Do we already have laws against black market gun sales??? And are you saying that a private citizen can't sale his/her own property??? In this state background checks are mandatory, so we already have laws in place!!! And, YES, gun dealers at gun shows ALSO have to do a background check and observe the mandatory waiting period. By far (somewhere around 86%) of weapons used in crimes are stolen. I say that we can cut the laws down to a few hundred and get rid of the rest. If we can't get it done with 24,000+ laws a few more will NOT solve the problem
They would be part of the licensing process, thus you wouldn't need one whenever you buy a gun, only when you renew your "gun license."
E_P, I could car less about England's car accident rate compared to the U/S., or China's bicycle collision statistics compared to the U.S., or Norway's divorce rate compared to the U.S., they mean nothing to me. It's ONLY here that I care about.
Which means what... do nothing? It's not just merely selling a lunchbox, so quit acting like it is. If a background check is required to buy one new, it should be required regardless. You're not reading... I said a background check isn't required if I buy at a gun show from someone "not regularly in the business of selling firearms". They're not considered gun dealers.
How long would this license be valid before renewal? How would we ensure licenses are updated (or voided) in the event of some event that would make someone ineligible? I'm not trivializing the idea, just asking questions. - - - Updated - - - Okay, bro. Thanks.
Yes we CAN. Making bars more legally liable for over serving, setting up police check points, changing closing times, making bars crack down on fake ids and underage drinking, not allowing sales in the morning on sunday, parents serving minors, parents responsible in minor's actions if they supplied them, bars not serving before a certain time in the morning, stronger DWI laws, etc. are part of a multi-facited approach to reducing drinking related problems. This is NOT just about penalty alone, it's about getting to the root cause of the problem, EVERYONE responsible can face legal issues.
One, illustrate to me that ALL of the guns laws are doing nothing, but moreover you would have to show that laws in general do nothing which is obviously not the case. I agree that banning guns in city X or city Y or changing clip sizes is going to matter. However, I don't think it's a helpless cause, which probably could have been (and was) claimed about DWIs in the 70s ...
Please. You are asking someone to prove a negative. Take a logics class when you get out of high school.
Why is everyone here so nasty? More e-muscles!!!! You "got me"... lol... If I were to guess with my little brain, I've probably taken more mathematics classes than you; lets see I took Statistics I, Discrete mathematics, Calculus I, Calculus II, Physics, Bio, Algorithms I and II, and a number of other logic classes I can't recall off hand. Please stop flattering yourself by knocking other people down on the forums, it's childish, small minded; it's making me feel like I'm ACTUALLY in highschool. Maybe you should work on your borderline personality? LOL. Anyway, I'm being forced to PROVE that guns are a problem, dispite some credible statisical correlation, I'm asking how we know that is NOT to be the case.
Words that will not get me banned from this forum cannot express how stupid i find your whole idea to be. Limiting the number of guns that anyone owns will not, in itself, have any effect at all on gun trafficing. I have 21 firearms in 19 different calibers, and non e of them leave my home without me, and they all come back when I have finished whatever I was doing with them. Arms collectors buy them to have them and to enjoy using them for sport shooting or just sharing the lore of these weapons with others. Every time I take my more unusal weapons, like my Arisaka or Carcano or Enfield to the range, I find myself playing the docent to the younger people who are not familiar with these old relics. The sense of comraderie that develops in these situations is probably hard for you to comprehend, so I will not bother at this point trying to explain it to you. As for locking up your weapons, even if you are at home, the idea is flat out brain-dead. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away. I do haqve an alternative suggestion, though. Every gun owner should be obligated to perform militia duties as per traditions far older than the USA. When any kind of emergency arises, the militia turn out to repel invasion, suppress insurrection or to assist their neighbors in the event of some disaster. This, of course, requires that they all train together in community-based units, under authority of duly elected officials, like the county sheriff or governor. A title should be attached to every weapon in the country, and transfer should be recorded duly. Gang bangers caught with weapons with no title go down just for that crime. Now we have made the community a little more cohesive, required that people who have weapons are more dangerous to the goblins than to their neighbors, they are better prepared to deal with a disaster, youhave a way of removing violent criminals before they do violence and you have taken a bite out of arms trafficing. All your proposal does is make life miserable for sportsmen and history buffs.
