and get wasted and collect welfare since you can't work? Not fine by me.

You wanna sit around your house and get wasted while neglecting your children. Not fine by me (But we already have laws to cover this....No need to add more).

You have the right to do ANYTHING you want as long as you do not create a hardship on someone else.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Why are you refusing to answer?

Why are you refusing to answer the questions I asked you?

How many more do you think will stop them form using guns?

How will preventing an honest citizen from owning something prevent crime?

Quote

What punisment should be introduced that you think will eradicate crime?

FL has a 10-20-25 to life that works fine when they use it.

Now, answer my questions.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Pro gun: anyone can drive, no license or test needed, no mandatory insurance, no standards for brakes, crashworthiness, tires, lights...

Anti gun: I don't think anyone IS anti gun, just in favor of better enforcement of sensible rules that help to keep guns out of the hands of felons and whackos.

This again shows you have no idea about gun laws.

[firemedic 7]

Just want to chime in here.

Wendy: No Law will ever prevent anything without the consent and obedience of the individual faced with the choice. Whether they be gun laws, traffic laws, etc. For those who choose to violate those laws there is only punishment after the fact.

Kallend: Making a comparison between Gun Laws and Drunk driving laws are not valid.
There is no clearly stated constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I hear this a lot. Where does this number come from?

One reference

Spitzer, Robert J.: The Politics of Gun Control", page 1. Chatham House Publishers, Inc., 1995

The bookings institute stated they found 300

Even using the 300 number... How many laws against murder do you think we need? And how would adding more actually reduce the number of murders?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

How many more do you think will stop them form using guns?

How will preventing an honest citizen from owning something prevent crime?

I never made those statements, so hard to answer, but to make you happy:

0 more.

It doesn't.

Quote

FL has a 10-20-25 to life that works fine when they use it.

Obviously it doens't work fine, there is still crime in Florida.

My question was, what punishment will eradicate crime?

[DanG 1]

Quote

One reference

Spitzer, Robert J.: The Politics of Gun Control", page 1. Chatham House Publishers, Inc., 1995

The bookings institute stated they found 300

Even using the 300 number... How many laws against murder do you think we need? And how would adding more actually reduce the number of murders?

Thanks. I thought the number seemed extremely high. It always sounded like one of those numbers that is so high it must be true, else why would someone quote such an obviously ridiculous number? On the other hand, 300 seems low. That's only six per state, leaving none for localities or the feds.

I'm not anti-gun by any stretch. In fact, I'm quite pro-2nd amendment. I don't own guns because my wife doesn't like guns, and I respect her position. I'm glad I have the right to own a gun if I wanted to, and think everyone except violent felons and the insane should have that right. On the other hand, I don't think the laws we have now are necessarily perfect. I don't think we need to add more laws, but there's no question that improving some existing laws might be a good idea.

- Dan G

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Obviously it doens't work fine, there is still crime in Florida.

You intentionally ignored this part in bold:

FL has a 10-20-25 to life that works fine when they use it.

One of the police officers that was killed executing a warrant was for a guy that had already committed an armed robbery. The Judge did not give the mandatory 10 year sentence since he was 17 when he committed the crime.

So how about we actually follow the current laws before we add more. It is not like making murder *doubly* illegal will do anything unless we actually punish those that do it.

Quote

My question was, what punishment will eradicate crime?

You will never remove ALL crime. But there is little sense to punish the innocent for crimes they didn't commit.

If we made it mandatory that all cars had to have an alcohol interlock device, limited the HP to 100HP and limited the tip speed to 75 we would certainly make driving safer.... But would that be fair to those that do not speed, and don't drink and drive?