Not exactly true. The National Firearms Act of 1934 dramatically reduced the number of murders being committed with fully automatic firearms. In the last 50 years there has only been one case of a private person using a fully automatic firearm to kill another person although I don't know if it was murder or self-defense. We could also argue that laws prohibiting an ex-felon from owning or possessing a firearm has reduced gun related crimes simply because sometimes they are caught in possession of a firearm and sent back to jail. It is true that many "gun control" laws do not reduce gun violence but that doesn't imply that all "gun control" laws are ineffective. First is the consideration that not all felonies are related to violent crime. An unarmed person in possession of a pound of cocaine is not committing a crime of violence but they are committing a felony. Next is the fact that we allow felons that are violating our "gun control laws" to walk away as opposed to taking measures to enforce the laws. A person prohibited from owning, purchasing, or possessing a firearm can walk into an FFL and try to purchase a firearm and they are committing a felony in doing so. The FFL will run the background check and deny the person the purchase based upon the FBI NICS database but then that person simply walks out the door to go purchase a firearm from a private citizen that can't run an FBI NICS database search. I believe the FBI NICS database should be opened up to use by everyone and would even suggest that if the search comes up with the results that the attempted purchase is illegal that law enforcement be notified instantly to respond and address the probable violation of the law by the person attempting to purchase the firearm. This could be automated by simply requiring an entry of "location" prior to running the database search and, if the NICS database results are "denied" that the system automatically notifies the local police to respond immediately. This is actually about arresting and prosecuting a "felony" being committed. Would you have a problem with such a law related to gun control?
While there is a huge difference between a 0.4% likelihood of being at home during a home invasion in your lifetime and a 0.000000001% chance or less of being the victim of a mass murderer in you that doesn't imply that a person should exercise reasonable judgment related to each. Always remember that irrational fear does not provide a logical foundation for an action. As I've noted I have a CCW and I can carry a firearm in public if I choose. There can be restrictions established by the "property owner" on whether I can carry that firearm onto their property. They have that "Right" and I respect ther Rights. If I don't want to go unarmed on that property then I wouldn't take any action that would require me to go on their property. For example, if I don't want to go to Fort Hood where personal firearms are not generally allowed to be carried then logically I won't join the US military. If I don't want to go into a courthouse where firearms are prohibited then I would break the law or I'll have an attorney represent me in matters before the court. If I don't want to go unarmed on a commerical airlinere then I won't buy a ticket. I have a "choice" and being prohibited from carrying my firearm by the "owner of a property" from carrying a firearm onto their property does not violate my Inalienable Right of Self-Defense nor does the fact that I am required to have a CCW to carry a firearm in public. It wasn't even an inconvenience to obtain my CCW as it only required three business days from my date of application. I personally believe that anyone carrying a firearm in public should be licensed to do so because it is not an inconvenience nor does it prevent a person from keeping and bearing arms in any manner. The "self-defense" laws of the United States already provide the legal protections against acts of aggression by another person. The "racial stereotyping" by Zimmerman was a civil rights issue only addressed under the Federal Civil Rights statutes and was not adjudicated during his Florida criminal prosecution. Yes, federal law enforcement agencies do use profiling in criminal investigations but they are highly limited in this action under the law and laws cannot be based upon stereotyping of a person. The fact that I'm required to have a CCW to carry a concealed weapon in public does not infringe upon my Right to Keep and Bear arms nor does it violate the intent of the 2nd Amendment. We can note that the California CCW law was recently struck down because it imposed a restriction upon obtaining a CCW that did violate the 2nd Amendment because the person had to "show cause" other than just "self-defense" to obtain the CCW. So a CCW law can be unconstitutional but so long as it doesn't prevent a law-abiding person from obtaining the CCW then it is not an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment Rights or the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
The only case of a Class III machine gun being used to kill someone in the hands of its registered owner was when an off duty cop killed a drug dealer with his Mac-10. So no tears shed. The reason why more effective weapons that are full-auto or select fire have not been used so much crime since the 1934 act is because why? It was because of the the harsh penalties, duh! My whole point, punish the felons. If the right punishments are in place, they will deter crime. Felons can easily bring in full-auto AK-47 type weapons from Mexico and points South if they wanted to. They could very easily put a drop in sear kit into any AR rifle to make it select fire. They rarely do this because of the federal penalties for getting caught. That is why they should have the same penalties for every member of a violent street or prison gang who commits a violent felony. Now that would take "a bite out of crime"---if they were ever enforced. But Obama & Holder & friends would never allow this. You being a known liberal seem to have no qualms about people dealing and doing cocaine, but the millions of lives ruined by dangerous and addictive drugs far surpass the number killed or injured by guns in the US. http://cocaine-effects.com/ According to the latest available data from the Centers for Disease Control, drug overdoses were responsible for 38,329 deaths in 2010, 30,006 of which were unintentional. That's a rate of 105 every day, and that number doesn't take into account the 6,748 people treated every day for the misuse or abuse of drugs. In comparison, traffic accidents were responsible for 33,687 deaths in 2010. Firearms killed 31,672 people, and 26,852 died as a result of falling. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/drug-overdose-deaths_n_3843690.html I believe in having none of your pet gun control laws that restrict or register gun for honest citizens. I do support the laws that slam felons for harming others. I believe in having a database of gangsters. Those who are convicted of doing 3 or more violent gang crimes should be executed within 6 months.
