NRA

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I'd like Reelin Rod to answer my question. Why does someone need to have a Vulcan Minigun???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do you need to blow glass? Can't we get machine made stuff?

[Nebe]

My work isn't intended to kill people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

My work isn't intended to kill people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can I get one of these

[scottw]

Eben, who do you know that owns a Vulcan Minigun? I'm not sure that any of the violence that is being attributed to guns recently or for quite some time involved Vulcan Miniguns, if fact I couldn't find anything that suggest that they were being used to commit any crimes except in the Grand Theft Auto video game....if we ban Vulcan Miniguns and anything that resembles them and place many other bans and restrictions that we might dream up or that are currently being mentioned...please tell me how that would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter, or any of the other shooters for that matter or future shooters?

Virginia Tech..... "Cho used two firearms during the attacks: a .22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun.[13] The shootings occurred in separate incidents, with the first at West Ambler Johnston Hall, during which Cho killed two pupils, and the second at Norris Hall, where the other 31 deaths, including that of Cho himself, as well as all the nonlethal injuries, occurred."


I'd just like to know exactly what is proposed as a solution and then how it is supposed to stop what occured to prompt the proposed action. There seems to be a disconnect. If you really believe that reducing the availability of certain guns and ammo and capacity is the solution then you really need to take it to it's logical conclusion and ban them all because there will still be sick people that will use whatever legal or illegal weapon of whatever capacity that is at their disposal to committ these crimes....

[buckman]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Can I get one of these

That's pretty scary looking....ban it. Interesting enough a quick google found a frighteningly large number of glass related murders .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

First off, I never said anything about banning machine guns and mortars not being a violation. You've made the statement more than once now that automatic weapons are banned. However, your statements are repeated incorrect, which demonstrates you're either operating under assumptions or are misinformed. Fill out a Form 4, pay your $200 tax to the ATF and shell out $20k and many people could own a machine gun or grenades in a couple months.

Don't believe me, here's a select-fire M16A1 with full-auto capability, legally transferable and available today: Colt M16a1 US prop marked Transferable ! : Machine Guns at GunBroker.com

Second, I never stated there are not potential pros to certain bans. What I have stated is that any ban is unacceptable - just as another ban on alcohol would be unacceptable. A ban does not do anything to keep these things out of the hands of criminals, it merely limits the access to law-abiding citizens. How did the "Gun Free Zone" work out at Sandy Hook? That was the law and it did nothing. How about the fact that both Connecticut and New Jersey have active assault weapon bans - how well did that prevent the crime? How well are drug laws doing at preventing drug addiction? I could go on for pages and pages.

When has a sweeping federal ban on citizens ever worked?

You keep saying that people are refusing to have a conversation about what society wants. What do you think the last 3+ pages of posts have been about?

"A ban does not do anything to keep these things out of the hands of criminals, it merely limits the access to law-abiding citizens."

I disagree. If something is made illegal, not every single person who wishes they could get one illegally, would be able to get one. Obviously, I would never say that bans cannot be circumvented. But you seem to be saying the opposite, that bans cannot even reduce access to these weapons. I can't believe that's true.

"How did the "Gun Free Zone" work out at Sandy Hook?"

Not so well. Which is precisely why we need to have the conversation about whether or not things can be improved.

All I hear is extremes on this. Liberals seem to think that bans will put a stop to the deaths. You seem to be saying that bans won't stop a single person from getting their jands on what is banned.

I'm guessing the true answer is somewhere in between. If we get to that place, maybe (and maybe not) we can come up with policies that make our kids safer.

And you have me completely on the automatic weapons, I didn't think they were legal for civilians.

"What I have stated is that any ban is unacceptable "

Unacceptable to you. To me, if we can save a few lives and not trample the constitution, I say let's do it.

"When has a sweeping federal ban on citizens ever worked? "

Rarely. But your characterization of this as a "sweeping ban" is, in my opinion, inappropriate. 99% of Americans have zero interest in owning these things. Banning cars would be a "sweeping ban", because it would limit constitutional freedoms for just about everyone.

[buckman]

Jim if we taught gun safety in our schools It would save more lives then any ban would. Even if it saves one life it's worth a try....right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

Jim if we taught gun safety in our schools It would save more lives then any ban would. Even if it saves one life it's worth a try....right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure we should preach gun safety. That will doubtlessly save lives. Did you really think I was going to disagree with that?

