The REAL Reason the Hard Left Supports Gun Control

Hard to find more wrong-headed and false hyperbole than exists here.

"They have the most advanced military in the world that can easily defeat a population with some rifles"? So.... why has the conflict in Afghanistan gone on so long?

 

I think the Brits figured that out a long time back when they took on a group of irregulars, in what later became the U.S.

 

The terrorists in Afghanistan have a lot more than just some handguns and rifles. They have anti-aircraft weapons, bombs, and more of that. If you want to set up a proper insurgency, rifles are definitely very helpful, but you are going to need a lot more. However, this is irrelevant because we just don't have any revolts in the US or anywhere else in the developed world.

 

The feds do provide some local funding, but the vast majority comes from local property taxes. The federal funding usually is for very specific things, not general public safety. For example the fed likes to fund things like cracking down on drugs, community policing, or stopping domestic violence. The local police don't really control people, they only really show up when there is trouble, so they are a bad way to control people's lives. Also, even though the federal government provides funding to local governments, the federal politicians aren't directly involved with the way that money is used at the local level. People in congress are mostly dealing with national issues, rather than local police departments needing more funding. The liberal politicians who tend to support gun control, also tend to want to cut funding to the military and restrict lethal force by cops, which seems to work against their supposed agenda. Your theory just doesn't make any sense.

 

And if we did have something like that here, the rebels would likely have military weapons from the military who sided with them.

 

Totally false. many urban and rural police departments rely on LEAA like funding from the DOJ to make ends meet.

"The mission of the U.S. Department of Justice is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans."

https://www.grants.gov/learn-grants/grant-making-agencies/department-of-justice.html

 

I just don't see a revolt or military occupation as very likely here in the US. Even if there was a military occupation, and the population didn't have rifles, they would likely illegally obtain guns, bombs, and other military weapons.

 

Me, neither.

 

I never denied that the federal government assists local governments with funding. But as you can see from the very websites, there are grants that have to be applied for, and are often for specific purposes that are very important to federal politicians, like community policing, drug enforcement, etc. There just isn't a lot of person benefit for liberal politicians who support gun control. How do these grants help them?

 

Yawn for denial.

 

If people with a certain political bent have their way, we will have a revolt in the US that will be historic in its scope.

The rifles are a start... and the military and police who will refuse to enforce what they see as unconstitutional abuses of power will bring the rest.

 

What specific policies do you think will start a revolt?

 

Excessive taxation, rampant corruption, continuing and blatant infringements against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.... including gun control.

 

There is a serious problem here. Supposedly gun control is being suggested to better suppress revolts, but now it actually causes revolts too. Doesn't sounds like a good anti-revolt measure if you ask me.

Do you have any specific examples of constitutional violations or corruption that could cause a revolt? In regards to taxation, most liberal policies focus their tax increases on the wealthy, and voting for the GOP seems like a more effective way of reversing tax increases and these other issues.

 

Ok, good talk.

 

I afraid we talking at cross purposes. Obviously semi & fully automatic weapons have been around since the beginning of the 20thh century. My point was not that the weapons have changed it is that the marketing has changed. Prior to the 70s’ 80’s the vast balk of US semi/auto sales was taken up by defence contracts both domestic and foreign - not the civilian market. The weapons existed but their use by the civilian purchasers was marginal at best, at least as far a long arms are concerned.

With the change in marketing came a change in U.S. domestic firearm ownership & usage patterns. Home defence became the ‘in’ reason for purchasing a firearm and auto/semi-auto firearms the weapon of choice.

Please also see my explanation above.

Nonsensical? It’s pretty much standard practice for the secure storage of here and in other countries – and militaries around the world. You secure the weapons and ammunition in separate but adjacent locations so that possibility of unauthorised access to both at once is limited.

In Australia (precise regulations vary State to State) firearms must be stored in an approved safe with a separate (lockable) compartment for ammunition. A lot of users go further and secure the bolts/actions etc in a discrete third location which acts as a strong disincentive to thieves because even if they steal/force open the safe the weapons will have no value.