Just gonna go with a few items...I am not hung up on race but I can see it as an observational fact. I am more inclined to pay attention to actions and perceptible individual demeanor regardless of heritage. When you've drawn my attention I'm concerned with simply trying to figure out why. Profiling works. Considering what others may not is not irrational. I see any infringement of the Second Amendment as...well, an infringement. The CCW is an infringement as it restricts that part of the 2A from being exercised save those granted the government privilege (not a right) of the CC license...much as driving is a privilege and not a right. I am for private property rights too however I do question that right when a business open to the public can choose bigotry in cases where it discriminates against Americans exercising their 2A right. Of course if the property owner hires and deploys a sizable force of career LEOs than I would say he is considerate. After a man does his time (payed his debt) why would you refuse him the resumption of all his rights save those with an existing exclusionary disability?
In fact it doesn't and it must be extremely limited to avoid the violations of the Constitutional Rights of the Person. For example the vast majority of "illegal" aliens are Hispanic but we cannot profile all Hispanics as being illegal aliens. That's where Sheriff Joe's little gestapo police force got into trouble with the federal government because it used profiling as opposed to probably cause related to our immigration laws. It violated the Constitutionally protected Rights of the Person by profiling of Hispanics as "illegal" aliens. If we understand that the purpose of government is to protect our inalienable rights, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, then we must also understand that there is a pragmatic necessity to limit our Freedom to Exercise those Inalienable Rights. The limitation upon the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right (based upon the voluntary consent established by the Social Contract that is the US Constitution) needs to be based upon a compelling argument and to the least extent pragmatically possible to meet the necessity established by compelling argument. We do this all of the time such as with our limitation upon our Inalienable Right of Thought where we have the Freedom to Exercise that Right through expression. We limit that Freedom to Exercise the Right of Thought through expression when we prohibit the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater because it can cause panic, injury and death. We do it with our traffic speed limits on public streets because excessive speed endangers other people. This is an infringment upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Right of Liberty. In neither case is the Inalienable Right being violated by our pragmatic limitation established by compelling argument upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Right. Our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Right of Self-Defense Against Acts of Aggression can be limited based upon compelling arguments just like our Freedom to Exercise our other Inalienable Rights can be limited based upon compelling arguments. It does not disparage the Inalienable Right nor does it violate the Inalienable Right. Based upon our Social Contract (i.e. the US Constitution) we understand that to protect our Inalienable Rights it sometime requires a limitation upon our Freedom to Exercise them. If this is not allowed then there would be not laws at all because all laws, to some extent, limit our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights. As noted though first we need a compellling argument before imposing a limitation upon our Freedom to Exericse an Inalienable Right. Next is that the infringement upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Right must be limited to the extent necessary to fulfill the necessity established by the compelling argument. I can certainly provide examples of where our government "goes to far" as there is no compelling argument. The glaring example is the death penalty. Premeditated killing (murder) is the greatest violation of the Inalienable Rights of the Person there is as it violates all of the Rights of the Person. A person that commits murder has violated all of the Rights of the Person that is their victim. Our government has a responsibility to protect us from a person that has committed this "greatest" violation of the Rights of the Person possible. Our government can do this through incarceration which infringes upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the person that commits murder. That is an infringement upon the Freedom to Exercise the Right of Liberty of the "convicted" and it fulfills the requirement to protect us based upon a compelling argument. Capital punishment, which is the pre-medidated killing of the person under the authority of the law is not just an infringement upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Rights