Another way to save lives, potentially, is to remove weapons of extraordinarily high lethality that serve no legitimate purpose other than to make insecure folks feel like Rambo for a little while.

Teaching gun safety could go a long way to reducing accidental gun deaths. But that's a different scenario than what happens when someone decides thet want to be remembered as a mass murderer, right?

In that scenario (random mass murder), it seems to me that the harder it is for the kook to get these weapons, the safer our children are. I'm stunned that there's almost universal resistance to that notion here.

[Piscator]

Taken from the Net:

Maybe is a law abiding citizen nearby was armed a few of these could have been prevented.....................

Worst School Massacre in US history: Bath, Michigan School Massacre. 1927. Murder accomplished with explosives. 44 victims (equal to the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres combined).

Worst Domestic Terrorist Attack in US History: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing. 4/19/95. Murder accomplished with a rental truck full of fertilizer based explosives. 168 dead (including many children in an onsite day care).

Worst Foreign based Terrorist Attack in US History: September 11, 2001 attacks on NYC, PA, Pentagon. Murder accomplished with box cutters and commercial airliners. ~3,000 people dead.

Arson, Stabbing Rampage in Seoul South Korea : 10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. An angry man felt people “looked down on him.”

Anti-police stabbing spree in Shanghai, China: 7/2008. 6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. 28 year old man angry at police attacked a police station with a knife.

Akihabara Massacre, Chiyoda City, Tokyo, Japan: 6/8/2008. 7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. Man slammed into a crowd with his car, then jumped out and began stabbing people to death.

18 year old slashes 4 to death in Sitka, Alaska, US: 3/25/2008. 4 people killed. 18 year old (old enough to purchase a rifle over the counter) kills 4 people, related to him, with a 5 inch knife.

Stabbing Spree kills 2, Tsuchiura, Japan: 3/23/2008. 2 killed, 7 wounded. Man “just wanted to kill anyone.”

Stabbing spree wounds 41, 6 seriously in Berlin Train Station: 5/26/2006. 41 wounded, 6 seriously. Thankfully no one died in this attack, but not for lack of trying on the part of the drunk 16 year old.

4 killed in stabbing spree in London, UK: 9/2004. 4 killed, 2 wounded. Mentally ill man attacks mostly older people.

6 killed over Xbox dispute in Deltona, Florida, US: 8/6/2004. 6 killed. 4 men (all old enough to legally purchase firearms) bludgeon 6 people to death with baseball bats over purloined Xbox.

Daegu subway fire, Daegu, South Korea: 2/18/2003. 198 killed, 147 injured. A 56 year old unemployed taxi driver, dissatisfied with his medical treatment, sets fire to a crowded train.

Osaka School Massacre, Osaka Japan: 6/8/2001. 8 children dead, 13 other children and 2 teachers wounded. Committed by 37 year old former janitor armed with a kitchen knife.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Sure we should preach gun safety. That will doubtlessly save lives. Did you really think I was going to disagree with that?

Another way to save lives, potentially, is to remove weapons of extraordinarily high lethality that serve no legitimate purpose other than to make insecure folks feel like Rambo for a little while.

Teaching gun safety could go a long way to reducing accidental gun deaths. But that's a different scenario than what happens when someone decides thet want to be remembered as a mass murderer, right?

In that scenario (random mass murder), it seems to me that the harder it is for the kook to get these weapons, the safer our children are. I'm stunned that there's almost universal resistance to that notion here.

The risistance is backed by fact. Banning might make you feel better but history shows that it will not work and I will argue might promote a black market that could result more deaths
Interestingly the NRA will teach gun safety in schools for free. Why are they not excepted with open arms?
Well......it's not really about saving kids life's .... Now is it ???
This isn't directed at you in particular ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

From elsewhere on the net
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the #^&#^&#^&#^& act of 1902.
...
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

The risistance is backed by fact. Banning might make you feel better but history shows that it will not work and I will argue might promote a black market that could result more deaths
Interestingly the NRA will teach gun safety in schools for free. Why are they not excepted with open arms?
Well......it's not really about saving kids life's .... Now is it ???
This isn't directed at you in particular ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The risistance is backed by fact"

Funny that you didn't provide any of those facts which you claim support the resistance. As far as I know, there has never been an 'assault weapons ban' that had any teeth to it. The last one had 900 exceptions, so of course it accomplished nothing. Therefore, I can't see how there can be facts to dispute what I'm saying, because it hasn't been tried yet.

