Maybe somebody has already pointed out this "study" has been debunked and rejected by even the big name gun banners. The 2 primary front men for "academic" gun ban work are Daniel Webster (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, bought and paid for by gun banner Michael Bloomberg), and Harvards David Hemenway: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/10/gun-control-study-flawed-researchers Implementing three state gun control laws at the federal level could reduce the rate of American gun deaths by more than 90%, a new study has found. But leading gun violence researchers have called that result implausible, and said the studys design is so flawed that some of its findings are not believable. ... Experts noted that the laws, which were on the books in only three states, were not actually being implemented in practice. That would be the biggest red flag, obviously, when theyre finding huge effects of a law that doesnt exist, Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, said. He called the papers approach just not good science. While some of the papers findings are interesting, its highly questionable whether other results are an accurate reflection of reality, David Hemenway, a leading gun violence researcher at Harvards school of public health, wrote in a comment published along with the paper. And, really, use your brain. Does it make any sense at all that universal background checks and microstamping would reduce gun deaths by 90%? If background checks were that significant, there would have been a tremendous and immediate drop in gun deaths when the Brady NICS check went into effect, there was not.
So now you admit that firearms are not all designed to kill. If all I need is a self defense gun for self protection, I would buy a $500 - $600 handgun. Why would I spend $3500.00 on a Benelli shotgun that is specifically designed to shoot clays? Damn, I love this gun. I also have a custom $2500.00 CZ for USPSA/IDPA competition. I'll be shooting it this weekend at the Smith and Wesson Steel Challenge Nationals. http://www.ussteelshoot.com/ I would never use my custom competition guns for self defense. If I were to use them in a defensive shooting, they could be confiscated into evidence until a resolution is decided as to if it was a justifiable use of deadly force. Thats a chance I'm not willing to take.
There are other uses for guns as the members above gave. Also certain knives have only one purpose and that's to kill. Guns are used for self defense, defense of our nation, hunting for food, target practice, competition. Lets not forget that archery is spawned out of war and hunting as well.
Background checks for private gun sales ipso facto "do something". And the benefit extends beyond small/individual gun sales - a significant proportion of gun trafficking operations are based on (that is, enabled by) private sales. Plus, there is a secondary knock-on effect in terms of time and cost. As for charges and convictions, are you saying that criminals should be able to buy guns from private sellers because it's unlikely they'll be charged or convicted if caught trying to buy one with a background check? That makes no sense. It also makes no sense to imagine that criminals are happy to expose themselves by trying to do so, making the actual impact of regulated private sales difficult to quantify, over and above the usual challenges. However, the immediate gain is obvious - criminals, et al, cannot circumvent background checks.
Yes, that goes without saying. But, not a justification for dispensing with any and all means to limit access. Which, by the way, to my mind should include intensive resources/efforts to wipe out corrupt FFLs which, according to the ATF, turn a blind eye to obvious straw purchases and engage in all sorts of other practices in order to supply the criminal market for personal gain.
There in lies the rub....How do you limit access to convicted criminals without limiting access to those that are legally protected by the second amendment. It's already illegal for FFL's to knowingly sell to a straw purchaser. They can be held criminally and civilly liable for the actions of the purchaser.
Background checks for person-to-person sales would not limit access - unless the check determined that the prospective buyer was ineligible. And yes, it is already illegal for FFLs to knowingly sell to straw purchasers. However, as it can be difficult to prove to a certainty, prosecutors are often reluctant to charge while judges routinely avoid serious penalties. Several states have introduced their own laws so that straw purchases can be prosecuted more zealously. Also, the more common form of FFL corruption is "poor" record keeping which masks diversions to criminals, but typically classifies as a misdemeanor only, with relatively light penalties, even when a large number of guns is involved. And so on and so forth.
I think we need background checks and registration for alcohol. Alcohol kills far more people than guns. Registering alcohol purchases would prevent straw purchases for teenagers. Until alcohol purchases are registered and tracked, leave my guns alone. Alcohol has no purpose but to cause death and destruction. I've lived without it for decades.
To me it is a no brainer to limit access of guns to criminals and yet time and again on this forum this is decried as "against the second amendment"
Like has been pointed out a thousand times, and Washington agrees, UBCs will not be the least bit effective without registration of all firearms in the country. Registration is a no go for those who know how fragile the second amendment could become with a liberal Supreme Court majority. It is indeed hard to prove that an FFL knowingly sold to a straw purchaser. Improper FFL record keeping is a federal offense and is under federal oversight. FFLs lose their license for such actions, so for the most part are very careful.
You want to push for UBCs even though it's been pointed out they won't do a thing without registration of all firearms. Even the most staunch advocates for UBCs in Washington have finally had to admit this. Record keeping such as registration is illegal. If you antis knew what you were doing, you would be pushing to overturn the record keeping law before you pushed for UBCs. Since you are doing it backwards, you are just banging your head against the wall.
Those states with background checks for private sales and no registration would beg to differ. Registration does not affect the ability of a background check to stop a criminal from purchasing a gun from a private or licensed seller. In short, the slippery slope fallacy is creeping in. In an ideal world, yes. In reality, FFLs very rarely lose their licenses. What's more, for the most part violations are undetected, because their records are rarely inspected in the first place. And even if they are, and even if they are under threat of losing their license, cases take years to process, and in the meantime it's business as usual.
There is no proof that state mandated UBCs have prevented one criminal from obtaining a gun. Show me where there has been one arrest of someone that did not comply. Private sales go undetected so there is no enforcement.
You are quite incorrect. Engaging in a straw purchase is a felony offense, as it involves knowingly providing false information on a federal form. It is an offense that can lead to a ten year prison sentence.
You clearly used the phrase all weapons, meaning anything and everything that could be used in a manner that would cause harm to another.
The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above statement. Ultimately what does it matter, and what difference does it make, that firearms are legally classified as deadly weapons? What is the relevance of your differentiation between firearms, and any other implement that is used for the purpose of committing felony murder against another? Are we to believe it truly makes a difference if a murder victim is shot rather than bludgeoned with a hammer?
Without registration of all firearms, how do you know a private individual is actually carrying out a background check prior to the sale of a firearm? There is no way to know who owns what. Provide evidence of such.
You probably are not aware that someone is not a criminal until convicted. It is generally considered one of the underlying principles of the American justice system. So try again to explain how all guns that criminals get are gotten from other criminals.
The no snitch policy is one of the underlying principles of the American justice system? Next you are going to tell us it is in the Conservative Constitution.