of the convicted person but is a direct violation of their Inalienable Right to Life and is unnecessary to protect us from the actions of the "convicted" murderer. Capital punishment is an "Act of Revenge" and not an "Act of Protection" but we don't have a "Right of Revenge" and cannot delegate a power to government that isn't based upon our Inalienable Rights as a Person. Capital punishment is completely unnecessary and cannot be supported based upon a compelling argument related to the Protection of our Inalienable Rights which is the foundation for the existance of government in the United States.. I don't support the blanket limitation upon firearms ownership by "felons" because not all "felons" are violent people that represent a threat of violence against others in society. The unarmed drug dealer busted for ten pound of cocaine doesn't represent an established threat of violence based upon the criminal prosecution and their right to keep and bear arms once released from prison (we can't allow them to be armed in prison) should not be limited. On the other hand a violent criminal that has been convicted does represent a serious threat to the safety of others if we allow them to possess firearms after release so here is the choice. Should we keep them incarcerated so that they don't represent a threat of violence or should we allow them to be released from incarceration with a limitation upon their Freedom to Exercise their Right of Self-Defense by denying them firearms? I'm relatively sure that if we asked them if they'd rather stay in prison or be allowed back on the streets by agreeing to not own or possess firearms that they would voluntarily agree to be released and not own or possess firearms. In short we're lifting an infringment upon their Freedom to Exercise their Inalienable Right of Liberty while retaining an limitation upon their Freedom to Exercise their Inalienable Right of Self-Defense based upon a compelling argument and it is the least possible limitation that meets the compelling arguments related to the protections of the Rights of other Persons in society. . We can note that these violent ex-felons can request that their firearms rights be re-instated but they're going to have to prove to the court that they very unlikely to use them for violent purposes against other person. BTW I also oppose the limitations upon the Right to Vote for ex-felons unless they were convicted of violations related to voting. It is an irrational limitation where no compelling argument supports the limitation. I don't care if a the ex-felon is a bank robber that has nothing to do with voting because their vote doesn't violate anyone else's Inalienable Rights. Now if they rigged elections or engaged in duplicate voting,that corrupted the election process that's a different matter completely.
Can't go word for word or we'll be trading ever expanding novellas. Profiling does work. If BOLO is issued for specific details why focus on those who do not have those specific characteristics except for serving the religion of PC? for example, if looking for a white male suspect why scrutinize black females or clouds in the sky? Or vice versa If you yell fire in a theater and there is cause or perceived cause no harm, no foul. If you do so knowing there is no fire then you have potentially induced panic. However there is a difference between gun control and falsely claiming a fire. You are guilty of a crime after the fact when you falsely report (using free speech) a fire. When one is only keeping and bearing (2A), gun control laws peremptorily make the right of keeping and bearing a crime, odd isn't it? In one instance you must, with knowledge to the contrary, commit an overt and public act and on the other you are guilty for exercising your Second Amendment right. Agreed on the felon points
So how do you identify the straw purchasers supplying the criminals? Or, do you just focus on mopping up the effects of crime while doing nothing to prevent it?
By their act(s) unless the law encompasses intention too. That is, unfortunately, what police officers and then firemedics are left with after responding as quickly as they can but arriving after the crime has been committed. I have wondered how many violent, potentially violent felonious crimes were stopped by the armed citizen (aka the targeted victim) before serious bodily injury or worse had taken place compared to how many were stopped by an LEO not on scene when the crime began?
Are you intentionally missing the point? How do you identify who is committing the act of purchasing firearms and providing them to criminals? With the exception of premeditated murder, the purpose of a firearm in any crime is to intimidate in order to gain compliance, because crimes occur more swiftly (and reduce the ability of police to interrupt) when the victims are compliant. Have you wondered how many crimes would not occur in the first place if the prospective criminal didn't have access to the tool that's perfectly suited to forcing compliance?