I agree 100% that banning guns entirely from places like Chicago and DC has made things worse. But that violence is typical street crime and domestic violence, not random mass murders. These random mass murders don't usually happen in urban areas. It's an entirely different problem than urban street crime. These random mass murders are a relatively new phenomenon. and cannot be lumped into more common acts of street crime.

"Interestingly the NRA will teach gun safety in schools for free. Why are they not excepted with open arms?"

For the same reason that I wouldn't welcome Planned Parenthood with open arms if they want to teach my kids how to use condoms. Many people (not me) are opposed to gun ownership, and showing that to kids in a public school undermines what the parents are trying to teach their kids. I'm not someone opposed to the NRA by the way. If my kids are interested in guns, I'll help teach them the right way. But I can see why someone would not want it in a public school.

"Well......it's not really about saving kids life's .... Now is it ??? "

I assume by your use of multiple question marks that you suppose that you 'got me' with something? I don't think so.

What people like me are proposing has never been tried as far as I know, therefore there can't be any data to refute it. You cannot counter my argument by saying that "broad gun bans don't reduce gun deaths as a whole", because these random mass murders are a very small percentage of gun deaths.

I agree 100% that broad gun bans didn't help places like Chicago or DC. That's not even remotely close to what I'm talking about.

It's easier to kill large numbers of people with 'assault weapons' (for lack of a better term) than it is with a handgun. Therefore, it seems reasonable that if we make it harder for would-be mass murderers to get these weapons, we might lower the future body count.

I'll say it again, any impact of gun control would be minimal at best. More lives can be saved if we talk about re-instilling better values, but the liberal wing of the Democratic party has no interest in that.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, .

A great NRA bumper sticker, except it doesn't pass the common sense test. Assault weapons are a very, very small portion of the American firearms market. I'm saying that 99% of what's sold should still be legal.

So your story is actually incredibly incorrect. In fact, the reverse is true. No one is asking you to be left with just the crumbs. What people like me are suggesting is, you give up the crumbs, and keep the vast majority of that satisfying cake.

Not willing to give up the crumbs to maybe save the life of a little child?

For what it's worth, I laughed my azz off at the sound effects - NOM NOM NOM, I kept picturing Nancy Pelosi dressed as the Cookie Monster. That was a really funny post, I guess we just disagree on how intrusive it would be to eliminate a small percentage of the guns that really cater to a fringe element of our culture.

I loved shooting weapons in the USMC, I can't deny that it's an adrenaline rush.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The risistance is backed by fact"

Funny that you didn't provide any of those facts which you claim support the resistance. As far as I know, there has never been an 'assault weapons ban' that had any teeth to it. The last one had 900 exceptions, so of course it accomplished nothing. Therefore, I can't see how there can be facts to dispute what I'm saying, because it hasn't been tried yet.

Yet you've done nothing to provide any support for your "facts". As I have asked before, "what exactly were these supposed 900 exceptions?" And how would not having those exceptions saved lives? That's gone unanswered twice now.

You keep throwing out that "900 exceptions" and "of course with those exceptions it accomplished nothing" yet continually refuse to support the claim with what the exceptions were and their effect.

I mean no disrespect Jim, but you entire argument has been "this is common sense" with no actual data to prove anything.

All I hear is extremes on this. Liberals seem to think that bans will put a stop to the deaths. You seem to be saying that bans won't stop a single person from getting their jands on what is banned.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth, since I've never once made that statement.

A great NRA bumper sticker, except it doesn't pass the common sense test. Assault weapons are a very, very small portion of the American firearms market. I'm saying that 99% of what's sold should still be legal.

Again, something that cannot be supported. Especially when you consider: The AR-15 Is The Number One Selling Rifle In The U-S | WKRG

Here's a tasty excerpt:"According the FBI, of the 199 homicides recorded in Alabama in 2010, handguns were used in 112, hands, fists or feet were used in 17, knives were used in 23....none were committed with a rifle."

