Has gun control ever been given a fair chance in the US?

I like how you admitted gun banners are fanatics.

 

Ron's main goal is to try to get all Americans to live under the stupid gun laws he is subject to. Read Aesop's fable about the fox that lost its tail to understand that thinking

 

Demonstrate the supposed loopholes. Exactly what allows a prohibited individual, such as a convicted felon, to legally acquire and possess a firearm?

Private sales were never intended to be subjected to background checks in the original law, as there was no way of actually enforcing such a requirement. Even now there is no enforcement mechanism, as such would require the registration of every single firearm in the united states.

This cannot even be blamed on the NRA. The supposed "universal" background check requirement implemented in the state of Nevada was crafted exclusively by its supports, and done in such a sloppy, unprofessional manner, it is literally unenforceable. The state attorney general has stated that the law cannot be enforced, and law enforcement will not arrest any one for violating it.

What is being described is already illegal, as it violates interstate commerce.

Just as many who are present have grown sick and tired of hearing the constant, never-ending call for the implementation of more and more firearm-related restrictions, when there is undeniable proof that the current restrictions are not delivering as promised, and are being ignored by the justice system. When someone is caught trafficking firearms and all they receive is probation and community service, rather than ten years in prison for each firearm trafficked, that does not bode well for the argument that more restrictions are needed.

Explain how the firearm-related restrictions of these other countries cannot be violated. Exactly what mechanism makes such a feat possible, that is absent from the law in the united states?

 

An illegal act being committed does not mean there is a loophole in place.

Following the logic of the presented argument, are there loopholes in the federal level prohibition against the manufacture, distribution, possession, and use of illicit narcotic substances such as cocaine and heroin? Exactly where do these substances come from if they are outlawed in all circumstances? What law must be implemented to make such acts physically impossible?

 

Yet he makes claims of being a gun owner and regular shooter.

 

Criminals don't obtain guns because of loopholes. They obtain them illegally. Gun laws have nothing at all to do with criminality. Gun laws only affect people who respect the law.

 

So you can parrot gun apologist propaganda, but can you explain why some countries are able to keep criminals from obtaining guns for the most part? Why are their guns laws effective?

 

That's good if gun control is working to some extent in NYC. The rest of the country could probably learn something from NYC and their phenomenal drop in crime.

 

So you really think that southerners would have viewed slave rebellions as being consistent with state security? I don't think so. Open your eyes.

 

Illegally selling a firearm and trafficking are not loopholes, they are illegal activities.

 

They happen because of loopholes.

 

Implementation of a permit system such as the one that Canada has would make illegal private sales much less likely. Ignorance of a buyer's criminal history would no longer be a valid excuse. A gun owner would know that if they didn't check if a potential buyer has a permit then they would risk serving time in prison. But of course you aren't willing to give this proposal a fair chance.

 

There has been no presented evidence that would actually prove such to be the case, as there was no evidence of widespread firearm-related violence that was in dire need of being addressed in the first place. Unless the cited countries are able to demonstrate a significant amount of violence that put them on par with the united states in that regard, there is no factual comparison that can actually be made.

Beyond such, it must be asked why firearm-related restrictions supposedly work in some countries, but amounts to an abject failure in other countries? Why is there such a discrepancy?

 

I remember a particular case in N.Y.C. of a bunch of fake cops with actual realistic credentials buying many firearms at gun stores, they were never caught, no suspects either.

Legitimate Gunowners are not a problem.

 

Gun control is given a chance every day and every year since the signing of the Constitution. The amendment process started there and nobody has ever attempted to dissuade others from using it. If gun control keeps failing, its because it utterly lacks merit in comparison to what the Founders' envisioned...

 

Firearms restrictions in other Countries work as well or as poorly as those affected, unwillingly comply.
I have personally seen firsthand evidence of that, foreign Europeans tried to effect a Coup in a small Country, and had a drunken party and were captured without incident as they slept and the prostitots they were with ratted them out.
They had impressive weapons, H.K G-3 rifles and grenades etc....
I was there at the time.
So please tell us again how effective gun control is in other Countries.

 

Then let us do this, Galileo. Let us have a hypothetical discussion pertaining to the above, to demonstrate that the proposal will and can do nothing whatsoever to address the problem it is intended to address.

Let us say, for the sake of the scenario, I am a resident of the united states, currently living in the state of California, and devoid of whatever aspect of humanity is associated with making one morally opposed to engaging in criminal activity for the sake of monetary compensation.

For the sake of the hypothetical scenario, I see nothing wrong with knowingly supplying firearms to those who cannot legally possess them, so long as the monetary compensation that is received, is sufficiently greater than the initial investment necessary to acquire the firearms in question. The firearms are acquired at a rate of one a month over the course of three years, until approximately thirty three firearms of various types and configuration have been acquired and stockpiled, for the purpose of trafficking them to the criminal market at a monetary profit. All of them are registered and documented in accordance with state regulations, all of them purchased after having legally obtained the necessary permits, and completing the necessary paperwork, none of which will actually do any good. The course of trafficking the firearms would be as follows:

Location of willing buyers would be done via travel to a neighborhood known for its high crime rate, where neighbors have a habit of not seeing anything, and not cooperating with law enforcement, as they do not wish to get involved since such puts them at risk of repercussions in response. Simply ask around about where to acquire a firearm until directed to someone who can supply such for a price. Once this individual is located, they will be approached from the business standpoint of trafficking some thirty firearms for a price. If they are interested, inform them of what the plan is for doing such without law enforcement being any wiser about what exactly occurred. No communication over the phone, or over a computer will be performed.

An ad will be taken out in the local newspaper one week before the exchange is to go down, advertising several firearms are for sale, and the address at which they are located. Exactly one phone call will be exchanged between myself and the intended dealer from a disposable cell phone, the exchange lasting a total of five to ten minutes. Since the contents of phone conversations are not recorded, what details were discussed will be based exclusively on the word of myself, with no way of proving otherwise. The claim made by myself will be that the person who called was asking about what firearms are available for sale, what the intended prices are, which federally licensed firearm dealer the sale will be going through, if there are any objections on the part of myself to them being inspected by the intended buyer, and what time would best work for such purposes.

Once it is time to move the property, the dealer would arrive with two accomplices in a plain looking truck, minivan, or other similar motor vehicle for transporting a large number of firearms. If it is believed necessary, the license plate will be modified with strips of tape to obscure exactly what the plate reads, and give a false return should the information be run. They would park away from the house, thus making it impossible for myself to identify the vehicle that was used, with one going to the door to pose as the buyer, with the other two rushing in to stage a home invasion robbery to fool any neighbors that may be paying attention at the time, complete with rubber gloves to insure no finger prints are left behind. Once all four of us are inside and away from the prying eyes of anyone, it is a simple matter of making the evidence match the cover story that will be given. I was taken at gunpoint, forced to open the safe in which the firearms are stored, and held with the firearm aimed at the back of my head while the two accomplices steal everything from inside the safe, quickly stashing it in the motor vehicle, before all three leave in a manner that would match the soon-to-be reported story of a home invasion. But not before the money has changed hands, and the money hidden away in the attic, or some other out of the way place that law enforcement would have no reason to inspect.

Once the firearms have been moved and the money stashed away, I work myself up to sound panicked while calling the police to report the robbery. Once law enforcement arrives I tell them the cover story of being robbed by the prospective customer. When asked for a description of the robbers, I claim to have only seen the one at the door, and give a vague, poorly defined description that is generic enough to fit any one of a thousand random individuals, with such being blamed on a combination of my life being threatened, and having never expected to be robbed and thus having no reason to try and memorize the features of the accused. If anything all I really remember with any clarity is the muzzle of a firearm being shoved in my face as I'm ordered to unlock the safe, while being forced into a corner while I am robbed blind of the collection I have been legally and meticulously building for the past three years. By all accounts everything that was done by myself would be perfectly legal, in full accordance and compliance with each and every firearm-related restriction that has been implemented within the state of California.

Now then. Explain what crucial detail and/or details have been missed by myself in the above hypothetical scenario, that would allow law enforcement to easily and effortlessly conclude that the reported theft is a lie, and that it is in actuality an act of criminal conspiracy? What was overlooked on the part of myself in covering any and all tracks that would suggest wrongdoing to law enforcement, that would warrant and motivate a criminal investigation? How would the criminal co-conspirators be recognized and found, especially if the time selected for the exchange is during a point of time in the day when neighbors are unlikely to be paying attention to what is going on around them, such as near dusk when it is dark out? Exactly what loophole exists and has been exploited in the above scenario, that would have rendered the transaction impossible to commit otherwise?

 

Sounds like too much work.
Might as well run a legitimate gun store.

 

What loopholes are you talking about?

 

you seem to think that laws applied to a country that has had free ownership of weapons for more than two decades and porous borders, will work the same in countries that never had much gun ownership and tightly controlled borders.

 

that is contrary to truth

 

Nor foreign invasions.

Just because you're obsessed with slavery doesnt mean everything they did was centered around it.

=\=

 

I have no idea. I don't know that their gun laws are effective. If someone shoots someone else, that person is a criminal. Criminals don't care about laws. Name a country that hasn't had a gun related murder in the last year. I doubt you can do it.

 

Gun control has failed in Chicago since the 1960's.
Due from no real opposition to gangs and their gang culture. No gun control laws will be obeyed or enforced to any significant degree.

 

What are you still doing here in the US? Emmigrate immediately to your favorite gun control paradise.