Obama’s political agenda backfires, gun sales in 2013 smash all records

One year ago this month, President Obama announced that radical gun control was the top of his agenda for his second term. Although he failed to get any of the gun bans or government registrations passed on the federal level, he was successful in one area. His actions convinced millions of Americans to buy more firearms than any time in history.

The FBI reported that it performed an astounding 21,093,273 background checks for the year ending Dec. 31, In fact, eight of the top 10 highest weeks ever for National Instant Background Check System (NICS) checks were in 2013 (the other two were during Dec. 2012.)


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-all-records-due-obamas-gun-co/#ixzz2pjV2RYMB

 

Kansas also saw a doubling of concealed carry permit applications...bet it's the same in most other states. So now thanks to Barry we have more gun sales and more people capable of carrying them. Good post BTW

 

How sad the NRA's pockets are so deep that they are able to convince otherwise sane Americans killing is good

 

Yea... all 21 million of those guns killed people, and every one of them is an NRA member.

News flash: The people that are responsible for the violent crime stats are NOT getting background checks.

 

That's a bit disingenuous. What they've convinced them is that we are on the verge of sweeping massive gun reform and or complete bans. (Which is completely bogus given the political atmosphere. The reality is the law is going the OTHER way).

Pick up the NRA mag Rifleman if you get a chance. As a NRA member I get it monthly I believe. Each magazine is prefaced by a editors letter from some NRA big wig, and each letter gives the impression that the government is only days away from kicking in your door and confiscating your weapons. Its some seriously paranoid nonsense but you cannot argue with results. The NRA and gun manufacturers are making a killing... no pun intended.

 

Actually, I think we're saying the same thing. Scaring them into buying more guns.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you for agreeing that mandatory background checks are needed for all gun sales, including those bought behind the scenes at gun shows and private sales.

 

Your tinfoil slipped. Best fix that.

 

How do you intend to enforce private sale background checks? If I sell my gun to my neighbor, how do you think anyone will know if we did a background check or not?
The answer is they won't. There is no way to enforce "Universal Background Checks". That's why the law failed in congress last summer.

 

What worthy plans would you have for the repeat violent felons who use their stolen guns to commit crimes?

Do you think they need to have their hands slapped twice for not getting background checks?

 

It's clear that we need to put the onus on the "responsible" legal gun owner. Sell your gun without a background check? Go to jail. Leave a gun so it's available to be stolen? Go to jail. Your child gets killed by a gun you leave lying around the house? Go to jail.

It's a proven fact that stolen guns aren't the cause of most murders, so my first scenario won't solve most murders. But the second one will. Read:

The solution, of course, is not to put more guns in the hands of Americans. It's to limit them.

 

Fascinating, are all these guns going to prevent the next class of four years getting shot in the chest?

Lets hope these guys volunteer to guard every classroom from now on with their powerful weapons.

 

You didn't answer my question. How do you enforce private party transaction background checks? There is no possible way for you to know when a private transfer takes place. You can't jail someone if you don't know they broke the law.
Please share will us how you will keep track of private transfers.

 

By requiring all future sales to be registered. Sure, it may take a while, but progress always does. Would you be willing to sell a gun to someone who might use it to commit a crime if you know you'll go to prison if it happens?

 

Currently registering hand guns... or creating a national Database is illegal and that ain't changing anytime soon. Secondly just how would you propose to create a national database of current gun owners (some 350 millions guns) so you could track gun sales. Nope the question remains ow would you propose enforcing these transactions with a background check, ummm one that doesn't violate the 2nd amendment eh?

 

funny how it always comes back to penalizing legal gun owners who are not the ones supplying guns to bad guys, instead of punishing bad guys. Anti-gunners have no intellectual connection to the real problem....it's always some emotional response not grounded in reality. SHEESH

 

What's sad here is that you must honestly believe the gun control nonsense you put out. Your ideas are in lockstep with Piers Morgan and other anti-gun activists. Your quote about guns being used in crime was so weak that you didn't provide a link---but is obvious it came from PBS or "Frontline" or other Neo-Communist Major Media outlet.

To the criminals you say, "It's not YOUR fault. It's the gun's fault. Attack the rights of honest, law-abiding citizens and somehow crime will vanish."

The violent criminals you want to protect are the ones who should be punished. Morally debased people like gang members and violent criminals could no more care about the legality of what guns they aquire as they do the illegal nartcotics they deal in. As long as they are not punished to any great degree, they will continue their lives of crime. It does not matter what the gun control laws are if the criminals who use them are not taken down. Case in point, Mexico:

It is far more difficult to legally purchase a gun in Mexico than it is in this country. Like the United States, the Mexican constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. Up until the 1960s, firearms were widely available, but student unrest in those years inspired a crackdown and a strengthening of gun control laws. In that year a Federal Arms registry was established, controlled by the Ministry of National Defense.