Let's also consider that in just about all cases that an AR-15 is sold in a state that doesn't have an active AWB, a standard-size magazine is 20 or 30 rounds.

I'd guess demand is quite a bit higher than you'd guess, especially when considering you've already displayed a number of misunderstandings when it comes to firearms, firearm laws and availability.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Sure we should preach gun safety. That will doubtlessly save lives. Did you really think I was going to disagree with that?

Another way to save lives, potentially, is to remove weapons of extraordinarily high lethality that serve no legitimate purpose other than to make insecure folks feel like Rambo for a little while.

All guns can kill, even pellet guns so this is just a "feel good" liberal line to get a toe in the door...

[Pete F.]

Here is a 2010 survey and analysis of ownership and use of Modern Sporting Rifles.
You can see the type of people who own them, what they do with them and maybe learn a little.
Of course, it is likely all right wing propaganda generated just for this purpose.

http://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdf

[scottw]

and here you go....

"Highly placed sources told CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer that Cuomo is negotiating with Assembly and Senate leaders for a package of gun control laws that would be a dramatic response to the gun violence besetting the nation, including the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“It’s a very divisive topic,” Cuomo said on Wednesday. “There’s a lot of energy on both sides. Some people are vehemently against’ some people think we’re out of our minds for not passing it.”

Sources told Kramer the governor and lawmakers are negotiating furiously in the hope that Cuomo can announce a deal during his speech Wednesday.

Sources said the package is expected to include:

* New restrictions on assault weapons

* Stiffer penalties for using a gun to commit a crime

* New limits on the number of bullets in a gun magazine

“Gun control is highly political, politically contentious situation. It is polarizing,” Cuomo said."

* New restrictions on assault weapons

* Stiffer penalties for using a gun to commit a crime

* New limits on the number of bullets in a gun magazine

none of these would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter(and they won't stop the next one)..the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count...but that's a "might"...the nut that shot the firemen in NY had someone purchase his firearm for him...where there's a (demented)will there's a way....these measures are a joke, they will not reduce gun crimes....if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban and confiscation instead of bloviating over these meaningless restrictions and penalties that "criminals" might abide by....

[nightfighter]

911 call released in Loganville home invasion - CBS Atlanta 46

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

bloviating ....

I had to google that one...

[Pete F.]

Here is a study on murders in Chicago.
It is detailed enough so that you could look at the proposed changes in gun laws and see what the effect would be.
Pretty close to nil.
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/por...ports/MA11.pdf

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Yet you've done nothing to provide any support for your "facts". As I have asked before, "what exactly were these supposed 900 exceptions?" And how would not having those exceptions saved lives? That's gone unanswered twice now.

You keep throwing out that "900 exceptions" and "of course with those exceptions it accomplished nothing" yet continually refuse to support the claim with what the exceptions were and their effect.

I mean no disrespect Jim, but you entire argument has been "this is common sense" with no actual data to prove anything.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth, since I've never once made that statement.


Again, something that cannot be supported. Especially when you consider: The AR-15 Is The Number One Selling Rifle In The U-S | WKRG

Here's a tasty excerpt:"According the FBI, of the 199 homicides recorded in Alabama in 2010, handguns were used in 112, hands, fists or feet were used in 17, knives were used in 23....none were committed with a rifle."

Let's also consider that in just about all cases that an AR-15 is sold in a state that doesn't have an active AWB, a standard-size magazine is 20 or 30 rounds.

I'd guess demand is quite a bit higher than you'd guess, especially when considering you've already displayed a number of misunderstandings when it comes to firearms, firearm laws and availability.

"Yet you've done nothing to provide any support for your "facts""

You're absolutely right. What I am talking about has never been done before, so how can I come up with facts that support it? All I have is what, at least to me, appears to be this nugget of common sense...

certain weapons make it a lot easier to kill large numbers of people. If we make it harder for would-be mass murderers to get their hands on these things, we might be able to reduce the carnage they leave in their wake.

" continually refuse to support the claim with what the exceptions were and their effect."

I didn't see that you asked me for that until now.

