Great Examples Why New Gun Laws Are Not Needed

That's nonsense-thousands of people have survived criminal attacks because of NRA provided training. The NRA has done far mores to prevent both intentional gun deaths and accidental ones, than all the gun banning groups combined. In fact, gun banning groups promote gun violence and criminal misuse of guns.

 

Lets see if you can actually provide real data to support such an idiotic claim.

 

I don't need to-honest readers know I am right. Gun banners are not about making us safer-its more about helping leftwing Democrats push their creeping collectivist crud onto the American Public.

 

As I posted previously, it’s no coincidence that the current crop of 2020 Socialism/New Green Deal hopefuls all advocate increased gun controls if not outright bans.
And, among them is a wave of those that wish to dispense with due process to guilty as charged by by mob opinion.

 

Enforce the already existing firearm-related restrictions in the united states.

Explain, precisely why is such simply not accepted on the part of yourself as a viable option?

 

Enforcing the existing reduces gun crimes and prevents bad guys from getting guns as the criminals are where they belong, in prison.

This is a documented fact.

 

Total false, the NRA has no connections with or involvement with the NSSF.

 

The NRA supports lengthy prison terms for the criminal use of firearms.

 

So their position is that laws can act as a deterrant which does contradict the opinion expressed by many on this forum. So now all we need to do now that we know laws are a deterreant is to develop laws that will prevent the crime instead of punishing it after the occurrence.

 

Sure just like they have no connections with Russia.

 

Glad to see you agree laws act as a deterrant. Now we just need better and more effective laws. Maybe universal background checks would be a good starting point

 

They are not working in the state of California, as more firearms found in the possession of criminal individuals were originally sold in the state of California to begin with, rather than from any other state where they have been traced. Therefore they will not work anywhere else. Therefore they are not worth discussing further.

Come up with an explanation for why enforcing the existing firearm-related restrictions is simply not good enough.

 

If enforcing existing laws was good enough thst California would be a model which according to you it isn't.

Why do you think somethig as simple as universal background checks is not a good idea.


In a state that has some of the nation’s toughest gun control laws, one in four California gun owners own firearms that they somehow managed to buy without undergoing background checks, researchers at UC Davis’ Violence Prevention Research Program reported at a recent meeting.

An estimated 4.2 million California adults own guns, 14 percent of the population. California laws dating back decades make it a crime to buy or sell a gun without requiring the purchaser to submit to background checks.

The checks, conducted via state and federal law enforcement databases, are intended to block people from owning guns if they have a criminal history, have committed acts of domestic violence, or have a history of mental illness.

Researchers Nicole Kravitz-Wirtz and Dr. Garen Wintemute are not sure how gun owners came to get their guns without undergoing the legally required vetting but said they would delve further into the issue.

firearm misuse, a high profile and lethal public health issue—the web-based study of 2,500 adults was conducted by the California Safety and Wellbeing Survey for the state-funded UC Firearm Violence Research Center.

Wintemute and Kravitz-Wirtz presented their findings Nov. 11 at a gathering of the American Public Health Association in San Diego, but the paper also coincides with the aftermath of a mass shooting last Wednesday that left 12 people dead at a bar in Ventura County. In that case, the gunman, a military veteran who committed suicide at the scene and was described as having had a history of hostile and depressed behavior, had obtained his guns legally.

In 2017, California had 1,612 gun-related suicides and 1,518 gun-related homicides. Yet no comprehensive study of gun ownership in the state has been done since the 1970s.

The researchers found that gun ownership in California is far below national levels: 14 percent here, compared with 22 percent nationally. Gun owners here were also demographically older, whiter and more politically conservative than the rest of the state.

Forty-three percent of the state's gun owners are 60 and older, and 33 percent are 45 to 59, the researchers determined. Nearly two-thirds are white, 20 percent are Latino, and 68 percent have not completed college. There’s also a partisan divide: 38 percent of gun owners are Republicans, 28 percent are Democrats and 27 had no party preference.

Among the other findings:

• 25 percent of California adults live in households with firearms.
• 40 percent of those households have children 12 or younger.
• 10 percent of gun owners own 10 or more guns. They account for half the firearms in California.
• Assault rifle ownership accounts for 5 percent of firearm ownership.
Most of the respondents said they owned handguns for personal protection. Only 19 percent of long gun owners used their weapons for hunting.

 

because harassing lawful gun ownership is the goal, not impeding or reducing criminal activity

 

Actually it has been discovered enforcing the existing laws as tried in Project Exile reduced firearm homicides 22 percent yearly, compared with the average reduction of about 10 percent per year for other large U.S. cities. The difference is statistically significant.

 

No one can legally own an assault rifle in California-even ones registered or made prior to May 19, 1986. that alone destroys that "study" as BS.

 

In addition to the fact it only counted legally owned firearms to come up with the ownership percentages, I can assure everyone here if illegal firearms where included, firearm ownership in California would greatly exceed those numbers.

 

Not according to myself, but rather according to the ATF itself.

Because the ATF has proven conclusively, multiple times, that they simply do not work at preventing the illegal acquisition of firearms by those who should not have access to them. And the united states department of justice itself has stated, in absolute and outright terms, that supposedly "universal" background checks cannot enforced without the corresponding registration of every single firearm in existence, in order to tie each and every serial number to a specific individual at any given moment in time.

 

Not exactly true:

Semi-automatic firearms that the state has classified as assault weapons; .50 BMG caliber rifles; and large-capacity magazines (magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition) may not be sold in California. The ban on large-capacity magazines was ruled unconstitutional March 29, 2019[11] but the ruling is on hold while the case is under appeal.[12] Possession of automatic firearms, and of short-barreled shotguns and rifles, is prohibited without a Dangerous Weapons Permit, that is received from the California Department of Justice pending a good reason for their possession such as: manufacture, repair, collecting in limited cases (pre-1990), movie prop guns or dealing to police/military.

 

What exactly are you claiming is according to the ATF? That California is a model or California isn't a model? Or that California has universal backgreound checks?

 

Gun control laws cannot prevent those who cannot legally own a gun from getting one for no other reason that everyone knows someone who -can- legally buy a gun.
Thus, any gun control law enacted with the purpose on preventing those who cannot legally own a gun from getting one only serve to restrict the rights of the law abiding.
As in their intent.

 

The state of California does indeed have so-called "universal" background checks on every single firearms purchase or transaction, even between two private individuals. There is not a single circumstance available under which a private individual can legally acquire or otherwise dispose of a privately owned firearm without a background check being performed.

Despite that fact, the ATF has proven that more firearms found in the hands of prohibited individuals in the state of California, were originally sold within the state of California, rather than in any other state where they have been trafficked.

 

you seem unable to distinguish between the term "assault rifle" and the bogus anti gun term "assault weapon"

California is an insult to the second amendment and the constitution. The sooner the supreme court gives that rogue state's laws an enema-the better.

 

Thank you. Intelligent commentary is always welcome!

 

When in Rome