There is now only one legal gun store in Mexico -- in Mexico City -- and buyers must wait months for approval of purchase from the Ministry of Defense. Purchases are limited to small caliber, non-military weapons that must be kept at home; semi-automatic weapons are only sold to military and police. After the 1960s, Mexican law was changed to prohibit private citizens from openly carrying a firearm or carrying a concealed weapon.

http://www.fronterasdesk.org/content/wake-us-shootings-look-mexicos-gun-laws



Mexico is a corrupt hell-hole. So are all the most violent, gang infested cities with high murder rates in the US. Mexico has no death penatly, and the Liberal Left can't tolerate seeing members of their core support groups in the violent urban ghettos being put to death---let alone doing hard time for the many crimes they commit.

You do support Mexico's gun control laws, don't you? How could they be any better? And... why do you think they are so worthless?

 

I did provide a link but I guess FOX News doesn't teach y'all about hyperlink s.

And it was from NPR citing a legitimate study, not a blog. If you are intelligent enough to refute the study, do so. >>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

 

NPR (National Public Radio) is absolutely nothing but hard core leftwing propagandists. Now you know.

 

Interestingly your link proves my point.

- - - Updated - - -

"The expiration relaxed the permissiveness of gun sales in border states such as Texas, Arizona and New Mexico, but not California, which retained a pre-existing state-level ban. Using mortality statistics over 2002-2006, we show that homicides, gun-related homicides and crime gun seizures increased differentially in Mexican municipios located closer to entry ports in these other border states, relative to California.

 

You seem pretty quick to flee. Any criminal with a prior conviction that does not, and should not allow them have a firearm on them isn't going to bother with breaking one more law having a stolen gun when he is already breaking a dozen others. In any area ran by liberal Democrats (Socialists), and that is EVERY single one of the 10 Most Dangerous Cities in the US, low conviction rates are far more telling about crime than what gun control law is in effect.

My first question to you again was basically: What punishment should the actual repeat violent felon receive for using a stolen gun in a violent crime such as killing the member of a rival drug gang in a drive by shooting?

Every single gun used among the 512 murders in Chicago in 2012 was not registered (by the city of Chicago) by the criminals who used them in their crimes. The same for every single gun in use today by the tens of thousands of Mexican drug gangs that have murdered tens of thousands. It is the people, not the number or type of guns of any given place on the planet that determine what the crime rates are.

Guns are far more common in North Dakota than they are in Chicago, yet Chicago has a 5 times greater murder rate adjusting for the population.

Iceland and Switzerland have exponentially more guns in private hands than does the UK, yet murder rates and violent crime rates are far lower.

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data...rnational_Statistics_on_Crime_and_Justice.pdf

Can you explain why gun control has continued to fail in the UK, Mexico and Chicago? >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

 

Quick to flee? Is there a requirement to post ad nauseum on this forum?

You lose all credibility by calling liberal Democrats "Socialists". Grow up and realize that those whom you disagree with aren't Satan. Additionally, your numbers are wrong. The "10 Most Dangerous Cities" don't have the lowest conviction rates, they have the highest. Why? Because it's always fun to lock up the black man, huh? If you care to check my facts, do so. (Since you couldn't back your claim up with a link, why should I?) I believe you'll find the states with the lowest conviction rates happen to be red states. Queens, NY, actually has the highest.

I support strict penalties for all gun deaths, like when a child is killed by his "responsible gun owner" father's gun. That father should spend the rest of his life in prison, just like the gang member. After all, there's no difference between them, right?

Nice strawman, worthy of ignoring. However, may I suggest you investigate where those guns in Mexico come from? Yeah...gun dealers in the good ol' USA.

Apples and oranges, dude. And no source, of course (although you used Townhall.com).

Iceland? Really? Guns are banned in Iceland. And gun deaths are rare because nobody, even police (except SWAT teams) are allowed to carry.


Switzerland? Sure...Let's require mandatory military service for all males between 20-30 through, make them keep the guns in a local armory, and require strict registration and monitoring of guns. JUST LIKE SWITZERLAND!

Gun deaths in Chicago were the lowest in decades last year.

How many people were killed by guns in Britain last year?

Where do the guns in Mexico come from?

 

Don't forget Australia...I believe it is a failure there as well.

 

If I want to get a gun 'off the books' I'll just get mine from Holder and his DOJ.

AND BTW I've proudly bought a few additional firearms this year, and I do carry, NOT because the O and the anti self-defense libs bother me, much less scare me, but because in this country thank God I have the right to....

Don't like it I suggest you get over it.

 

OK, lets apply your method to cars since automobiles kill and injure more people than guns even when normalized for the number of drivers and gun owners. If your car gets stolen? You go to jail. A kid takes your car for a joyride and hits someone? You go to jail. You don't lock your car in your totally secure garage with an alarm monitored 24/7? You go to jail. Sell your car without verifying the buyer has a legal license, insurance, and doesn't have a history of drunk driving? Go to jail. Let your child drive your car while texting? You go to jail.

