BS. Show it. I was in law enforcement for years. Criminals avoid breaking FEDERAL and state laws because the assets to catch and depose them is much greater. This is why with just a few exceptions, the stricter the state gun laws, the less gun violence in states and countries. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-laws-linked-to-less-gun-violence-study-finds
A bit ago you were saying that criminals are too stupid to know that it was illegal for them to possess a firearm after being convicted of a felony. So, do they know the laws or are they ignorant of the laws? Or are you simply making it up as you go along?
That you were in law enforcement has nothing to do with it and lends no credibility to your argument. Felons who possess guns violate Federal, State, and often local, laws and none of those prosecute them for it. Period. Felons don't care about the law. WHen they commit murder, which has a life sentence or even death sentence, they're not weighing the severity of sentencing in considering their crime.
Felons don’t care about the law ? That’s the most ridiculous statement about crime and career criminals you could make. To think it doesn’t matter to them if they commit federal or state crimes is really delusional. . .secondly, you appear to be under the illusion that all criminals are convicted felons. They aren’t and with our lax gun laws and no requirements , can easily buy guns Either from dealers or privately and transfer them legally, for them, to convicted felons. Heck, in some states anyone can walk into a FFL licensed gun store, say they are buying the firearm as gift and avoid being classified as a straw purchaser. Your assertions are laughable .
In typical leftist fashion when they've lost the argument: introduce red herring arguments. We're not talking about criminals who are not felons, are we? You lost the felon argument so you changed the game in the middle of the 9th inning. Felons carrying guns is a Federal violation. Felons that carry guns clearly don't care about violating Federal law. For most felons who get arrested for illegally carrying a gun aren't capable of committing white collar crimes. They deal drugs and carry guns. Both, of course, are Federal crimes. Your argument that a person can go into a gun store and buy a gun and transfer them legally to convicted felons is a lie and you know it. Telling the dealer that you're buying it as a gift does not mean that it is not a straw purchase. You don't have to tell the dealer anything; just buy the gun. They have to mark on the 4473 that they are the actual purchaser - that they're not using someone else's money. You can legally be the purchaser of a gift. But it is a felony with up to 10 years penalty for knowingly transferring a gun to a felon. My assertions are exactly, 100 per cent, on the money, correct. Not even you actually believe the assertions you're making.
Possession of a firearm by a prohibited individual, such as a convicted felon, is a federal offense. Why has this done absolutely nothing to discourage the tens of thousands of convicted felons who routinely go about and acquire firearms through illegal channels, despite them knowing it is another federal-level felony offense? The article notes states are graded on what firearm-related restrictions they have in place at the time, not what level of firearm-related violence they play host to.
https://www.chicagoreporter.com/tho...-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/ From January 2006 through August 2013, thousands of cases involving a weapons violation were thrown out in Cook County’s criminal courts, The Chicago Reporter found. More than 13,000 cases that included a gun violation have been dismissed during that period, shows the Reporter’s analysis of records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. In fact, more felony cases involving a gun–from illegal possession to unlawful sale to a felon–have been thrown out than cases with any other type of charge.
“Factually incorrect” In in other words, you don't have a clue. Under federal law in private sales, which you seem to know nothing about it is not an illegal act on the part of the seller to sell a firearm to a felon, unknowingly. There is no requirement to prove legality of the buyer,or even ask for identification. No paper work is required, no forms to fill in are required. None, nada nix. Like wise, gifting a firearm to a felon by a seller requires no legal action by the seller, no forms or back ground check All that is required by a seller to avoid responsibility, is to practice ignorance. Gunners seem well adapted to the process.
A so-called "clue" is actually possessed on the matter. It is simply not on the part of yourself. Supposed service in law enforcement does not change this fact. Is it legal for the convicted felon to take possession of a firearm under such circumstances? Or is it still a felony offense regardless?
Do you actually bother to read any of my posts, you’d know it is legal for a SELLER. Why is that so hard to understand ? Without the requirement of the seller to do a background check, how do YOU know the buyer is a felon ? Seriously, are you playing the “dah” game ? By fainting ignorance, you’re doin exactly the same thing as a private seller seller to a potential felon. It works among other gunners.
It’s ridiculous statements like this that make the post disingenuous. Its ridiculous to continue conversing with these conduct. This is intentional on The posting to spread this stuff. Moving on. fact, 2600 in 2016/ alone by the feds, not counting state and local. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-gun-prosecutions-23-percent-after-sessions-memo
Of course, you can’t utter anything I actually said. That would require a quote. That’s an NRA tactic. Make up stuff and repeat it.
So rather than assigning blame exclusively to the felon, who is knowingly committing another felony offense even in attempting to procure a firearm, what is desired on the part of yourself is a way of prosecuting the private individual who, to the best of their knowledge, is doing absolutely nothing wrong? Ultimately for what legitimate purpose? To create yet another felon for prosecution? To enable technicalities to allow for the termination of constitutional rights for as many individuals as possible, through whatever means possible? Once again, and do attempt to answer the question this time around. Is it legal for the convicted felon to take possession of a firearm under such circumstances? Or is it still a felony offense regardless?
So what is ultimately being admitted on the part of yourself, is that the number of prosecution for firearm-related offenses has increased greatly under Donald Trump, than was in place under Barack Obama? That matter aside, how many firearm-related offenses are actually committed in the united states per year? Without such information, claiming an increase in the rate of prosecutions means absolutely nothing. If the above figures only account for prosecutions of approximately one percent of all applicable criminal acts, it just serves to prove how rare prosecutions actually are.
Why isn't 10 enough, or 20 or 100? If everyone were a perfect shooter, only one bullet per attacker would do.
Nothing like blowing your own argument out of the water. If prosecutions went up by 23% then it is quite clear they where not prosecuting all of the criminals they should have been prosecuting, proving your original statement to be false.
Even if the shooter was a perfect shot many attackers have continued their violence even after being shot multiple times. And even lethal shots may mat not stop an attacker: Another lesson: Don’t expect immediate incapacitation from heart shots. The annals of the Journal of Trauma are replete with cases of patients who have survived handgun wounds to the heart. The published work of highly experienced forensic pathologists such as Doctors Vincent DiMaio, Werner Spitz and Abdullah Fatteh cite many men who committed mayhem after being shot in the heart. The rule of thumb is if the brain is fully oxygenated, even if the heart is completely stilled, there may be 18 seconds or more of purposeful physical activity before the heart-shot man becomes unconscious. And not all gunshot wounds will completely halt cardiac function. The case under discussion is a good example. Therefore having less than 10 shots could well be, way too few. https://americanhandgunner.com/our-experts/home-invasion-the-coker-family-incident/
A heart shot or headshot might not immediately kill him but ensures that he won't be able to follow his intention. Maybe he yet fires some bullets around. But none of them is aimed at a target. His body is too busy with dying.
You’re replacing one fraudulent claim with another. Got any snake oil. I’m out of here. You’ve got all the attention you deserve.
