Why Gun Control is doomed to fail......

The claim made by yourself is that one only commit perjury if they are engaged in an act of breaking the law. Such is not the legal definition of what constitutes perjury.

Personal details pertaining to myself have been withheld from any discussion, as such is not relevant to the actual discussion.

Such as the supposed quote produced by myself about a hypothetical scenario involving a canine?

 

seems likely to me that the 'household firearm rate' is dropping because of all the gun owners who wish their guns to remain a secret in this atmosphere of gun control being pushed everywhere. Just in the last 5 years alone, the number of 'unfortunate boating accidents' dropping folks arsenals to the bottom of lakes have absolutely skyrocketed.

 

Could be. Where did you get your 60 million additional guns figure from?

 

Felons, perhaps, but apparently not terrorists.

What level of dedication, however? Hundreds of millions of firearms currently in circulation already, tens of thousands more being added daily, and far more legal protections than any other nation. How many decades, and billions of dollars, would need to be invested into the necessary efforts? How many tens of thousands would be murdered during that time? When is the necessary investment for the end result to be considered workable, considered to not be cost effective for what will be returned?

Bear in mind the return for the investment is nothing more than having a system that can hypothetically track every owner of every single firearm, and know when it changes hands between legal owners, at which time the old data will be rendered obsolete and need to be deleted. The system would be in constant flux, changing at a daily if not hourly rate. the manpower and technology requirements will be significant, and cost billions of dollars, just as the deleted system in the nation of Canada did. Billions of dollars, simply to maintain data.

However none of this changes the fact that what will come of this hypothetical system will amount to nothing in practical, real world terms. If a firearm is tracked to the last known owner, it does no good if the firearm was reported at stolen, or the person it was sold to did not actually bother to register it, or if the last known owner is dead and cannot be questioned further, or if the system in which the data is stored has simply not been updated. You may occasionally catch an individual who does not care what the law may say about what they should do, but there will be millions more than will not be found, and who will carry on with business as usual.

This is not mere opinion. This is the end result of studying out how every system currently in place can and has been defeated either through human error, mechanical error, or simple disregard for the rules being in place.

This assumes the suspect has enough credibility to be trusted to be telling the truth when questioned on where they acquired a firearm. Which once again brings it down to a question of credibility. The felon found in possession of a firearm, and facing murder charges, is going to hold less credibility to the public, than the legal firearm owner who has no criminal record, and claims the firearm was stolen from them. Since the felon has no way of proving the sale occurred, they have no physical way of refuting the testimony of the supposed seller.

Beyond which, it comes down to a question of priorities. Should the murderer face a lighter sentence than someone who may have sold only a single firearm in an illegal fashion?

 

A hundred thousand drug dealers have been put in prison.

Happy to do the same with illegal gun dealers.

 

But you never shy away from making the numbers up.

 

How many terrorists have been stopped?

 

You are making things up.

Again.

 

Presumably from data released by the FBI reporting on how many background checks were performed during the time period in question.

 

Twenty five minutes and fifty bucks.

What we know for sure is: someone who owns guns has a lot of spare money on
his hands and when he gets caught breaking the law, it won't be hard to take it
away from him.

I figure on conviction... a first offense... say six months and a $5,000 fine for the
first firearm.

 

you really are in no position to complain about anyone else's posts. I am correct there are millions upon millions more guns and many of them were bought as a direct result of the bannerrhoid yappings of idiots like Hillary clinton, and other politicians.

 

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Oh dear... let's see... thousands of people are murder right now with firearms
and by the time the laws you are trying to foist on us as someone else's idea
(straw man) which would be designed to save lives... tens of thousands will
die so it's best to do nothing.

HAHAHAHAAHA!

 

I say that the BM is reticent to actually punish real criminals because most criminals rarely vote, and when they do, its almost always for the same politicians that the BM counts as there own

 

No, it is merely an opinion and we have to look at who's opinion it is
as to not underestimate just how bad an opinion it is.

 

If that makes you feel better, then imagine whatever you want.

You mean like gang bangers and drug dealers? Got it. There's nothing quite as entertaining as the insanity of liberal thought, such as it is.

 

No one says he should except you and we have already seen how difficult it is
for you to quote truthfully anything anyone else says, do notice the complete
lack of quotes even though quoting here is automatic.

Which would mean that you - on top of your other difficulties - CHOOSE to
not supply the quote, even to go out of your way.

 

where oh where is the quote?

 

you should go around trying to bust such people. I expect your crusade would last less than a week

 

None of them. Not a single terrorism-related attack, foreign or domestic, united states or elsewhere, has ever been stopped by firearm-related restrictions being in place.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

It's tough to know exactly how many guns we have in the United States. Most estimates of the number of guns in the U.S. use federal tallies of the firearms manufactured, imported and exported by U.S. gunmakers. A 2012 Congressional Research Service report published exactly one month before the Sandy Hook school shooting put the number of civilian firearms at 242 million in 1996, 259 million in 2000, and 310 million as of 2009.

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/462017461/guns-in-america-by-the-numbers

One of Obama's executive actions would try to expand background checks and improve background check processing. According to the FBI, 23 million background checks were performed in 2015, nearly three times the 8.5 million performed in 2000.

Twenty three million NICS background checks performed two years ago. That is over sixty three thousand background checks performed per day. Assuming a ninety percent clearance rate where the sale was allowed to proceed without issue, that amounts to more than fifty six thousand firearms being sold every single day during the year in question. This is all contingent upon only one firearm being bought for each background check performed.

 

you asked me the same thing and denied you had said something after the moderators had deleted the post.

 

most of those other countries are more successful in disarming their honest citizens than disarming felons

 

But gun ownership is way down.

 

Partially true. UK has been free of gun terrorism. France had some, but there is contiguous tariff-free borders with less controlled jurisdictions there....

time commitment mainly, staying the course through several presidencies and probably some SCOTUS changes. Cost and expense is marginal because the problem gun owners are problematic anyways. As long as you don't try to do it overnight, and cut off ready supply, you just slowly take the unregistered guns out of the system over time.

If you look at the UK case example I had in the link at the bottom, turning the witness is possible. In the specific hypothetical example, you'd have to be aware that the seller could potentially become indictable for murder as a co-conspirator or by negligent homicide or in reckless endangerment, depending on the facts, so its something the AG would be interested to pursue.

 

Which does what?

You assume it is possible for them to be caught in the first place. Those who are attempting to illegally purchase firearms from federally licensed dealers are not being prosecuted, even when they fill out government forms with all relevant information.

And in the end your proposed system will save no lives, because knowing the last known owner of a firearm will not physically prevent the current possessor from using it to commit murder. Therefore you have nothing.

No such statement has ever been made on the part of myself.

Quoting is indeed not automatic.

You wish to be presented the quote where you claimed that one only commits perjury when breaking the law? Very well then.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...doomed-to-fail.505447/page-26#post-1067517441

There is your post, with your account name, stating in absolute terms, that a person only commits perjury if they break the law, thus illustrating that you believe supplying false information on a federal form is not an act perjury.

 

Have you ever considered that blacks tend to be more violent than whites? Its not that guns reduce violence.