Gun control strategy that satisfies both sides

You live a sheltered life. You think felons carry or purchase guns where they could easily get caught ? That’s why we have identified “ straw purchasers”
Nearly 1/4 to 1/3 of criminals caught are first offenders and many are never caught. You’re under this illusion that all criminals are convicted felons. Obviously a regular straw buyer in the chain of supplying guns for felons is an un convicted “criminal.”

 

Please provide data that 1/4 to 1/3 criminals are first time offenders.

If felons don't buy guns where they can easily get caught, I guess a UBC is worthless for anything other than harassing law abiding gun owners.

 

Smoke screen I see ha ha...so far you’re talking about a lot of non organized crime criminals with AUTOMATIC Weapons.
You’re trying to make my case that the auto weapon band works ?
Thanks

 

What does your data say ?

 

Dillinger stole his from a police station. Barrow stole his from a National Guard armory. Perhaps NFA 1934 should have banned those organizations from owning them.
Baby Face Nelson used a illegally converted M1911 pistol and an illegally converted Winchester Model 1907 hunting rifle. Evidently the punishment for violating the NFA restrictions didn't sufficiently scare either the man who converted them or Baby Face Nelson from using them.
Machine Gun Kelly never killed anyone with a machine gun, or any gun.

How many real machine gun massacres were there prior to NFA 1934 that supported the NFA 1934 restrictions on machine guns? Can you find 2?

 

I can't find any data at all that shows that legally purchased machine guns were used in any mass shootings prior to the NFA 1934. I guess I'm counting on you.

 

Mass shootings ? Is this another canard ?
You're not aware if you actually think any machine guns were purchased illegally before there were defined laws agaisnt it.
You’re funny trying to change the story line. Why not bring up traffic accidents.

 

I'm trying to understand the rationale for NFA 1934. If it was gang violence specifically related to legally purchased machine guns, I'd like to see it.

You wrote: " Nearly every self respecting outlaw bank robber had a Thompson." No idea what self respecting means here, but how bank robbers had Thompsons? What percentage was that of all bank robbers?
You wrote: "Organized crime only. ? They were devastating for everyone who had them. John Dillinger robbed more then two dozen banks with them with his gang alone and there were many others. They literally had a field day with automatic weapons for some of these crimes."

Provide the proof that Dillinger robbed more than two dozen banks with a Thompson.

What other gangs were there with Thompsons? If there were "many others", you should be able to provide that information.

 

I have a few over 100 years old; still regulated.

 

Or, if you understand the concept, you need neither.

 

If you constantly have to go off topic just to gain relevance you certainly don’t have much of an argument. You gun rights guys have been on the coolaid so long, you don’t even recognize reasonable legislation and gun violence that’s way in excess of what it should be. Everytime anyone prints a reference that isn’t the nra party line, you guys diss it. You’ll have to come up with something better yourself. One thing is for sure, you can trust these studies in the real world more then any thing tied to money.

https://news.stanford.edu/2017/12/07/new-study-analyzes-recent-gun-violence-research/

 

Btw, whatever the rational for passing it, it works.

 

Is the "reasonable legislation" Constitutional, effective, enforceable and would be enforced?

1. Allow individual access to NICS so that private sales can utilize the background check process. Sen Coburn sponsored a bill that would be very effective for this.
   2. Exempt CCW and LEO from background checks.
   3. Arrest those who commit felonies while attempting to get guns. In 2010, 72,000 applicants were denied permission to purchase a firearm via the NICS and state systems. 34,000 of these were denied for previous felony convictions. Only 10 (10!) were convicted. We still have tens of thousands of people who committed a felony by lying on the Form 4473 and have a violent past free to find guns through illegal means. Given that a violent felon is looking for a gun, how many violent crimes could be prevented by arresting and incarcerating these felons? https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
   4. Focus on the gun dealers and sellers who sell large amounts of guns to ineligible buyers. If the Brady Campaign knows who they are, then ATF knows who the major sellers are.
   5. Mandatory sentences for those who use guns in acts of criminal violence. Stop plea bargaining away gun crimes. http://chicagoreporter.com/thousand...-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/
   6. Extend the legal possession geographies for CCW holders.
   7. Go arrest the criminals who have guns illegally now - don't wait for them to commit a crime.
2. 8. Fully prosecute and punish straw purchasers. http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/pol...cle_dcd60ace-8716-5651-9125-cb297998694e.html

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html

https://news.stanford.edu/2017/12/07/new-study-analyzes-recent-gun-violence-research/

"They found that the 1996 Gun Control Act amendment that prevented people with a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence from owning guns reduced killings of female intimate partners. Gun murders for that group were reduced by 17 percent."

