Mass shooting of the week - New Orleans

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Background checks don't infringe on anyone's rights.

Here in Iowa they dont

But the fed proposal does

BTW
If you read the DOJ report, you would see that background checks (even those suggested by those like you and the feds) would not have stopped any of the last few high profile murders. So, what would be be the reason to impliment this?

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

[Gravitymaster 0]

Because his ilk knows background check will do very little to stop gun violence. However, it gets the ball rolling down the slippery slope of gun confiscation. Once background checks don't work, they will simply wring their hands and claim we "need to do more".

[rushmc 23]

Gravitymaster

Because his ilk knows background check will do very little to stop gun violence. However, it gets the ball rolling down the slippery slope of gun confiscation. Once background checks don't work, they will simply wring their hands and claim we "need to do more".

And nearly everyone who is paying any attention at all, know this
Including those posting here
Yet they still want "expanded" background checks


Hmmmm

wonder why?

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

[DaVinci 0]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

Gun deaths are DOWN 39% since 1993. Gun violence is down 69%. That is in-spite of the 1994 AWB sunsetting. In-spite of more States allowing citizens to carry. And in spite of more guns being made and sold every day (19.6 MILLION in 2011 alone).

Yes, this shooting in New Orleans is tragic. And so is every other shooting. But you blaming guns is silly. A gun does not pull a trigger and even the DATA shows that even with more gun rights and more guns than ever before that shootings are DOWN.

When you decide to stop blaming the objects, you might be worth listening to.....

And the "gun show loophole"???? TWO percent of criminals got their firearms from gunshows. 40% got it from an illegal source.

Another study: "The March Pew study, drawn from numbers obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also found a dramatic drop in gun crime over the past two decades. Their accounting shows a 49 percent decline in the homicide rate, and a 75 percent decline of non-fatal violent crime victimization"

Chicago has gun laws like you want the whole world to have: "With the toughest gun laws in the nation, Chicago saw homicides jump to 513 in 2012, a 15% hike in a single year. The city’s murder rate is 15.65 per 100,000 people, compared with 4.5 for the Midwest, and 5.6 for Illinois"

The data, and common sense, proves your position to be incorrect.

When you decide to become relevant and start to focus on the facts and reasons.... Let me know.

Here are some seeds to get you started on real solutions:
1. Why are men more likely than women to engage in violence?
2. Why are black men 8 times more likely to be killed by firearms than white men?
3. Why do blacks make up 55% of the victims when blacks only account for 12.8% of the population?
4. Why has gun crime gone DOWN when there are more guns in circulation and the AWB was allowed to sunset in 2004?
5. Why does Chicago have higher gun crime than the rest of the US even with strong gun control laws?
6. Why does DC have the same problem?

Answer these and you might start down a path that provides real solutions.... continue to blindly blame the object and you are wasting your breath.

I'll be honest, I don't have answers for 2 or 3.... The best I can come up with is that 72% of black children are born out of wedlock today.... This means that there is a strong chance that they live in poverty and without strong male role models.

But hey, you are a smart guy.... Lets hear your answers.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

If you own a handgun, thank the NRA. If you own any AR variant, thank the NRA. If you own a semiauto shotgun, thank the NRA. If you own a rifle in any caliber large than .247, thank the NRA.

All crap. The NRA supported gun restrictions until about 1978. They supported licensing, they supported banning full auto, they supported the "Sporting" clause in 1968. The President of the NRA in 1934 said no citizen had a reason to own a pistol.

The NRA, until recently, didn't support the right to own firearms for personal defense. For 100 years they cared more about duck hunting than self defense.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

(9) A parade or demonstration for which a permit is issued by a governmental entity.

This was not an official parade.

Your other points are valid, this one is not.

TK, why are the most liberal parts of a city normally the ones with the higher crime rates?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Shotguns are not the problem- handguns most definitely are

Killers are the problem, not the object.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Still easy. Get some guy to buy you a gun, then have him sell it to you once he leaves the store. 100% legal for both the store and the middleman.