especially when they are related to the head cop: Suspect in 'worst mass murder in Calgary's history' is veteran police officer's son The suspect in the stabbing deaths of five people at a Calgary house party is the son of a senior police officer, the police chief confirmed, calling the killings the "worst mass murder in Calgary’s history." Police have charged Matthew de Grood, 22, with five counts of first-degree murder. De Grood is a University of Calgary student and the son of a police officer who has served with the Calgary Police Service for 33 years. According to his Facebook page, he was recently accepted into the University of Calgary’s law school The stabbings happened at a house party in northwest Calgary in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Police Chief Rick Hanson told reporters the suspect arrived at the party on Butler Crescent N.W. as an invited guest “and targeted the victims one by one” with a knife. The names of the victims have not been released by police, but they been identified as Lawrence Hong, Josh Hunter, Zackariah Rathwell, Kaiti Perras and Jordan Segura. Investigators are now trying to piece together what may have led to the fatal attack, Hanson said. "That's one of the things that our investigators are looking at, trying to determine was there anything that precipitated the event. Was there something that anyone had done that could have been taken as an insult or an affront to this individual?" he said. "And to the best of our knowledge right now, there's nothing to indicate anything like that happened earlier in the day that led to this event." He added that at this point, there's no indication alcohol was a factor. The police chief became emotional while discussing the suspect's parents, noting that they are "heartbroken," and had asked him to pass on their sorrow and condolences to the victims' families. "They are devastated and they feel so much pain for the families that were impacted by their son," he said, adding that they have been fully co-operating with the investigation. During the news conference Hanson remained sombre, noting the event was the "worst mass murder" in the city's history and would take a toll on the officers who attended the scene. "The scene was horrific. It's extremely difficult, regardless of who the perpetrator is, to go into a scene like that with young people who've been killed, who've been murdered," he said. University of Calgary President Elizabeth Cannon also spoke at the news conference Tuesday, offering condolences to the victims' families on behalf of the school. "The university community has lost a part of its family, and this is a very difficult time for all of us," she said. Cannon said the university was working to ensure that counselling and support services were in place to help students, staff and community members who were struggling with the deaths. Calling the deaths a "senseless tragedy," she said the university was working with police. Calgary police were called to a home in the residential neighbourhood of Brentwood around 1:30 a.m. local time Tuesday, where students had held an all-day party the day before. Five people were found with stab wounds. Paramedics declared three men dead at the scene. Two more victims -- a man and a woman -- were taken to hospital, but later succumbed to their injuries. About 30 minutes later, police using canine units tracked a suspect in his 20s who had fled the home. The suspect was arrested and taken to hospital for treatment of injuries sustained during the police dog pursuit. Prime Minister Stephen Harper tweeted his sympathies to the victims’ families, writing that he and his wife, Laureen Harper, "send our condolences to the families & friends of the victims of the senseless violence in Calgary last night." Neighbours told reporters they heard no commotion during the night. They also said the students who rented the house had been drinking at the home throughout the day without incident to mark the University of Calgary student union’s annual “Bermuda Shorts Day,” which celebrates the last day of classes. Doug Jones, who lives across the street from where the killings took place, says the students appeared to be having a barbecue in the home’s backyard in the evening. “It was like a normal gathering; it wasn’t loud, it wasn’t unruly. Around dusk, they moved inside, and then we didn’t really hear anything,” he told CTV News Channel. “We woke up this morning to yellow tape in the back alley here. I was in shock when the reporters told us what happened.” With reports from CTV Calgary’s Stephanie Brennan Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/suspec...-police-officer-s-son-1.1776541#ixzz30AicC1rL it is still the mind, not the tool
Make law that criminalizes knowingly gifting a firearm to any person with a firearms disability. Investigate and charge violators. Straight forward and simple. Just can't buy into your victim's mentality or fate. Be aware of your environment and the actors in it. By definition criminals commit crimes, inanimate objects/tools do not. When you remove the criminal you remove crime. if you remove one choice of weapons another will be chosen.
It's already against the law to knowingly provide a firearm to a criminal... The issue is that there is currently no way to prove whether this is done "knowingly" given that the receiver does not have to have a background check performed for private sales. Suddenly not so "straight forward and simple", is it? By all means, explain what is a "victim's mentality" about illustrating that firearm is a more effective tool for intimidation than a knife. Ever heard of the colloquialism "holding a gun to their head" when talking about forcing someone to perform an action? Cool bumper sticker, but has nothing to do with the topic or point I was discussing. No kidding, Sherlock. That's why I'm talking about keeping criminals from obtaining the tools that make it easy for them to commit crimes. I often hear people talk about guns as "the great equalizer", claiming that they allow a weak person to overcome a powerful assailant. You do realize that this works both ways, right? A 13 year old with a firearm can commit crimes that a 13 year old with a hammer could not.
You must first suspect then prove that a crime (all elements present) has been committed and work back from that point. The best weapon man has is his brain and the creativity within it. Take all from him but allow him an environment and he'll fashion a tool for the task at hand. The great equalizer adage is not intended to empower those with evil intent, that tips the sought for balance away from a moral/peaceful equilibrium. BTW theoretically your thirteen year olds could commit many of the same crimes; such as murder, rape, robbery, assault, battery, aggravated menacing, theft, vandalism etc. with the tools they possess. Not sure what point you attempted to make regarding their criminal potential.