Well you are the are reason why things will never change so you don't have much to worry about. I think that you are much like a lot of people here, you see bad people out there and you are feeling punished for the behavior of a few for such sweeping changes. I agree that you are being leveraged in my plans but the point is that the "good" gun users are providing guns directly or indirectly to those who commit crimes. 1) I do not want to have a discussion about militias, or the 2nd. This is retrograde. 2) I do not want to hear that locking up guns is a major problem, we can have a permit process to all people not to if they feel they need it. 3) We can have rules for gun collectors, they represent a small number of the population. 4) How do you suggest we change gun behavior and trafficking ? Or do you feel it is not a problem? 5) Do you believe that criminals are given or sold guns from family /friends or use stolen guns ? 6) Do you believe that the number of guns on the streets can be reduced ? Look everyone shoot down my ideas but I don't really see too many people making sound counterarguments.
Look at DC crime rates, gun crimes and violent crime specifically. Department of Justice will have all sorts of info you'll like or not like. Chicago is a great place to check out too. Then examine gun laws of the afflicted area. Me thinks you'll figure this out if you want to. Or not. Really up to you. Really it doesn't make sense to limit a man's natural right to defend himself. He should have the right to be able to wield force equal to or greater than his aggressor, or whatever makes sense to him. If a guy breaks into my home with a shotgun and I kill him with a pellet gun or an ar-15 I really don't care either way. But removing my ability to defend myself/family/home in a way that makes sense is just wrong. Plus it makes it easier for the bad guys who break laws anyways by profession. ...so whose side are you on here? Criminals or citizens? I'm not going to try to prove anything to you. If you prove it to yourself it would be more effective.
I bet a law making it so no car can start till the driver does a breathalyzer test would save a lot of lives.
Violent crime in the UK is spectacular, but with knives and such. Take away guns and you are not solving a problem. You are creating a bigger one. When even the smallest guy and girl can deal out lethality to even the largest opponent by virtue of having a gun, the attacker loses advantage, and thus he loses incentive. "God made all men, but Colt made them equal." There is no simpler way to illustrate this that I know of.
But would be equally asinine - eating a donut a few minutes earlier can set it off. Something about the chemistry of the salivary amylase and the sugars of the donuts. My friend got a ticket and charge thrown out in court doing it in front of a judge. Hilarious. Chemistry pays off I guess.
Oh don't get me started on drones. My wrath is unending towards this topic. And the ever evolving police state. I suppose they make for good skeet practice?
1, Didn't say take away guns, 2, the UK stats or "correlative data" doesn't "prove" especially when crossing country lines. You guys pointed this out to me. So why is the US more violent ? Guns? You say no. That seems contradictory to your comments and the realities...
I know, I mean I love pictures and all. But I love pictures that actually help my stance more. But most of all I love pictures that are not laden with lies. While I'm sure the info was in fact correct, it was put together in the most misleading way possible.
No, you left out the one statistic Ive asked twice for now. Interesting. You need to post the math I asked for. Legal gunowners who used their guns to commit crimes versus legal gun owners. Your math includes criminals which is exactly how liberals skew data to fit their ideology. We already know criminals do bad thing thats why they are criminals. You want to punish legal gun owners and Im trying to figure out your derivation of why you think that would work. So one last effort to ask you to post the math. If you cant you have proven to the forum your argument is nullified by a simple math problem. Why avoid the question if your ideology is solid?
Then why did you make the statement that "More Guns = More Gun Homicides, statistically speaking" and then post statistics that showed gun homicides to be at a 30+ year low while the number of gun owners and total number of guns has been increasing? What was the connection between your claim and the stats that you posted?
Why more violent? Monkey see, and monkey do, with a few exceptions. Media violence portrayal as cool I suspect is a big part of it. Games like grand theft auto 3 probably aren't helping either. Let's be realistic about it though, gun control is about take guns away from people a certain segment feels shouldn't have them. It is the whole point of registering and licensing, and background checks. Not to mention the money it brings in. Follow the profits. But nothing you said makes anything I said untrue. You can try to prove it if you like.
"nearly 35% obtained their guns from friends and family members — the largest single source of criminals' guns." -latimes.com "39.2. Street/illegal source. 33.8. 39.6. Friends or family." -usdoj.gov "Among the youth who had carried guns, 48% had been given or loaned the gun by a family member or friend." -princeton.edu "500,000-1,400,000 guns are stolen anually" -Gary Kleck (sociologist) Sheley and Write found that the leading sources of handguns were (1) borrowing from family member or friend (45% juv) (2) buying off the street 54% inmates); (3) buying from family member or friend 36% of inmates) (5) buying from gun shop (12% inmates) (6) Theft (15% of inmates)