Everything you need to know about the assault weapons ban, in one post

A quote... (though I couldn't find any supporting data for the '900 exceptions' that was from a Charles Krauthammer editorial

"only 18 firearm models were explicitly banned. But it was easy for gun manufacturers to modify weapons slightly so that they didn’t fall under the ban"

"you entire argument has been "this is common sense" with no actual data to prove anything."

I never said otherwise. I have no data to prove that slaughtering unborn babies for convenience is immoral either, but it's common sense, at least to me. Some things can be proven emperically, some are more conceptual. I guess the best I can offer in terms of proof is this...when I was in the USMC, I never once told my kids to leave the rifles at the base and bring handguns. That sort of supports my belief that certain weapons are more effective than others, at killing large numbers of people.

And if you agree with that, it seems natural that you'd agree that we need to make it as difficult as possible for would-be mass murderers to get these weapons. All I'm saying is, we should have a conversation about whether or not there are reasonable steps we can take, to accomplish that (make it harder for kooks to get these things). Maybe we are doing all we can. I don't know. But it's worth looking at.

I have said repeatedly that I'm not necessarily in favor of banning anything. All I have said is that we should have a rational, honest, debate.

"The AR-15 Is The Number One Selling Rifle In The U-S | WKRG[/url]"

I have said in this thread, the AR-15 is just a scary-looking version of a small game hunting rifle. I have said in this thread, that the AR-15 isn't necessarily what I'm referring to, when I say that certain weapons are so potentially lethal, that we need to look at availability. I'll concede that, you made a perfectly valid point there.

"Here's a tasty excerpt:"According the FBI, of the 199 homicides recorded in Alabama in 2010, handguns were used in 112, hands, fists or feet were used in 17, knives were used in 23....none were committed with a rifle."

Fascinating. But irrelevent. Again, I have said repeatedly that typical street crime and random mass murders are two very different scenarios, and therefore they warrant different solutions. Also, why pick Alabama? Are you saying that rifles are never used in homicides anywhere? Are you aware of what happened in CT?

I wasn't aware that statisticians had conculded that what happened in Alabama in 2010 is necessarily indicative of what will happen everywhere else. There were zero shark attack deaths in Alabama in 2010. Does that mean sharks are extinct?

Johnny, I never, ever said that such a ban would eliminate all crime. I have repeatedly said the opposite. I concede that most gun deaths involve handguns. That does not, in any way whatsoever, refute my theory that lives might be saved if we restrict availability of the most weaopns that are most effective at killing the largest numbers of people in the smallest amount of time.

"you've already displayed a number of misunderstandings when it comes to firearms"

And the more I theorize on it, the more misstatements I might make, I'm no expert. One doesn't need to be an expert, I don't think, to conclude that it might be a good idea to discuss the pros and cons of the availability of the most lethal weapons. Pointing out that you can kill someone with your bare hands, doesn't refute my point. That would only refute my point if I was stupid enough to say that a limited ban would eliminate all crime.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is a study on murders in Chicago.
It is detailed enough so that you could look at the proposed changes in gun laws and see what the effect would be.
Pretty close to nil.
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/por...ports/MA11.pdf

"Pretty close to nil."

I agree. But if the difference between "nil" and "pretty close to nil" is the life of a few children, is it not worth discussing? That's all I am saying.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

none of these would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter(and they won't stop the next one)..the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count...but that's a "might"...the nut that shot the firemen in NY had someone purchase his firearm for him...where there's a (demented)will there's a way....these measures are a joke, they will not reduce gun crimes....if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban and confiscation instead of bloviating over these meaningless restrictions and penalties that "criminals" might abide by....

"the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count."

I agree. All I can do is say we "might" reduce the body count, and certainly not by much, because most gun deaths are typical street crime with handguns. I never intended to suggest otherwise.

"if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban "

That's probably the least rational thing I have seen you post here. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. I could just as easily say that if you disagree with me, you might as well move for elimination of every gun control law on the books.

A total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional.

I don't see it as a "charade". Maybe what I'm proposing can't have a meaningful impact. But it's worth talking about, that's all I'm saying.

"restrictions and penalties that "criminals" might abide by"

OK. So now you are saying that a ban on anything, has no impact whatsoever on the amount of that something that people own.

