Gun control - Why punish the law abiding rather than the criminals?

The article is factually incorrect, and the findings by the ATF prove such. Observe:

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data

https://www.atf.gov/docs/undefined/cawebsite17183919pdf/download

In the most recent year for which the data is available, the state of California asked the ATF to trace some forty one thousand five hundred and twenty seven firearms found in the possession of criminal individuals. Of that amount, seventeen thousand three hundred and ninety seven firearms, or approximately forty-four percent of the total number, were traced back to the state of California itself. This is despite every single firearm transaction legally requiring a background check even if it is a private transaction, along with licensing and registration requirements for every single firearm. Despite all of those requirements and many more, more firearms found in the possession of criminal individuals came from the state of California rather than in any other state.

The next highest amount traced outside of the state came from the state of Arizona, and amounted to a grand total of two thousand one hundred and eighty five. Otherwise known as approximately one half of one percent of the total number.

The data is the same for each state, no matter which one may be picked for comparison. Without exception, every single state is responsible for the majority of firearms found in the possession of criminals, rather than any other individual state, regardless of whatever firearm-related restrictions they may attempt.

 

WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF ILLEGAL CHICAGO GUNS?

According to the Trace Report, about 40 percent of illegally used or possessed firearms recovered in Chicago from 2013 to 2016 came from dealers in Illinois. The remaining 60 percent came from states with less regulation over firearms. Indiana accounted for about 1 in 5 of these weapons, followed by Mississippi and Wisconsin. The report says these trends have been consistent over the past decade. In the same time span, seven gun or sporting goods stores in Illinois were the top 10 source dealers of recovered weapons in Chicago. Three others were in Indiana.

 

There is a lot more issues at hand that are leading to the mass murder we are witnessing. The economy has alienated the majority of the country, leading the mentally unstable to cult-like ideologies; poor souls searching for meaning in their life, even if it’s as a violent lunatic.

I support the right to own guns, however, could regulation be initiated? Sure, and I think it can be done without stomping on the second amendment. My idea was different licensing for different grades of weapons: handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns are a basic right, high caliber semi-auto rifles require a license, automatics require an advanced license. Licenses are issued with proper training and background checks. Military or police service can provide these licenses.

I have no problem with the person who enjoys shooting an AR-15, they’re fun, fully autos are even more fun. But they shouldn’t be someone’s first firearm, irresponsible gun owners are a public danger.

 

One of the most recent mass shootings was committed by an individual with a legal and registered sound suppressor, which is regulated by the national firearms act. The paperwork and background check involved in the legal acquisition of such a device goes far beyond what is involved with legally purchasing a firearm. Yet even that supposed gold standard of firearm-related restriction failed to prevent the incident from occurring.

What many simply do not understand, or simply to not wish to admit to, is that it is ultimately society itself that is the problem. More specifically the people who make up society itself are the problem. Out of every species that makes up the animal kingdom, the human species is the only one that is obsessed with killing itself off through whatever means possible. For whatever reason, the species has devoted its intelligence to the sole purpose of ending its own existence. Every development of modern science has, to some extent, been the result of trying to find greater and more efficient methods of killing one another.

The problem is inherent to the human species. It cannot be stopped, it cannot be cured, it cannot be addressed. The only way to end the problem is if the species itself is ended. Nothing short of the global depopulation of the entire human species will solve the problem.

 

Which is not illegal, since the city of Chicago is in the state of Illinois. Thus whatever degree of supposed smuggling is occurring does not violate interstate commerce provisions.

And such acquisitions and smugglings are already illegal, as they violate interstate commerce regulations.

Again, it is not illegal for a federally licensed firearms dealer in the state of Illinois, to sell firearms to any individual who is a resident of the state of Illinois, and not a prohibited individual. If these individuals are engaged in the felony act of straw purchases, then it is ultimately they who are responsible and guilty, even though the state of Illinois requires firearms licensing and registration in order to be legal.

If individuals have no hesitancy to trafficking firearms that are licensed and registered to their name, despite knowing it can be traced back to them, then the problem at hand is much bigger than most wish to amount to.