Leaving a loaded firearm in a room where any untrained family member/friend/thief can find it is simply asking for trouble. If (and it’s a big if) self-defence is a serious concern for particular individuals there is a huge range of rapid access gun safes on the market in the US. Having a loaded fire of any type leaning in the corner of the closet or sitting in the bedroom side table is not secure storage - its negligence.

PARTLY - but I am also blaming the type of weapon. My point main all along has been that the widespread adoption of rapid fire weapons in the US civilian market increases the capacity for wrong doers to inflict harm - simply because they are rapid fire weapons. There are usually only three reason to blame a licensed firearm owner for a crime committed with a firearm they own;

1) They have failed to secure the weapon properly.

2) The failed to dispose of the weapon properly.

3) They (or another family member) were ones committing the crime i.e. your typical, garden variety domestic violence incident or neighbour on neighbour dispute.

BTW the first two also apply to suicide by firearm but that’s another topic, (if you can’t commit suicide with a revolver or bolt/lever action firearm you are not doing it properly).

Now for the ‘partly’ bit and some figures.

Yes I acknowledge that a large % of firearm crime are committed by persons who are not entitled to own them and you are certainly correct on this point however here is some research again -

1) Only about one per cent of all gun transactions in the US are thefts, and there is no evidence that theft is an important source of guns to those who use them to commit violent crimes. In an analysis of nationwide and state-specific data in Springer's Journal of Urban Health, Philip Cook of Duke University

2) Sources of Firearms Reported in Prisoner Survey, 2004 National Survey by Respondents Serving Less than Two Years SISCF 2004

Friends and Family 41%

Illegal / street 32%

Retail 12%

Other 14%

Source: Based on the 2004 Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities

3) Quote (From News Website ‘The Conversation’ How dangerous people Get their weapons in America 3 October 2017 by Phillip Cook: ‘diversion from licit possession and exchange can occur in a variety of ways: theft, purchase at a gun show by an interstate trafficker, private sales where no questions are asked, straw purchases by girlfriends and so forth.

4) (From The Oxford Academic Economic Journal, Volume 117, Issue 524, 1 November 2007)

Another source of guns for the underground economy consists of unregulated secondary market sales, estimated to be on the order of 2 to 3 million per year (Cook and Ludwig, 1996). Organised gun shows appear to account for just a small share of all secondary market transactions, including those involving criminals (Wright and Rossi, 1994; Cook and Ludwig, 1996). In addition to secondary market sales, guns may be loaned out among friends and relatives.

None of the research I reviewed indicated the problem in the US was caused by the existence in the US of large, organised firearms trafficking networks/gangs who were buying quantities of guns in bulk and then selling on to the illegal market at a high margin. So the illegal market is not organised like the drug trade - in most cases it’s individual purchases/trades. What limited research I could find in a short time is that it can take 10/11 years for a legally purchased firearm to leak into the black market as it passes through several different pairs of hands.

What all of the above does point to is an appalling lack of 2nd hand gun transfer control. Based on the available evidence a small % ‘Lawful’ gun owners in the US are letting legal firearms slip though their fingers into the black market in significant numbers. It may be through a combination carelessness, misplaced trust or simple lack of thought but for whatever the reason they are failing to control or dispose of their weapons properly. And this minority is endangering their fellow citizens as a result.

So no, such people may not be directly responsible for the violent crimes committed with these guns but they are guilty of gross negligence at best and willful blindness at worse.

Setting aside the personal toll on the families of the victims of gun crime I am a loss as to how you cannot see that a high level of gun crime is a public health issue. That means the citizens of the US pay for every shooting via their health insurance premiums (if they are lucky enough to have such) and through their taxes $$$. There is a cost! And as I noted previously its up the the citizens of the US to decide what, if anything should be done about that cost.

None of the information I have used is false - unless you are accusing the academics concerned of fraud. As for assigning blame – it goes where it is deserved. I don’t assert of an instant that you are one of those gun owners who would let a legally purchased firearm slip onto the black market. But it is happening.