Gun murder rate for women age 18+ in 1995, before Lautenberg: 1.85. In 2017, 1.65, a reduction of 11%
Non-gun murder rate for women 18+ in 1995: 1.88; in 2017, 1.04, a 44.5% reduction. Makes you wonder why Lautenberg's success was only 1/4 as much as no restrictions on non-firearm weapons at all.

"Another research study analyzing a nearly 40-year time interval shows that harsher sentencing for crimes that involved firearms had the greatest effect on reducing aggravated robberies, decreasing them by 5 percent."

That's not a gun control issue, that's an enforcement issue. Nobody but Democrats are against harsher enforcement of gun laws.

"The Supreme Court is also likely to consider one of several cases involving conceal carry rights in the future because of conflicting rulings from intermediate courts of appeal, Donohue said."

Likely won't even get there. See Young v Hawaii.

Do you see why we diss this studies? Every study from either side deserves close, harsh review.

 

We lead the industrialized world in gun violence. Case closed.

 

All stolen from national guard armories, thus making them government property at the time. Thus they were not being purchased by private individuals to use for criminal purposes.

 

The simple answer is that there is absolutely nothing to prevent such a development from occurring. There is not a single thing in place, physical or otherwise, to prevent the current legal owners of such firearms from utilizing them for the purpose of committing mass shootings that would dwarf the Las Vegas incident. If one of them truly desired to do such, they could do so freely, and there is nothing that could be done to stop them. Therefore regulation does nothing to prevent such.

 

The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference does such actually make?

 

What’s your point ? Auto weapons could be bought at hardware ware stores. Don’t be rediculous.

Bull. Just like there is nothing you can do about car accident deaths. You’re a fatalist when you want to be a conduit to restricted gun buyers.

 

Such are the trappings of ignorance.

 

Yes.
I just watched the doco on Stoneman Douglas murders (not just shootings they were cold blooded murder with an bloody AR) and that confirmed to me that the new gen will get changes made in their lifetime.

Amusing yet sad was this "never again" movement had a title somewhat ironic in that another school incident (read massacre ) happened in Texas a short time later.

How many mass murders will it take for stubbornness to wain? Oh yeh, I'm being emotive...not allowed to be that way....according to gun obsessors

 

We've had mass murders with "assault weapons", other semiautomatic rifles, bolt action rifles, lever action rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, pump action shotguns, double barrel shotguns, pistols, revolvers, and .22 rifles and pistols. If you think banning a weapon will stop mass shootings, you've got a lot of banning to get to. This stubborness you refer to is actual support for Constitutional rights. If you want to allow the government to ignore Constitutionally protected rights to potentially save lives, you better take a second look at who is in office, especially the office of the VP.

 

When you can deliver a sound argument, free from unsupportable nonsense and other fallicies, let us know.

 

I hear you. There is really only two things that gets many of them thinking about gun control. One is seeing minorities getting guns and the other is personal experience as with Reagan. Once out of office, he and Nancy were happy to speak up for the Brady Bill. I feel citizens united repeal is key to getting a lot of legislation passed, not just with firearms.

 

Sure, the night club and concert shootings with bump stocks could have been just as lethal with a bolt action rifle. You guys are absolutely delirious. Sure, there is no such thing as the gun show loop hole and private sales loop hole that allows absolutely anyone to pick up a firearm .

And for the umpteeth time, the second is not absolute.

 

The comment was "How many mass murders will it take for stubbornness to wain?". There was no talk of any specific level of number of victims. Do you wish to redefine the number of victims that make a mass murder, or set the number of dead below which it's not a issue, or simply only care about those committed with guns you want to ban? The night club shooting could likely have been effective if the shooter had a pair of handguns that actually worked without jamming, given that he had hours to go about his business. A shooter with a pair of SMLEs or some modern magazine fed bolt action rifles with optic sights may not have injured as many people but with 10 minutes of aimed fire the death toll would likely have been higher. Of course, using Mini-14s would have had the same result, and those have been exempted from every AWB bill put before Congress.

There is no gunshow loophole. The Brady Act works exactly as the Democrats who wrote it, passed it and signed it into law intended it to work. And given straw purchases, theft, and illegal street sales "universal" background checks won't have any effect on criminals getting a gun if they want one. In their 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies, the Department of Justice noted that without a reduction in straw purchases, comprehensive firearm registration and an easy gun transfer process a UBC would be ineffective. You can't simply wish a law to work.

I'm not claiming that it is. The fact that it isn't absolute doesn't mean, however, that any restriction is allowed. We know from SCOTUS decisions that the "right to keep and bear arms is an individual right", that "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution" and "[n]either is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and that that the 2nd Amendment protect "all bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" or having "a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia".

You should internalize that last paragraph. When we start looking at gun control laws, we start there. And then we ensure that those laws would be effective, enforceable, would be enforced and are necessary. Then you can start using the term "common sense".