Once again, without any background check, how do you know if the person buying a firearm from you in a private sale is an ex con? Sure, a person who is determined to rob a bank (for example) will find a way to do so. If the bank kept all cash on a table in the middle of an open room with no vaults, guards, cameras, security systems, etc to increase the difficulty of robbing them, they would have more robberies. A person's means have as much impact as their motive to commit crime. What that adage is meant to represent has nothing to do with it's validity. It's a double-edged sword. Giving the weak the power to overcome the strong is only a benefit if you assume that the weak are benevolent and the strong are evil. This hasty generalization is fallacious. A 13 year old who attempts to assault most adults I know with a hammer (for example) is going to end up in the hospital. A 13 year old who decides to shoot one of those adults will put them in the hospital (at best). How is this not obvious?
Oh, private sales! For instance, sell to those you know, ask for ID from those you don't and ask them if they are under any disability. If you believe that something is amiss DO NOT make the sale. Personally I've never sold a firearm but if I did it would only be to someone I knew more than in passing. .I agree with that but would like to add to it a person's strategy, anticipation of potential pitfalls/countermeasures, execution and fortune have an greater impact.. .Those of less physical superiority need an equalizer but those of dark hearts filled with evil intentions seek an unjust advantage. if they see them with enough advance notice and can fathom their intention. There are many circumstance where the better prepared have bested their stronger target.
So, in short, our current system doesn't make it easy for criminals to obtain firearms: 1) IF private sales only occur to close acquaintances. 2) IF nobody chooses to overlook a friend's history because "it was just a mistake made that surely won't be repeated...". 3) IF a criminal attempting to purchase a firearm is asked about his background and chooses to tell the truth (because they're usually so honest and have no motivation to lie )Yeah, that's working great... Absolutely, which is why having access to a tool that increases the chance of compliance from "victims" makes crime easier and more appealing... If you can force compliance, you can commit the crime and get away faster. Judgements about the way an equalizer is used (for defense or offense) has nothing to do with the fact that the entire "equalizer" arguement that works both ways. So, you're proposing that people should walk around analyzing each other, paranoid about what everyone else's intentions might be, formulating contingency plans about how to overcome imagined attackers... and in this environment of fear and paranoia, you think the situation would be improved by everyone carrying a firearm. Yup, nothing could possibly go wrong there. That's a very interesting interpretation of what the founders meant when they talked about "The security of a free state" as the purpose for the 2A.
Private sales are irrelevant to crime. Most guns used in crime are stolen or taken from a family member.
If that were true (and I noted you have chosen not to present any source other than your own opinion), it would make sense to pass legislation that would increase secure storage, to reduce the number of guns that can be stolen or taken without the owner's consent.
Not a 100% sure on the law, is it legal for anyone to sell a firearm to an individual with a firearms disability? and in response to the rest of your post; I agree with the statement "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom"...situational awareness is part of that vigilance. The scout motto "Always Prepared" also fits. I do not see a paranoia in either statement or in the philosophical underpinnings, nor in implementing and exercising these ideals. Your published statements seem to take issue with the freedoms American citizens rightly and responsibly exercise. Fear of the liberty others may exercise is treatable but for those who it is simply to much for, there are other nations and forms of government that might be better suited for a mindset of wanting big government to run their lives.
Storage makes no difference either. Recently a young man here, out for a walk, was shot with a stolen gun which was stolen from a gun store. They drove a stolen car (better locks?) through the wall of a gun store here to gain entrance.
Really? You claim that how you secure valueables makes no difference to whether they will be stolen? I suppose banks should stop throwing money away on silly expenditures like vaults, alarm systems, cameras, guards, locked doors, walls....? What the hell are you talking about? Are you saying this isolated event in any way vaguely resembles the norm? Perhaps the store shouldn't bother locking the door any more because it only stops 99% of people from coming in when they shouldn't, right? Do you honestly believe that something has no purpose unless if is 100% effective 100% of the time? Can you name anything that meets that standard?
Nope, it's not legal. Of course, you'd have to know the person has a "firearms disability" in the first place, and (despite the wishes of the vast majority of Americans) our 'bought and paid for' elected representatives decided that implementing background checks - so we could actually know if someone has a "firearms disability" prior to selling them a weapon - wasn't going to happen. Sure, those statements aren't inherently paranoid, but we're not talking about semantics here so much as the cultural implications of constantly evaluating everyone you come into contact with to determine their threat level and establish contingency plans for how to overcome every imagined threat. That mindset is very clearly one of paranoia. Hang on... I've consistantly spoken against a gun ban and discussed concepts that simply reduce the number of criminals who can obtain tools that facilitate the commission of crime. Others, whom I debate with, talk about the need to remain vigilant about every action that every other citizen might take, and be prepared for every contingency... and somehow you get that I'm the one that "fears the liberty others may exercise"? That boggles the mind.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that there would be far more stolen property if that property was left unsecured.
