Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[wiegeabo]

I think a lot of people living in the cities need a reality check when it comes to numbers. New Yorkers in particular seem to think only hicks and gangbangers own guns. At least a third of the country is packing something. No one even knows for sure, since in many states you don't need to register.

I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the numbers that has a category for those who are ignorant about guns in general.

I mean people who have never fired a gun, have no real idea what the process of getting a gun (especially assault rifles) is really like, and probably don't even know the real gun crime statistics.

I think lack of knowledge about guns is a real contributor to the problem. Because it distracts voters and politicians away from the real gun issues, and onto reactionary policies for fresh in the memory issues that won't do anything but provide a quick sense of relief for a short time until it happens again.

 

[dnno1]

Interesting.....I would like to find a breakdown of these groups with numbers who have committed a crime with a gun as well and compare the two. I think that would be interesting to look at as well

Well, that is where the data will break down, since a former convicted (violent) criminal is not supposed to let you know that they own a gun nor would a person who commited a crime with a gun and got away with it is going to admit to that publicly.

 

[Kelly]

Well, that is where the data will break down, since a former convicted (violent) criminal is not supposed to let you know that they own a gun nor would a person who commit ed a crime with a gun and got away with it is going to admit to that publicly.

I understand where you are coming from on that....it would have to be the regular FBI data.....of course.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

CBS had a story about why there's such a disparity in the murder rate between NYC and Chicago. The main difference: NYC is very strict in punishing those having illegal guns.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57567029/why-is-nyc-violence-rate-lower-than-other-u.s-cities/

 

[SV Fan]

CBS had a story about why there's such a disparity in the murder rate between NYC and Chicago. The main difference: NYC is very strict in punishing those having illegal guns.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57567029/why-is-nyc-violence-rate-lower-than-other-u.s-cities/

Personally I think this is how you attack gun violence. Make stricter laws in cities. Simple fact is most gun violence will happen in larger urban areas. If I was a mayor of a city I would outright ban guns on the streets of the city(unless it's caried in a case)

 

[wiegeabo]

I notice how they specified illegal guns. Which probably account for well over 90% of gun crime.

And, if you reduce gun crime (and crime) overall, don't you also reduce the need/desire for legal guns as well?

 

[Schlosser85]

Well tons of people own guns for hunting or just the shooting range, etc.

 

[wiegeabo]

Well tons of people own guns for hunting or just the shooting range, etc.

And those people would still buy them.

And probably be a lot more responsible with them than some average person who just buys it out of fear of being robbed or something.

 

[warhorse78]

Personally I think this is how you attack gun violence. Make stricter laws in cities. Simple fact is most gun violence will happen in larger urban areas. If I was a mayor of a city I would outright ban guns on the streets of the city(unless it's caried in a case)

That include the cops? I live near Miami, you'd be surprised at how many times I watched a punk knock down a cop, steal his gun and get a way with it. It's something the news rarely covers too.

 

[Kelly]

That include the cops? I live near Miami, you'd be surprised at how many times I watched a punk knock down a cop, steal his gun and get a way with it. It's something the news rarely covers too.

You've actually seen someone knock down a cop and take his gun more than once? Hmmmm......

 

[dnno1]

CBS had a story about why there's such a disparity in the murder rate between NYC and Chicago. The main difference: NYC is very strict in punishing those having illegal guns.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57567029/why-is-nyc-violence-rate-lower-than-other-u.s-cities/

That falls back to the state laws. The NY state law has a mandatory 3 year penalty for gun violations. In Illinois it is less (a one year sentence or a $2500 fine) and a misdemeanor offense. Chicago tried to refine the law, but it was found vague and unconstitutional in a federal court. Furthermore, even though the city of Chicago can deny a firearm owners ID to person with even a misdemeanor, they can still go out of the city and legally purchase a firearm. In fact, what is often found is that these suspects are going outside of the county or the state to buy a firearm and then traffick the weapons back into the city to commit crimes. Sure you can criticize Chicago or even Cook County for their strict gun laws, but when you have neighboring cities and townships as well as the state that are not in sync, it is very difficult to enforce those same laws.