NOT legal. It is called a straw purchase and it has been illegal since at least 1968. It is the first question on the 4473:
"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are
acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

[rushmc 23]

Something else regarding the gun show 2% loophole

The report only gives this info

What it does not report is whether the guns were purchased legally or not

These people that commited the crimes may have been legal buyers when the gun was purchased at the show

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

[champu 1]

DaVinci

TK, why are the most liberal parts of a city normally the ones with the higher crime rates?

I am decidedly not TK, but I've made a couple posts about why high tax-receipts, college degrees, liberal voting trends, and crime all seem to end up in the same places. The simplest answer is just high population density leads to all of that stuff.

[kallend 2,113]

DaVinci

Chicago has gun laws like you want the whole world to have: "With the toughest gun laws in the nation, Chicago saw homicides jump to 513 in 2012, a 15% hike in a single year. The city’s murder rate is 15.65 per 100,000 people, compared with 4.5 for the Midwest, and 5.6 for Illinois"

May 1, 2013 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- The Chicago Police Department released figures indicating a 42 percent decline in the number of murders in the city in the first four months of 2013 compared to the same period last year.

Quote

The data, and common sense, proves your position to be incorrect.

Apparently NOT.

Quote

When you decide to become relevant and start to focus on the facts and reasons.... Let me know.

Here are some seeds to get you started on real solutions:
1. Why are men more likely than women to engage in violence?
2. Why are black men 8 times more likely to be killed by firearms than white men?
3. Why do blacks make up 55% of the victims when blacks only account for 12.8% of the population?
4. Why has gun crime gone DOWN when there are more guns in circulation and the AWB was allowed to sunset in 2004?
5. Why does Chicago have higher gun crime than the rest of the US even with strong gun control laws?

Incorrect. Several cities have higher murder RATES

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

www.policymic.com/articles/22686/america-s-10-deadliest-cities-2012

New Orleans, Atlanta, Birmingham AL, Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore, Baton Rouge, Memphis and St. Louis are all higher than Chicago.

[

Quote

6. Why does DC have the same problem?

Answer these and you might start down a path that provides real solutions.... continue to blindly blame the object and you are wasting your breath.

Of course, we might have answers had the gun lobby not got the Republicans in Congress to cut off funding for research into violent crime.

...

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

[kallend 2,113]

DaVinci

Quote

Still easy. Get some guy to buy you a gun, then have him sell it to you once he leaves the store. 100% legal for both the store and the middleman.

NOT legal. It is called a straw purchase and it has been illegal since at least 1968. It is the first question on the 4473:
"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are
acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

Oh wow, what a DIFFICULT problem to overcome. I bet THAT deters a lot of people.

...

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

[kallend 2,113]

DaVinci

And the "gun show loophole"???? TWO percent of criminals got their firearms from gunshows. 40% got it from an illegal source.

Source? Would that be the study when those most HONEST of people, convicted criminals, were asked? Or is it the one where the guns were actually traced back? You know, the one that analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations

...

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

[rushmc 23]

kallend

***

And the "gun show loophole"???? TWO percent of criminals got their firearms from gunshows. 40% got it from an illegal source.

Source? Would that be the study when those most HONEST of people, convicted criminals, were asked? Or is it the one where the guns were actually traced back? You know, the one that analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations



DOJ report which is linked in multiple threads

And the question was asked of those who



wait for it




hang on







were already in prison for a gun crime of some sort




Thanks John

I needed that

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

[normiss 867]

The data from the same government that trafficked guns with Mexican drug cartels that then lost track of said guns???

Yea, I'd want to trust their data too.

[kallend 2,113]

rushmc

******

And the "gun show loophole"???? TWO percent of criminals got their firearms from gunshows. 40% got it from an illegal source.

Source? Would that be the study when those most HONEST of people, convicted criminals, were asked? Or is it the one where the guns were actually traced back? You know, the one that analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations



DOJ report which is linked in multiple threads

And the question was asked of those who



wait for it




hang on







were already in prison for a gun crime of some sort




Thanks John

I needed that




Yep, those convicted criminals, most of whom undoubtedly claimed "not guilty", are very trustworthy.

