No, no, and no. Next please. I mean seriously, we are supposed to believe a study done by a liberal institution, and headed up by an anti-gun advocate is unbiased?
The easiest way of cutting violence 80% in the united states is by not letting those who commit those crimes out of prison to do it again at a 5 year 70% repeat rate.
about 80% of murders and other gun crimes are committed by people who could not legally own firearms at the time they committed a gun crime. yet the Democrat party wants to impose new laws that only affect those of us who can own firearms. Assault weapon bans-well criminals cannot own ANY FIREARM so these bans only restrict US Magazine restrictions-Criminals cannot own any firearm-magazine fed or not-this only AFFECTS US waiting periods-criminals cannot buy guns legally registration-due to the fifth amendment criminals cannot be prosecuted for failing to register something that they cannot legally own One gun a month-again, criminals cannot buy one or two or three guns legally ever
The study is flawed from the beginning. Even some of the anti's are concerned about the quality of the study and the consequences of publishing it. It's probably why it was published in the Lancet in the first place.
How about this...Instead of making new laws that only affect law abiding citizens. You make it a voluntary action for a felon on early release to be surgically implanted with a microchip that tracks their whereabouts 24 hours a day, if they don't consent to the microchip, then they don't get released. Then have a program that allows FFL dealers to have a sensor that detects these chips...This would also deter recidivism as their movements can be tracked via GPS data. This would only be for violent criminals as a condition of their release back into society, if they don't agree, they can rot in prison.
Wow a common sense idea, involving high tech. They already have ankle bracelets but if you look at Chicago many of them are cut off the minute they get out. And just think, implant a micro chip would be "raycism" and a violation of their civil rights and would be engaging in profiling. The libs just couldn't buy that.
That's why I stated that it would be voluntary, if they don't volunteer, they don't get out...And this is not a race thing, it's a crime thing. I mean would you allow Charles Manson out without something like this. Oops too late, California already granted parole though I cannot find where he has been released from prison. http://empirenews.net/charles-manson-granted-parole/
Sort of stupid suggestions if limiting deaths is the goal, oh wait, grabbing guns is the goal, now it all make sense again...
Actually you provided us with a link to a site that required you pay to read study. - - - Updated - - - Guess you didn't read the article. - - - Updated - - - Dih, it's about what "infringe" means as used in the Constitution.
Actually the article talks in depth about gun suicides. And since gun deaths are the topic seems totally relevant. Now if you want to start another thread about suicide in general that might be very interesting. - - - Updated - - - Of course you never post any actual facts from scientific sources, but that's your credibility problem. - - - Updated - - - No, you would never actually do that! Your only source is probably the NRA, if even that.
Gee, and I thought their were loopholes in the law that allowed guns to be purchased without background checks. How could I ever have been so missinformed?
A well schooled electorate, being necessary to a free state, the Right to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Now would you say that only well schooled people have the right to read books or does everyone.
still dishonestly assuming there was a law passed that required all gun sales to have accompanying background checks? You need to actually learn about the laws you are whining about because you continually demonstrate you have no clue about the 1993 Brady act - - - Updated - - - Or An independent press being necessary to a free state, the right to free speech shall not be infringed means only Newspaper editors and the TV media has a right of free speech
Bull (*)(*)(*)(*) study as it includes suicides. American is no where near the top of the death chart when it comes to suicides. That privilege belongs to two countries that have a virtual ban on firearms. Japan and South Korea. Once again a study that only looks at gun deaths but completely ignores all deaths. Of which America is neither at the top of Homicides or suicides.
As a scientist, I don't buy a study that would predict something like that. Doesn't sound very valid scientifically. Sounds like a hypothesis that needs to be validated, not a "study."
30 years as a prosecutor-I knew it was bovine excrement the minute i saw it. none of those proposals would even remotely impact suicides or the 80% of homicides caused by mopes who are engaged in gang activity and cannot legally possess firearms
The legal definition of a loophole is an ambiguity in the way the law is drafted, meaning some vagueness that can be interpreted one way or another, and cast doubt on the certainty of something. Private sales do not require a background check being carried out, because private sales were never included in the law to begin with.
Your definition is erroneously limited to "ambiguity". A loophole may also be - and most commonly is - an error, omission or inadequacy in a law, contract etc., typically caused by the difficulty or impossibility of accounting for all situations, outcomes, developments etc., and ultimately allowing the intent of the law/contract etc., to be evaded. Ironically, your statement that "private sales were never included in the law to begin" is a prime example - a loophole caused by omission which allows the intent (and associated requirements) of background check laws to be evaded.
Private sales were not omitted due to a clerical oversight that caused them to be overlooked. It was a matter of practicality, as during the time when the law was drafted, it was recognized that attempting to enforce the regulations was physically impossible. Even now, it is still physically impossible to enforce background check requirements on private sales, as so many hundreds of millions of firearms are unregistered, untraceable, and impossible to locate. You are free to mandate whatever you want, as much as you want, but that does not mean it can ever be realistically enforced. And seeing as how private sales can be carried out at any time, in any location, and no one knows of it occurring, there is no way of stopping it from being committed.