P.S. I don't know about you but this whole multi-paragraph comment/response business is getting exhausting.

 

You are correct, the marketing has changed. Most people would call this new form of marketing combat. As with many military conflicts Soldiers come home with great respect for the weapons they carried. While AR type weapons started being issued to Soldiers in Vietnam it was an unpopular war. Soldiers who served in Southeast Asia got little respect or support at home and wanted to forget all things military. Soldiers coming home from the current conflicts are getting respect, are proud of having served and many are interested in getting a gun (oops, rifle) like they had while in service. This interest Soldiers have in their military weapon was seen after other wars. The Spencer or Henry after the Civil War, the M1 Garand after WWII. I believe this is what has pushed sales. Uncle Sam Wants You... to try some new firearms. It is nothing new. Remember, later this year in the US young men, born after the start of the Afghanistan War, will come of age and join the military. By next month this war will be the longest in US history. The Government has been selling the concept of AR weapons to American males for a generation now.

Again, you are correct that " high level of gun crime is a public health issue". No one is more concerned than American gun owners who believe the laws on the books should be strictly enforced to keep shootings at the lowest level possible. These American gun owners also feel strongly that individuals who commit crimes should be punished to the full extent of the law. When suspects are identified they should be detained, the FBI shouldn't allow them to continue wandering the streets until they shoot up a high school. When those attempting to purchase guns are turned down based on their background check they should be questioned by law enforcement and not allowed to go find a gun by other means.

And on my last point I would say you are somewhat correct. You mention legally purchased guns slipping into the "black market". If guns were purchased with the intent that they end up in crime then I would hold that "legally purchased" is a technicality. This type of purchase might be classed as a straw purchase which is already illegal. Selling a gun to someone who you believe will use it in a crime is also illegal. I would believe the term "black market" itself makes many think of aspects of illegality. If something is legal to sell why use a black market. So guns being funneled into criminal use is already a crime. Straw purchase as the only crime someone commits is federal felony that can carry ten years in prison and a quarter million dollar fine. Maybe government needs to start enforcing the laws.

 

All true, unfortunately all the research I could find seems to indicate that that there are few if any prosecutions for straw buyers - probably because its simply to hard to prove. Firstly a lot of time can pass between the original 'legal' purchase and the firearm being recovered. And secondly because the various State firearm registries don't seem to 'talk' to each very efficiently. And of the course the original buyer can probably make up a BS story explaining the firearm's 'loss' that is hard to disprove.

 

Even when proven the punishment is frequently a slap on the wrist. Jalita Johnson straw purchased a gun that her boyfriend used to murder a policewoman. She got probation and house arrest when she could have gotten 10 years just for the straw purchase.

With regards to storing firearms, a Supreme Court decision affirmed that a gun owner cannot be required to lock up guns and ammo so that they are not immediately available. See DC v Heller.

With regards to criminal gun sourcing, we have a more up to date report to refer to: see
Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016 - Bureau of Justice Statistics

 

Is there supposed to be an actual point of relevancy in the above statement? Something other than the perceived belief that a change in firearms marketing somehow forced the public to engage in a greater degree of the illegal misuse of firearms as a direct result? Something other than attempting to claim the problem is not the members of the public?

The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. Assuming that the above is indeed factually correct, what ultimate, meaningful difference does such actually make?

First, what other countries and militaries do have absolutely no bearing on issues in the united states, relating to private civilian individuals.

Second, in the Heller ruling, the united state supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require private civilian individuals to store their firearms in a manner that rendered them useless for the purpose of self defense, such as either disassembled, or even bound by a locking device. During oral arguments the district of columbia attempted to argue that such storage requirements could be undone in as little as three seconds, and the firearm in question could be made ready for self defense. Even then, the united state supreme court ruled that even a hypothetical three second delay was still an unconstitutional infringement on the second amendment.

Whether or not this matter is liked, it does not matter, as it is the current and only legal precedent that exists.