...

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

[rushmc 23]

kallend

*********

And the "gun show loophole"???? TWO percent of criminals got their firearms from gunshows. 40% got it from an illegal source.

Source? Would that be the study when those most HONEST of people, convicted criminals, were asked? Or is it the one where the guns were actually traced back? You know, the one that analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations



DOJ report which is linked in multiple threads

And the question was asked of those who



wait for it




hang on







were already in prison for a gun crime of some sort




Thanks John

I needed that




Yep, those convicted criminals, most of whom undoubtedly claimed "not guilty", are very trustworthy.

Yet another change in direction

Go figure

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

[champu 1]

kallend

***

Quote

Still easy. Get some guy to buy you a gun, then have him sell it to you once he leaves the store. 100% legal for both the store and the middleman.

NOT legal. It is called a straw purchase and it has been illegal since at least 1968. It is the first question on the 4473:
"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are
acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

Oh wow, what a DIFFICULT problem to overcome. I bet THAT deters a lot of people.

Well, to be fair, the clear-to-buy card (which I don't think rehmwa or myself will claim to have originated, since you named us) wouldn't directly address this issue either. If you wanted to go after straw purchasers, you would still need to pinpoint the transaction for firearms that had been used in crimes. You can't do that without a) the cooperation of the perp in custody or b) a database of transactions (i.e. a national gun registry, about which I think people have legitimate concerns.) I think it should be pretty clear that the specific issue of straw purchases is difficult if not impossible to address without really getting in everyone's shorts.

Now, I say "directly" above because all it takes now is for someone to just go in and buy a gun for you. You fill out the form, run the check, etc. all more or less as part of the same transaction. Whereas if you needed to get an id card first, then go to a place and buy the firearm that's two steps and thus at least marginally more difficult to convince someone to do for you. Sort of "security through bureaucracy" if you will. But whether it's making someone lie on a form or making them jump through one more hoop it's still a "cross your fingers and hope for the best" sort of measure, and should not be a primary argument for implementing a clear to buy card.

[kallend 2,113]

champu

******

Quote

Still easy. Get some guy to buy you a gun, then have him sell it to you once he leaves the store. 100% legal for both the store and the middleman.

NOT legal. It is called a straw purchase and it has been illegal since at least 1968. It is the first question on the 4473:
"Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are
acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you."

Oh wow, what a DIFFICULT problem to overcome. I bet THAT deters a lot of people.

Well, to be fair, the clear-to-buy card (which I don't think rehmwa or myself will claim to have originated, since you named us) wouldn't directly address this issue either. If you wanted to go after straw purchasers, you would still need to pinpoint the transaction for firearms that had been used in crimes. You can't do that without a) the cooperation of the perp in custody or b) a database of transactions (i.e. a national gun registry, about which I think people have legitimate concerns.) I think it should be pretty clear that the specific issue of straw purchases is difficult if not impossible to address without really getting in everyone's shorts.

Now, I say "directly" above because all it takes now is for someone to just go in and buy a gun for you. You fill out the form, run the check, etc. all more or less as part of the same transaction. Whereas if you needed to get an id card first, then go to a place and buy the firearm that's two steps and thus at least marginally more difficult to convince someone to do for you. Sort of "security through bureaucracy" if you will. But whether it's making someone lie on a form or making them jump through one more hoop it's still a "cross your fingers and hope for the best" sort of measure, and should not be a primary argument for implementing a clear to buy card.

And the NRA argued AGAINST tougher penalties for straw purchasers.

...

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

[Kennedy 0]

DaVinci

Quote

(9) A parade or demonstration for which a permit is issued by a governmental entity.

This was not an official parade.

Your other points are valid, this one is not.

TK, why are the most liberal parts of a city normally the ones with the higher crime rates?

Incorrect. A permit was issued. That's all it takes to put this law into effect. It would have been a crime to carry concealed at or near the parade, whether you had a permit or not.