 

Play semantics with someone else and tell them it's a contradiction. If you don't have enough sense to know the things people want removed from the market, that's your problem. You deal with it and we aren't going to have Republicans making decisions for us after the next elections.

There is no good reason an AR-15 type weapon with up to a 200 round magazine now has to be available for some nutcase to buy. Bump stocks to make it near auto fire? You don't need that to protect your home.

 

It's really a simple answer.

Taking guns away from people who hesitate to rip the tag off a mattress is safer than taking guns away from MS13 members.

 

The bill of rights, and the basic concept behind constitutional rights, does not have anything to do with the legal concept of need. One does not need to exercise their constitutional rights in a certain and specific way for that exercise to be deemed legal or socially acceptable.

Perhaps firearms like the AR-15 are indeed not needed, but ultimately what difference does such make in the discussion? One does not need a modern motor vehicle that is capable of going far in excess of the legal speed limit, but there is no movement to prohibit them simply because they are not needed.

The digital revolution of cellphones, tablets, and other modern electronic convenience was certainly not needed by anyone, and yet it is present, and the first amendment applies to each of them.

Do not argue need, it has no place in the discussion.

 

You are dreaming if you think you have a constitutional right to an AR-15 type weapon or accessories like 200 round magazines and bump stocks.

Figure it out, you are wrong about what you think are constitutional rights. They aren't.

 

Do be sure to let those present know when the united state supreme court has ruled, once and for all, that the united states constitution does not cover firearms such as the AR-15. Until such time, the second amendment covers every firearm, and every firearm-related accessory, presently available on the private market, and no amount of arguing to the contrary on the part of yourself will amount to proof otherwise.

Where does the united states constitution mention the concept of need? Where does it state that the constitutional rights held by the individuals simply do not apply if they cannot demonstrate a justified need for said rights?

 

You are dreaming if you think the Constitution prohibits banning assault weapons.

 

Then cite where it has been held the second amendment does not apply to modern firearms, when the united state supreme court has already stated in the Heller ruling that it does apply to such. Not a lower court ruling issued after the change in precedent from the Heller ruling, not a decision to not hear a particular appeal, but an actual citeable ruling by the united state supreme court confirming such as being irrefutable fact.

 

Just common sense would tell a person that certain weapons deemed too dangerous can be banned. Look it up yourself or just read all the posts that have posted this information.

 

The same so-called "common sense" used to justify the total handgun prohibition in the district of columbia for over thirty years?

There is nothing to the AR-15, or any similar firearm that has been on the market for the last fifty years, that makes it "too dangerous" for legal ownership. It is not dangerous and unusual.

Once again, until such time that a ruling is issued by the united state supreme court stating once and for all, that the second amendment does not protect modern firearms, it is nothing more than the unfounded, incorrect opinion of yourself. Such is the legal situation in the united states, and it is simply something that you as a citizen of the united states will have to accept and learn to live with.

 

There is a difference, so figure it out and stop posting nonsense. You don't know law.

 

One who cannot tell the difference between the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle on the private market, and the fully-automatic M16 rifle utilized by the united states military, who believes the two are the exact same thing, and who believes they should both be regulated and restricted in the exact same manner, is not qualified to tell others about differences in standards.

And yet such a claim cannot actually be verified on the part of yourself.

 

Fortunately, our constitution and the 2A protects us from the leftist 'common sense' scheme...

 

Let's see how fortunate you are. Some of those gun control bills like red flag and UBC have extremely high support levels, far more than all the leftists.

 

Mass shooters don't expect to come out their situation alive.

 

Funny how righties always bring up these countries as example of what happen when citizens don't own gun. Perhaps you dont understand that only in the US citizens are big on owning guns and not many other places around the world share the same view. Do you think your firearm will withstand an onslaught of drone strikes and mortar/artillery attacks???

 

They were anticipating emperor Trump

 

Conservatives solution is to sit on their @$$e$ and do nothing.

 

Yesiree. Citizens should be able to own rocket launchers and mortars. Let the fun begin.

 

You are ignoring red flags law that could have prevented the shootings.

 

What is new "assault rifles"? What does insurance do??