Gun violence in US has fallen dramatically over past 20 years

[BeteNoire 0]

jclalor

Quote

As for where crime guns came from, the study notes that less than two percent of convicted inmates reported buying their weapons at gun shows or flea markets. The highest number, 40 percent, said the guns came from a family member or a friend. About 37 percent said the weapons were stolen or obtained from an illegal source. The rest say the guns were bought at a retail store or pawn shop.

Yet background checks between family and friends are a bad idea.

A criminal anticipating using a gun in crime is not going to agree to undergo a background check. Only the law-abiding people, for whom background checks are a waste of time, will bother to comply with such a law. Thus it accomplishes nothing to stop crime, and inconveniences and costs many innocent people. That's a bad way to create laws.

[rushmc 23]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

BeteNoire

***

Quote

As for where crime guns came from, the study notes that less than two percent of convicted inmates reported buying their weapons at gun shows or flea markets. The highest number, 40 percent, said the guns came from a family member or a friend. About 37 percent said the weapons were stolen or obtained from an illegal source. The rest say the guns were bought at a retail store or pawn shop.

Yet background checks between family and friends are a bad idea.

A criminal anticipating using a gun in crime is not going to agree to undergo a background check. Only the law-abiding people, for whom background checks are a waste of time, will bother to comply with such a law. Thus it accomplishes nothing to stop crime, and inconveniences and costs many innocent people. That's a bad way to create laws.

Also left out is are the friends criminals to begin with
Straw purchases are already illegal

This is a misleading stat from those wishing to ban guns

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

BeteNoire

, and inconveniences and costs many innocent people. That's a bad way to create laws.

nonsense - that's the criteria for new laws.

and BONUS!!

1 - think of all the money and jobs will be generated doing background checks and enforced government defined gun safety courses that'll be tacked on for the good of the people

2 - we'll have a record of every single purchase made

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[toolbox 0]

>A criminal anticipating using a gun in a crime is not going to agree to undergo a background check.
Only the law-abiding people,for whom background checks are a waste of time,will bother to comply with such a law.
Thus it accomplishes nothing to stop crime,and inconveniences and cost many innocent people. That's a bad way to create laws.


That is the reality of it,but the hard left doesn't care about the reality of it.
The hard left here in the USA has wanted to disarm the citizens for decades just like leftist nanny state governments throughout history have sought to accomplish around the world.
Hitler did it,stalin did it,Pol pot did it,north korea,china,ect.
People should not fear their government,but rather their government should fear the people.
If the people have no weapons to defend against a tyrannical government,then any resistance to tyranny will be extremely hard to say the least.
Total control without threat of resistance is what socialist regimes and dictators need to come into, and to stay in power.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Hitler did it,stalin did it,Pol pot did it,north korea,china,ect.

The US did it in Iraq.

[billvon 3,132]

Sounds like you are suddenly a staunch supporter of polls!

[wmw999 2,602]

Which of the charts? There are tons of them.

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)

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

SkyDekker

Quote

Hitler did it,stalin did it,Pol pot did it,north korea,china,ect.

The US did it in Iraq.

Ummm....

No.

The army allowed each household to keep one rifle. Usually a full auto AK.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Fast 0]

BeteNoire

***

Quote

As for where crime guns came from, the study notes that less than two percent of convicted inmates reported buying their weapons at gun shows or flea markets. The highest number, 40 percent, said the guns came from a family member or a friend. About 37 percent said the weapons were stolen or obtained from an illegal source. The rest say the guns were bought at a retail store or pawn shop.

Yet background checks between family and friends are a bad idea.

A criminal anticipating using a gun in crime is not going to agree to undergo a background check. Only the law-abiding people, for whom background checks are a waste of time, will bother to comply with such a law. Thus it accomplishes nothing to stop crime, and inconveniences and costs many innocent people. That's a bad way to create laws.

This isn't a fair argument. While generally speaking, I am not in favor of expanded gun control or limits on weapon types, capacity or otherwise, being this broad is unreasonable.

There are very few good arguments against basic background checks. If there was zero check at retail, anyone (literally) could go buy a gun, felon or not. Generally speaking it's only a short game measure to stop a person who is otherwise a criminal from obtaining a weapon but that doesn't mean that there isn't some merit in performing them.

So in this regard, the long term effect is hard to exactly determine. The scope of your statement, and likely the amount of thought you have done on the matter, is too narrow to draw any kind of true conclusion. It would be necessary to consider the secondary effects of preventing criminals from buying weapons at retail to make any factual correlation to the effects of background checks on crime committed with or in the pursuit of a firearm.

Basically, what I am saying is that you're generalizing and it's not a fair argument.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[kallend 2,182]

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people"

Which is why background checks on PEOPLE are a good idea.

...

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

[Kennedy 0]

kallend

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people"

Which is why background checks on PEOPLE are a good idea.

And yet you're still focusing on the implement rather than the person. Why?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Southern_Man 0]

Best thing to do would be to bar people with violent misdemeanors from buying guns. My understanding is that it is only certain felonies that are disqualifying. The best predictor of future violent behavior is past violent behavior.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[SkyDekker 1,465]

wolfriverjoe

***

Quote

Hitler did it,stalin did it,Pol pot did it,north korea,china,ect.