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

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

May 1, 2013 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- The Chicago Police Department released figures indicating a 42 percent decline in the number of murders in the city in the first four months of 2013 compared to the same period last year

Still higher than pretty much every other city in the US... Even those with 'looser' gun laws. And didn't Chicago just get handed down a SC ruling that they had to allow gun ownership? And didn't the 7th circuit court just tell IL that they had to allow concealed carry? So that pretty much shows:

1. Gun crime is going down, even with an increase in guns.
2. Gun crime is higher in Chicago, even with strict gun laws.

Quote

Of course, we might have answers had the gun lobby not got the Republicans in Congress to cut off funding for research into violent crime.

We would welcome true research.... Like the two studies I posted showing crime rates are going DOWN.

Care to explain why the crime rates are going DOWN even with a loosening of gun laws, an increase in number of guns available, and the AWB having expired?

Care to explain why Chicago has such a high crime rate even with gun laws you like?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

h wow, what a DIFFICULT problem to overcome. I bet THAT deters a lot of people.

No different than the laws you support. The Toomey bill would have done nothing to stop the majority of illegal gun buys... LESS than 2%. yet you supported it.

I'll tell you what, you propose a gun bill that will ONLY impact criminals and not hamper law abiding citizens and ill support it. However so far all you have done is show support for bills that will hinder law abiding gun owners and that would do nothing to hamper criminals.

I'll even give you an example: Discharge a firearm in the commission of a crime by a felon equals life in prison. I'd support that.

1. They are a felon, not allowed to own a firearm.
2. They were caught committing a crime with a firearm.

But ALL of your plans just make it difficult for a lawful citizen to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.... 2% of guns were bought at gunshows, yet you want everyone to have to submit to a check. Meanwhile, 80% are through illegal means (40% straw purchase, 40% from what the study called "illegal).... Yet you propose NOTHING to try and stop that.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Source?

The DOJ.... the link is already in an earlier post.

Quote

Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations

Which is already illegal and the DOJ and the executive branch said it was not worth going after the people who lied on 4473's.

“And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.” -- VP Biden.

In 2010, 72,600 people were caught lying on the 4473. There were 62 cases looked at by the DOJ and prosecutors considered just 22 cases of information falsification.

So out of 72K cases they bothered to bring charges in 22. And your solution is to require 1M more 4473's?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Incorrect. A permit was issued

This was a secondary parade, called a "second line" parade. Not the official parade. It was not officially sanctioned by the city.
This would be no different than a group of folks outside a football game playing football. They are not the Patriots nor the Giants. Yes, they are playing football, but the NFL didn't sponsor them.

MUCH more important to focus on:
Akein Scott and Shawn Scotts history of drug offenses (making them not allowed to own a firearm since 1968). And Akein Scott ALREADY had another weapons charge before this......

Best said: "The real gun control, ultimately it comes here, (pointing at his heart)" - The Dalai Lama.

[champu 1]

kallend

***Well, to be fair, the clear-to-buy card (which I don't think rehmwa or myself will claim to have originated, since you named us) wouldn't directly address this issue either. If you wanted to go after straw purchasers, you would still need to pinpoint the transaction for firearms that had been used in crimes. You can't do that without a) the cooperation of the perp in custody or b) a database of transactions (i.e. a national gun registry, about which I think people have legitimate concerns.) I think it should be pretty clear that the specific issue of straw purchases is difficult if not impossible to address without really getting in everyone's shorts.

Now, I say "directly" above because all it takes now is for someone to just go in and buy a gun for you. You fill out the form, run the check, etc. all more or less as part of the same transaction. Whereas if you needed to get an id card first, then go to a place and buy the firearm that's two steps and thus at least marginally more difficult to convince someone to do for you. Sort of "security through bureaucracy" if you will. But whether it's making someone lie on a form or making them jump through one more hoop it's still a "cross your fingers and hope for the best" sort of measure, and should not be a primary argument for implementing a clear to buy card.

And the NRA argued AGAINST tougher penalties for straw purchasers.

That's fascinating.

The penalty for straw purchases or what an organization argues regarding said penalty doesn't change the challenges associated with catching people at it and convicting them so that the penalty can be applied.