Elderly California store owner fires at armed robbery suspect who shouts, 'He shot my arm off!’

So you think soaring crime in "Nottingham's... London, Manchester, Liverpool and the West Midlands... and *** in other cities" is just an isolated problem?

"England and Wales have the highest crime rate among the world's leading economies, according to a new report by the United Nations.

The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world's 20 largest nations."
The Daily Telegraph, England has worst crime rate in world, By David Bamber, 12/1/2002.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1414855/England-has-worst-crime-rate-in-world.html

 

Ban "SAFETY BUCKETS".

NEWS - SAFETY BUCKETS DANGEROUS TO SMALL CHILDREN, Orlando Sentinel, Sep 13, 1989 at 12:00 am.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1989-09-13-8909103686-story.html

 

Kyle Rittenhouse used such a construction.
I don't think Kyle got in trouble because of it.
They guy who bought the gun for Kyle was fined 2K.
Oh yeah, that will scare of a criminal.

This shows how utterly the weak law is.

 

How much was the burglar who illegally brought the pistol fined?

do you ever think anything through?

 

He didn't break the law.

Straw purchases are felonies, punishable by 1-5 years in prison, plus fines.
You cannot prevent people from making straw purchases, you can only prosecute them after they do.

 

Indeed. That's how utterly weak the law is.

You're not commenting on the fact this time it became just a 2K fine.
The law is weak.

Both should be banned for life for owning guns.
You can't trust people using strawman constructions to pass around deadly weapons.

 

Apparently you do not know what a straw purchase is.
Hint: if you didn't buy the gun, you didn't break the law.

1-5 in federal prison for a felony conviction is weak?
What do you suggest?

 

hint: there is something wrong with the law when somebody gets away with straw purchases.

Both should be banned for life for owning guns.
You can't trust people using strawman constructions to pass around deadly weapons.
It's the main reason how criminals get weapons.
And passing around 2K fines is not scaring anybody.

 

No one got away with a straw purchase, the purchaser was caught and fined.

Convicted felons are banned from owning guns.
A straw purchase is a felony.
So, the law already gives you what you want.
Why do you call it weak?

 

Kyle was.

Because the guy who Kyle used for a strawman purchase only got a fine.
He and Kyle got no felony conviction for causing a strawman purchase.
Is this hard to understand what historically happened? WTF dude lol

The law is weak. Get over it.

 

Was what? He didn't commit a straw purchase.

WTF dude Lol
Sounds like you need to talk to the prosecutor.
Your complaint is weak. Get over it.

 

He benefitted from a strawman purchase, and so was part of it, and he got away with it.
Only logical conclusion: It's a weak law.

I brought up a clear example of a rather well known case, and the result is: 1 fine of 2K
And so the only logical conclusion is: weak law.


I do not see you disputing how this plays out.
I only see you say it's a felony and it should have resulted in a weapon bad for life.
But it didn't. You only lag the will to make a logical conclusion.

 

not a clear example of a straw purchase, the person who purchased the gun kept legal ownership of the gun and kept possession of it, and only allowed Kyle to use it for target practice under adult supervision and then took the gun back and locked it up in his own safe. the gun was going to be transferred to Kyle when he turned 18. Thats not the same thing as a person buying a gun and giving it away to someone who is an illegal possessor.

 

So what.
There never was a background check on Kyle.
So it remains a weak gun law that this just happens with as good as zero repercussion.

And I add again: this is the most common way how criminals get their guns.

 

So get permission to exercise a civil right. No thanks. That still does not sound like a position a “strong supporter of the 2A” would have.

 

its not a weak law, it was NOT a straw purchase. that's for illegal possessors, Kyle was NOT an illegal possessor. Millions of people get their first gun as an underage person from a dad or grandpa or uncle or close friend, this happens all the time in the US.. a dad will buy his kid his first hunting rifle and the kid will learn how to use it, practice with it and hunt with it long before he turns 18 and can legally own it, this is normal.. this is probably how most people got their first gun. and that example is NOT a straw purchase.

Here is the WI Law on straw purchase..

941.2905  Straw purchasing of firearms.
(1)  Whoever intentionally furnishes, purchases, or possesses a firearm for a person, knowing that the person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under s. 941.29 (1m), is guilty of a Class G felony.