Which does not mean anything of actual substance or relevance. Unless of course one is attempting to claim that a particular firearm forced a particular individual to commit their acts, because they had no choice in the matter but to act in such a way.

If a firearm is stored within the home, especially a locked home, such is sufficient securement. It is not the fault of a firearm owner if their firearm is stolen out of their home by someone who does not legally have any business being inside.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics has released their findings of prisoners surveyed on their use of firearms, and particularly how their firearms were acquired. The majority of those who responded indicated they acquired their firearm from either a friend or family member, or through a street transaction with other criminals.

So then the obvious question. If these individuals are indeed engaged in gross negligence at best, or willful blindness at worst, meaning they place greater evidence on monetary gain than anything else, exactly what can be done to remedy such? What can be implemented to address the problem, when there is no way of forcing a private individual to perform a background check on a prospective buyer, even if it is theoretically mandated by law? What can be done to address those who simply do not care about what the rules say, and simply do whatever it is they wish to do because it is their own decision?

How exactly do you propose forcing someone to abide by the rules of society, especially when there is no method of enforcement? Even the united states department of justice has stated, explicitly, that so-called "universal" background check requirements cannot be enforced without corresponding universal registration of every single firearm in existence. So ultimately what can be done?

Is such the fault of the firearm that was used? Or the individual who made the conscious and deliberate decision to commit harm to another?

The largest source comes from straw purchasers, those being individuals who both willingly and knowingly purchase firearms in their name, for the express purpose of transferring them to individuals who cannot legally own firearms, all for monetary gain. This is a deliberate, malicious act, just as deliberate and malicious as murder itself. So ultimately what can be done to force the individuals to not commit these felony offenses, when they place a higher value on monetary gain than human life?

It is the best way to address individual points raised in a post.

 

Factually correct. The matter is quite hard to prove, and in most cases where it can be proven, a prosecutor simply does not wish to invest the resources necessary to pursue charges unless they are convinced they can win the case, as they do not wish to have such a loss on their personal record. To the prosecutors it is a game.

First, not all states possess a firearms registry.

Secondly, even if they did, it would ultimately make no meaningful difference.

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data-2017

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

According to the findings of the ATF, forty percent of all firearms found in the possession of criminals in the state of California, were originally sold in the state of California to begin with, which requires firearms registration, permitting requirements, background checks on private transfers, and the mandatory reporting of lost or stolen firearms. Firearms traced back to the state of Arizona, for example, that does not have such requirements, amounted to only five percent of the total number. The state of Nevada amounted to four percent, the state of Texas amounted to two percent, and so on down the line of ever-reducing percentages into fractions of one third of one percent.

Which is why the entire system in place for purchasing firearms in the united states is nothing more than political theater, designed to craft the illusion of safety, but ultimately serving no legitimate reason in existing.

Instead of focusing on the question of where did the firearm come from, or how a particular individual managed to gain access to it, the focus should instead be on the individual who committed a heinous act, and simply acknowledge that some individuals will simply act in such a manner with no way of predicting who will do such, or when they will do it.

But the public does not wish to do such. The public does not wish to give up its illusion of safety, and admit that on any given day they could be murdered by a neighbor they know well, or even a random stranger simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

While this is standard practice, in the US, a law that requires a person to lock up his firearms violates the constitution.

 

It looks as if Americans are about to make a little headway against the special interests and radicals.

With Squinty LaP's influence deflated by the exposure of the NRA's complicity with Putin in subverting US democracy, progress is possible.

​

 

Ultimately nothing will come to pass, as the legislation will not pass.

Inform the public that background checks on all private firearms transactions will require the complete and total registration of every firearm in the united states, as per the findings of the department of justice, and that supposed support for the measure will drop significantly.

 

Polls mean nothing. The criminal justice experts at the Department of Justice don't believe a universal background check will be effective.

"Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process"

"Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies", 2010

https://archive.org/stream/NijGunPolicyMemo/nij-gun-policy-memo_djvu.txt