Lets solve all the problems with driving by placing the onus on the car owner. Think it will work?

Thats contrary to the data.

When murder rate and firearm ownership rate is correlated for the 170 nations in the UNODC, the correlation is -0.34, meaning more guns, less murder. In the 170 nations, the US is #85 for muder rate and #1 in gun ownership rate.

Over the past 21 years, the murder rate in the US has dropped 50% (and the violent crime rate has dropped 50%), while gun ownership has increased, and state and federal gun laws have been relaxed. Australia, on the other hand, has seen violent crime increase 33% since 1996 when it implemented its gun controls/ban. In fact, murder in Australia increased 16% by 2001 despite the drop in gun ownership (its now down 33% from the 1995 pre-ban level, but after a massive increase in police spending to combat the very embarassing result of the gun bans).

If you look in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, you find that homicide and gun crimes in the US is very strongly correlated to the city size. The larger the city, the greater the crime rates. Thats contrary to gun ownership rates, the larger the city the lower the legal gun ownership rates.

And the most notorious crime ridden cities have the strongest gun controls. The knee jerk reaction is to claim that guns are coming into the city from area with lax gun control. Not true. For example "Strategies for Disrupting Illegal Firearm Markets" (2001, National Institute of Justice, DOJ), which studied Los Angeles, found that

"...contrary to the conventional wisdom that crime guns were being trafficked across state borders from places with less stringent regulations, such as Arizona and Nevada, we found that a majority of the guns used in crimes were purchased in Los Angeles County.”​

Guns are not a consummable item, they last for 100+ years, and in the gun saturated USA there are enough guns in any city to meet the current demand for banned firearms.

If you want to decrease crime, go after the criminals.

 

Notice how your focus is on the gun and not the criminal. No wonder the crimianal justice systems is so ineffective in the US and the UK.

Notice how you can't refute my points about conviction rates, becuase you don't even know what the 10 most dangerous cities are in the US. Queens isn't on of them. Detroit is. And conviction rates for murder are only 10 to 30% The average resident of Detroit does not like having one of their own be held liable for their own actions.

[video=youtube;CGlKdnNqZIU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGlKdnNqZIU[/video]

So, in the very rare case of a small child finding a legal loaded gun in his home and killing himself with it---you want life in prison for the irresponsible gun owner? You must also want life in prison for the homeowner whose child in killed by drowing in a bucket or pool or tub, or by posioning by household chemicals. All of these are things cause a significant number of child deaths each year, unlike true gun accidents. You must also demand life in prison for the pool/bucket/poison owners. Right?

Do some research before you make foolish claims. About 1/4 of the homes in Switzerland have a fully automatic assault rifle in them. The Swiss are no longer giving issuing packs of ammo for these rifles to keep at home, but the riflemen may still buy this ammo from stores or a range and keep it at home.

The above is true regarding army issued ammunition. However, "Swiss military ammo must be registered if bought at a private store, but need not be registered if bought at a range. The nation's 3,000 shooting ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition. Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed." (Source: What America can learn from Switzerland is that the best way to reduce gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership) In other words, Swiss reservists are free to purchase, possess, and use military ammunition outside the context of direct military service.
http://www.guncite.com/swissgun.html

>>>Insults Removed<<<

Educate yourself, please:

Details of the event have yet to emerge, but this much is clear: Iceland is a weird place. The population of the island is 325,000, while the number of registered firearms is 90,000, which when you consider that Iceland also has children, suggests that more than a third of the population is armed.

St. Louis happens to have about the same population as Iceland. Last year, the city&#8217;s police chief ordered a study of incidents in which officers shot at suspects. As reported by the St. Louis Post Dispatch, that happened 98 times in the 2008-2011 period, and 12 of the people shot at died.

I don&#8217;t think you can say the difference is because a lot of Iceland is rural &#8212; all but about 25,000 of the population are urban dwellers. And the National Rifle Association will be pleased to hear that it can&#8217;t all be accounted for by gun ownership: True, the United States has almost 90 guns per 100 people, compared with 30 per 100 in Iceland, but if gun ownership were the key difference you would expect a much narrower differential in police shootings.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57213511-82/iceland-police-guns-population.html.csp

Where do the guns come from in Iceland? This is irrelevant. Gun control is a failure in the UK, and Mexico as well as Chicago. There is no excuse for gun crime in any of these areas TO EVER BE HIGH, IF these coveted gun control laws were worth the paper they were written on.

Where do the guns come from in Mexico you ask? The same places their illegal narcotics come from (South and Central America). They also come from the US. But why should the criminals and Cartels worry about gun legalities when they control whole areas of Mexico?