Scott, I concede that if you ban something (drugs, guns, booze) you cannot eliminate 100% of the ownership. But likewise, you cannot imply that it has zero impact on ownership either. My point was never "if we ban guns, exactly zero people will therefore own guns". You tried to refute my premise by suggesting that bans are not 100% effective. Many people in this thread have also done exactly that. It's not a valid rebuttal to what I am suggesting, because my point was never "we can eliminate 100% of the guns out there". Amazing.

[Carl]

Here is another aspect of new laws and background checks:

In a letter to the president shortly after the Newtown shooting a number of mayors across the country which are part of a group called MAIG (mayors against gun violence) adressed 7 aspects to curbing gun violence. Some of the points in the letter were the normal rhetoric of banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines, but items 5 and 6 are rather revealing in my opinion.


From the letter:

5. Prosecute prohibited purchasers who attempted to buy firearms, ammunition or high capacity magazines: The justice department should vigorously prosecute felons and other prohibited purchasers who fail gun background check. In 2009, the FBI referred more than 71,000 such cases to ATF, but the US Attorneys ultimately prosecuted only 77 of them. Prosecuting these offenders is a goal broadly supported by our coalition and the National Rifle Association.

6. Required federal agencies to report records to NICS: The NICS Improvement Act of 2007 required federal agancies to submit mental health, substance abuse and other records that prohibit a person from owning a gun to NICS. However, few agencies comly. In October 2011, the FBI provided data to MAIG on reporting by 60 federal agencies. Of those 60 agencies, 52 had given zero mental health records to NICS. Although total federal agency reporting of mental health records increased by ten percent between march and October 2011, to 143579, the vast majority of those records had been submitted by one agency, the dept fo Veteran affairs. Even fewer federal agencies are reporting drug abusers. Only three agencies - the FBI, the US coast guard, and the Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the probation and parole services agency for the Distric of Columbia - have submitted any substance abuse records, and the vast majority fo federal agencies, including the DEA, have not submitted a single substance abuse record. ..."


So,

the government should clean their own house first since they have only prosecuted 0.1 % of all failed background checks. And have actually convicted even less (very close to 0).

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Carl

Here is another aspect of new laws and background checks:

In a letter to the president shortly after the Newtown shooting a number of mayors across the country which are part of a group called MAIG (mayors against gun violence) adressed 7 aspects to curbing gun violence. Some of the points in the letter were the normal rhetoric of banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines, but items 5 and 6 are rather revealing in my opinion.

I like that there's a group called "mayors against gun violence". As if there are mayors out there who are in favor of gun violence.

The big problem is our culture, not availability of guns. If every single person on the planet were given a gun, I'm certain that murder rates in the US would still be much higher than most other developed countries. I have no idea how to fix that.

[Nebe]

Exactly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban "

That's probably the least rational thing I have seen you post here. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. I could just as easily say that if you disagree with me, you might as well move for elimination of every gun control law on the books.

A total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional.

If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional? Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional? Is their a spectrum, as Spence might argue, of constitutionality. Are constitutional and unconstitutional merely "one extreme or the other"? Is the Constitution to be "interpreted" by degrees? Should we determine that what is constitutional is what falls mathematically in the center of extreme opinions.? That seems to be a way to keep the Constitiution "living."

Keeping in mind the way the Constitution was originally written--it was not meant to determine actual policies per se, or to be a codex of actual civil laws by which the people would be governed, but it was a structure of government that delegated which TYPE of policy would be the responsibility of which branch of Federal Government, and that if a type of policy was not delegated to the central gvt., such policies were reserved to the states and people--keeping that in mind, would you say that "gun control" policies that restrict individual gun ownership should be responsibilities of states and their people, or of the Federal Government?

[Carl]

my mistake - MAIG stands for Mayors against Illegal Guns.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Pretty close to nil."

I agree. But if the difference between "nil" and "pretty close to nil" is the life of a few children, is it not worth discussing? That's all I am saying.

Using that logic if the children had been garroted with wire leader we would make wire leader illegal thereby preventing this from happening again.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count."

I agree. All I can do is say we "might" reduce the body count, and certainly not by much, because most gun deaths are typical street crime with handguns. I never intended to suggest otherwise.

Jim,
The difference is, you are one of the few on this board that I assume have seen first hand what these weapons do to a human. I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have....

Lets start simple. Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?