The US did it in Iraq.

Ummm....

No.

The army allowed each household to keep one rifle. Usually a full auto AK.

And they confiscated the rest..

You would have instant cardiac arrest if anybody would suggest limiting US gun ownership to 1 firearm.

[toolbox 0]

A 30 cal battle rifle with selective fire from semi to full auto is alot of fire power to be allowed for citizens in a battle zone occupied by foreign military forces.
Sounds like they have far less restrictions on weapons under our military over there than the people who were in the part of the US (new orleans) hit by hurricane Katrina had.
I hear the cops and military were confiscating every weapon they could find in new orleans after Katrina.

[kallend 2,182]

Kennedy

***"Guns don't kill people. People kill people"

Which is why background checks on PEOPLE are a good idea.

And yet you're still focusing on the implement rather than the person. Why?

Ummm NO. The person needs to pass the background check.

...

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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

toolbox

A 30 cal battle rifle with selective fire from semi to full auto is alot of fire power to be allowed for citizens in a battle zone occupied by foreign military forces.
Sounds like they have far less restrictions on weapons under our military over there than the people who were in the part of the US (new orleans) hit by hurricane Katrina had.
I hear the cops and military were confiscating every weapon they could find in new orleans after Katrina.

Yes, that would have never happened there:

Quote

US troops will be given orders to arrest any Iraqis who carry or sell guns, it was announced today. The move is an attempt to end the chaos caused by gangs of looters and bandits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa1

Interesting how US military policy is to remove guns to reduce criminal activity, yet American conservative policy is to increase the number of guns to reduce criminal activity.

Must have been a communist lieutenant general.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Interesting how US military policy is to remove guns to reduce criminal activity, yet American conservative policy is to increase the number of guns to reduce criminal activity.

Because it is working according the the FBI stats
Didnt you see? Gun related deaths have been going down since the 90's. Mass shooting have been decreasing since the 1960's

It seems it is a smart thing to go with what works

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Southern_Man

Best thing to do would be to bar people with violent misdemeanors from buying guns. My understanding is that it is only certain felonies that are disqualifying. The best predictor of future violent behavior is past violent behavior.

this is largely incorrect, though I imagine the state variation can be considerable. CA, for example, includes many violent (and this is a very loosely defined term, much like sex offender" misdomeanors in the exclusion category.

[Kennedy 0]

kallend

******Guns don't kill people. People kill people"

Which is why background checks on PEOPLE are a good idea.

And yet you're still focusing on the implement rather than the person. Why?

Ummm NO. The person needs to pass the background check.

Ummm YES. The person needs to pass background checks for what? Everything? To continue breathing? No; to purchase firearms. So like I said, you're focusing on guns and the ability to obtain them, NOT on the people.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Southern_Man

Best thing to do would be to bar people with violent misdemeanors from buying guns. My understanding is that it is only certain felonies that are disqualifying. The best predictor of future violent behavior is past violent behavior.

I disagree. Misdemeanors carry less consequences for a reason. They are less serious. Also, I've never heard that only certain felonies affect rights. Can you provide an example?

Also, be careful with "violent". It's likely to be stretched to include a fistfight from teenage years, or "communicating threats", or other crimes and circumstances you didn't intend.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[wmw999 2,602]

Quote

So like I said, you're focusing on guns and the ability to obtain them, NOT on the people

How would you suggest focusing on the people? Leaving them incarcerated forever isn't realistic.

We screen people trying to buy alcohol, and turn them away if they're underage.

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)

[rehmwa 2]

wmw999

We screen people trying to buy alcohol, and turn them away if they're underage.

we sure do -

1 - the vendor looks at the proof of age (issued once by the local gov agency) and then sells or doesn't sell without any other steps required - that's checking the person

2 - the vendor DOESN'T call a federal department for each and every sale and the department approves that sale. that's not checking the person, it's approving the purchase (and likely keeping a record) of each sale.

Could you just imagine it?

1 - go to liquor store
2 - give ID to clerk
3 - clerk calls the US department of alcohol sales and provides: the list of each item to be purchased, the ID number.
4 - department does a check to make sure that the person on the ID has not aged in a non-linear way
5 - department gives the go ahead to clerk
6 - clerk records the approval and finishes the sale
(now the store and the gov department have a list of each bottle of beer, wine and liquor you just bought)

7 - gov 'promises' to periodically clear the list of alcohol bought by each consumer. really, they "promise" to. No, seriously, they will delete it - because any paper or electronic record can just be deleted and the government wouldn't keep that info for future use -

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,602]

Ergo the "can buy a gun" card that Rush indicated Iowa has. Seems like a good solution to me. There's no record or tie between having the card and having actually bought a gun.

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)

[rehmwa 2]

yup - my recommendation too. I know you and I are on the same side.

but that's not the process being proposed now and what the big stink is over
that's the other thing we don't like

so I harp on it just because I don't really have any other axe to grind on this topic - this and general safety/handling/transport/storage training on the things

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants