Why would the NRA be lobbying to stop the information in that graph? What that tells me is the majority of crimes are committed with a friend or family member's gun. I'm sure that in 99% of those situations, the gun was used for the crime WITHOUT the friend or family member's approval. That's still a crime. That's still theft. Another 33% are committed with guns obtained illegally (theft, drug dealer, black market). So much for the "gun show loophole" lol.
They did not want this out there because it interferes with the myth "All gun restrictions do is keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens" It also beautifully illustrates why gun safety in the form of safes and locks should be part of the package
Still doesn't make sense. Since there is one category for "borrowed or given" and one for "family or friend," I'm assuming that means they were stolen from a family or friend, otherwise it would fallen under "borrowed or given." That still falls under theft, and a determined family member or friend could easily figure out how to get access to your safe and/or locks. That doesn't beautifully illustrate anything except that criminals will get their guns how they always do, illegally.
It actually helps illustrate that "lawful gun owners" can be a part of the problem as their guns are stolen to commit the very crimes they bought the guns to protect them from... We're creating our own problem by having guns so readily available in our society, and cutting back the access to these penile compensation ornaments is the only real way to reduce the severity of crimes committed (insofar as level of death/injury is concerned).
But it cuts it down. I would think that if a young kid got a hold of the family gun and committed a crime it would not have huge ramifications but if a serial criminal was found with his wife's gun for the third time running that might be an issue
I'm obviously dealing with a LIV here. Why? Because if guns are registered, they are one executive decision away from being confiscated, and they will know right where they are at, except the guns criminals have, as they will not register them. Just ask the people of Britain about this. [video=youtube;n9ZvwPmjJu4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9ZvwPmjJu4[/video] The government doesn't have to worry about an uprising with cars. - - - Updated - - - Another LIV. After registration, I can keep my guns as long as Uncle Sam deems necessary. The government doesn't have to worry about a revolution with cars or pets.
Only 2% of shootings involve an "assault rifle", yet the government is focused in on them like a laser beam. Fifty % is half. Not a small number. After all, Obama won by getting barely more than 50% of the votes. - - - Updated - - - Part of the real problem is that our government is not enforcing our current gun laws. Prosecutions under Obama have fallen 48%, yet he wants to enact more feel-good useless legislation.
Really? Have you ever noticed that often, when faced with an armed offender, the weapon of choice used by police officers is a dog - despite the fact that the police have firearms at their disposal? I think this proves that an appropriately trained K9 can certainly facilitate the average person's ability to deal with an armed attacker, even if that armed attacker were a member of the government. Similarly, limiting the ability of people to meet together and congregate in large groups would drastically limit their ability to form defensive positions or collaborate on a coordinated plan of attack... So taking away vehicles would actually be a priority for a government at war with its own people. Of course all this is purely hypothetical because it's moronic to think that a first-world democratic government would decide the average citizen paying taxes to support them is somehow also a threat. And yet, neither pets nor cars (both registered) have been confiscated.... Would you have the same concerns if some Reagan-esque Republican were in the White House?
And Bush "won" by getting LESS than 50% of the votes so that he could go on to wipe out a $5,600,000,000,000 surplus and wrack up a national debt of $10,000,000,000,000 while allowing the US banking system to tank. As for the "assault rifle" issue, I have to agree that a broader approach should have been taken. Prosecutions of what, specifically? As for his enacting of legislation, it seems he's enacted a heck of a lot less than most presidents... http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/obama-executive-orders-guns.html I have a really hard time with people complaining that registration and/or background checks are invasive while supporting transvaginal ultrasounds, drug testing welfare recipients, and making anyone who "looks illegal" present their papers for verification...
What is Bush's and what is not Bush's fault is a discussion for another thread. Assault rifles are misunderstood and should be left alone. The Obama Admin has not been keeping up with prosecutions on federal gun crimes. They are slacking just like they are on immigration violations. I have no problem with a background check in order to purchase a gun. I have had it done to me many times. Takes about 5 minutes.
So it's illogical to point out that people with dogs often overcome people with guns, and that registration of dogs has not resulted in confiscation so registration of guns is unlikely to? Looks like you're slinging insults just to avoid admitting you've got nothing left.... again.
Agreed, I raised it only in direct response to a comment made in order to shut down that line of discussion. Also agreed, particularly as "assault rifles" have not been clearly defined. How much direct influence do you expect the Administration to have in relation to the prosecution of the average gangbanger? Then that point doesn't relate to you...
Actually, I have everything on my side. You have made no sense so far. Dogs get taken away by irresponsible owners all the time. Should we implement background checks for dog ownership? I don't think the government looks at dogs as a threat to tyranny.
If the gangbanger has committed a federal gun crime, then the Administration should have everything to do with it through federal courts.
Don't think the government looks at guns as a threat to tyranny - lots of ways to enact tyranny and the best is simply to convince enough people what you are doing is "right" - look at all the people here defending the laws preventing health care workers discussing guns with patients. But here if you are prosecuted for animal cruelty you will NOT be able to legally own another animal
Yes, dogs occasionally get taken away from irresponsible owners - generally after repeated incidents of their neighbors report the owners as irresponsible. This has nothing to do with registration, and would you want it any other way? And whereas "background checks" aren't done, an owner can be prevented from obtaining another dog if they have a history of animal cruelty, which is similar.
I'm not sure about the animals laws here. They should be the same. Bastards that abuse animals need a beating. Unfortunately, too many low information voters in the U.S. continue to believe the lies coming from the Obama Admin, and are skipping along with the rest of the sheep toward the tyrannical cliff.
And yet I saw more evidence of that during the Bush era Patriot act for a start Guantanamo Rendering of prisoners Torture And interestingly because of a popular TV series a lot of these things that America had always stood against became suddenly acceptable
I voted for Bush both times, but I started to get tired of his politics toward the end. I was against the Patriot Act among other things that became "acceptable". I see that kind of crap happening with the gun control crowd too. They have knee-jerk reactions and want to implement laws and policies that will do little or nothing to stop mass killings. Benjamin Franklin once said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I see no point in giving up our liberties for things most of us know will not work. What's next?
So, if the gun was also registered, it would be no different to owning a dog... Except that only SOME breeds of dog are known to lash out suddenly and maim their owners or neighbors, whereas anyone can make a mistake with any gun at any time.
Most dogs that lash out are that way because of abuse. Show me a gun that lashes out on it's own. Does a registered dog suddenly calm down and behave well because of the registration?
Interesting point, an unbalanced dog owner is more likely to lash out at (abuse) an animal - causing that animal to lash out. The same unbalanced owner is even more dangerous when he lashes out if he has a firearm. It is about the owner's behavior. So how do you legislate "a$$hole$ may not own weapons" without it being discriminatory? The only way to avoid discimination is to put SOME control in place (not necessarily a total gun ban) that affects everyone equally.
you need to be more careful when discussing these things. try to talk in code where possible, and don't ever say anything in front of german shepherds. they're trained by secret govt agencies to lip read. the mind reading technology can be thwarted by careful adjustment of your paper hat.
Unfortunately, crime cannot be legislated away. It has to dealt with, and common-sense needs to be applied to help prevent future crimes. The fact remains that crime happens.