941.29  Possession of a firearm.
(1g)  In this section:
(a) “Violent felony" means any felony under s. 943.23 (1m), 1999 stats., or s. 943.23 (1r), 1999 stats., this section, or s. 940.01, 940.02, 940.03, 940.05, 940.06, 940.08, 940.09, 940.10, 940.19, 940.195, 940.198, 940.20, 940.201, 940.203, 940.204, 940.21, 940.225, 940.23, 940.235, 940.285 (2), 940.29, 940.295 (3), 940.30, 940.302, 940.305, 940.31, 940.43 (1) to (3), 940.45 (1) to (3), 941.20, 941.26, 941.28, 941.2905, 941.292, 941.30, 941.327 (2) (b) 3. or 4., 943.02, 943.04, 943.06, 943.10 (2), 943.23 (1g), 943.32, 943.87, 946.43, 948.02 (1) or (2), 948.025, 948.03, 948.04, 948.05, 948.051, 948.06, 948.07, 948.08, 948.085, or 948.30.
(b) “Violent misdemeanor" means a violation of s. 813.12, 813.122, 813.125, 940.19 (1), 940.195, 940.42, 940.44, 941.20 (1), 941.26, 941.38 (3), 941.39, 947.013, 948.55, 951.02, 951.08, 951.09, or 951.095 or a violation to which a penalty specified in s. 939.63 (1) is applied.
(1m) A person who possesses a firearm is guilty of a Class G felony if any of the following applies:
(a) The person has been convicted of a felony in this state.
(b) The person has been convicted of a crime elsewhere that would be a felony if committed in this state.
(bm) The person has been adjudicated delinquent for an act committed on or after April 21, 1994, that if committed by an adult in this state would be a felony.
(c) The person has been found not guilty of a felony in this state by reason of mental disease or defect.
(d) The person has been found not guilty of or not responsible for a crime elsewhere that would be a felony in this state by reason of insanity or mental disease, defect or illness.
(e) The person has been committed for treatment under s. 51.20 (13) (a) and is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 2007 stats.
(em) The person is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 51.45 (13) (i) 1., 54.10 (3) (f) 1., or 55.12 (10) (a).
(f) The person is subject to an injunction issued under s. 813.12 or 813.122 or under a tribal injunction, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (e), issued by a court established by any federally recognized Wisconsin Indian tribe or band, except the Menominee Indian tribe of Wisconsin, that includes notice to the respondent that he or she is subject to the requirements and penalties under this section and that has been filed under s. 813.128 (3g).
(g) The person is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 813.123 (5m) or 813.125 (4m).


Buying a gun for an underage kid and retaining possession of that gun until the kid can legally purchase the gun is NOT A STRAW PURCHASE

All you have illustrated once again is you have no clue about guns and gun laws..

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat your weak complain - it remains weak.

 

that’s a lie, they steal them.

 

The point is, that this is a weak law.
It remains so that person A bought a gun for person B.
Person A got checked out by the government if it's eligible for a purchase.
And then person A gives the deadly weapon to person B who isn't checked.
It resulted that A was given a dumb fine of 2K for doing this.
You ADMID that millions of people do it like this in the US.


The whole western world is laughing at how weak American gun laws are.
Deadly weapons are just passed around like candy.
And I add: this is the most common way a criminal gets a gun.

 

Prove it.

 

Well, dbldrew was frank enough to complain that this is how things are done by millions of people in the US in his post.

All in all. This means millions of people are handing over deadly weapons to people who are not checked by the government if they are eligible.
While I said before that this way is the most common way criminals are getting their hands on guns.
So the US gun control laws are a joke.

 

"Millions of people get their first gun as an underage person from a dad or grandpa or uncle or close friend, this happens all the time in the US" isn't my claim

 

It's as though you're responding to a completely different post.

I'm talking about your claim

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-sales-how-dangerous-people-get-weapons/
So how do gang members, violent criminals, underage youths and other dangerous people get their guns? A consistent answer emerges from the inmate surveys and from ethnographic studies. Whether guns that end up being used in crime are purchased, swapped, borrowed, shared or stolen, the most likely source is someone known to the offender, an acquaintance or family member.


And thb I never recall a case where guns found at a crime are traced back to the original person who bought it in a store with a passing background check, behing held accountable for what happened when he passed, lend, gave away, sold, shared it with other people. American gun laws are just weak.

 

Nothing more but an all-out bann would satisfy people like you.