 

[Hotwire]

That falls back to the state laws. The NY state law has a madatory 3 year penalty for gun violations. In lllinois it is less (a one year sentence or a $2500 fine) and a misdemeanor offence. Chicago tried to refine the law, but it was found vague and unconstitutional in a federal court. Furthermore, even though the city of Chicago can deny a firearm owners ID to person with even a misdemeanor, the can still go out of the city and legally purchase a firearm. In fact, what is often found is that these suspects are going outside of the county or the state to by a firearm and then trafficking the weapons back into the city to commit crimes. Sure you can criticize Chicago or even Cook County for their strict gun laws, but when you have neighboring cities and townships as well as the state that are not in sync, it is very difficult to enforce those same laws.

This is why I suggested that there be a FEDERAL law that states two things; 1, if you get caught with an illegal gun, you go to federal prison for 10 years without parole. 2, if you use a gun in the commission of ANY crime, 20 years, on top of your sentence for the actual crime! Enforce that with strict precision, you should see results. Of course, to make it feasible, you would need 100% registration in a federal database.

 

[samsnee]

I can't imagine any of Obama's opponents using this negatively.

 

[dnno1]

I can't imagine any of Obama's opponents using this negatively.

They're probably terrified now because he's armed .

 

[DACrowe]

I can't imagine any of Obama's opponents using this negatively.

First he's an "elitist, intellectual urban snob" who lied about ever shooting a gun.

Now, it will be "the angry urban snob has a gun!"

Guess what the coded word "urban" means in the Fox News bubble? It is not city.

 

[Kelly]

When was this? That was pretty stupid of him....

 

[dnno1]

When was this? That was pretty stupid of him....

The whole thing started from this sound bite.

[YT]IBDqgbsvmtU[/YT]

Jessica Yellin, a CNN political correspondent challenged the White House to show proof that he actually did go shooting at Camp David. Even Rep. Marsha Blackburn challenged that claim and offered to go shooting with him.

Obama Skeet Shooting

Hence the Photo we now see today. Actually, what David Frum said in the last clip I posted is true. Skeet shooting or hunting is not driving the gun debate. It is actually the fear of gun crimes and the support of universal background checks (i.e. a national standard for all states), which should incorporate violent crime convictions as well as mental health status (PTSD included), better data, statistics, and record keeping, as well as a reinstatement of the federal assault weapons ban is what we should be pushing for.

 

[Kelly]

Oooooh gotcha....ok, I see....*retract last post comment* : )

 

[dnno1]

Oooooh gotcha....ok, I see....*retract last post comment* : )

No it was actually a good question and probably needed an explanation.

 

[Kelly]

No it was actually a good question and probably needed an explanation.

Oh definitely...I just thought that he went skeet shooting yesterday, and right now you just can't give the opposition any kind of fodder in this gun debate.

But, doing that on a vacation at some point not a big deal, IMO.

 

[Sun_Down]

There is actually a decent argument to be made for restricting certain firearms. Military-style rifles, for example.

Unfortunately the people who make that case, are many of them the same people who tried (and in some cases did) ban all firearms when they had their chance.

Look at the president. When he was a state legislator, he tried to ban all semiautomatics, and handguns.

He has since denied that. Despite... the record.

No one in the media has touched that.

Obama never tried to ban "all firearms." Assault weapons, yes. Handguns in Chicago, yes. But that wasn't just Obama. And it wasn't just Chicago. D.C tried to ban handguns as well. Why? Because those cities have obscenely high homicide rates. The Supreme Court overturned those bans in a joint 5-4 opinion split along party lines with Kennedy siding with the conservative Justices.

It was wrongly decided in my opinion. And the irony was that the conservative justices, who constantly trumpet states' rights so easily embraced a federal imposition on the right of those localities to address their own criminal justice issues. States rights, but only when it's convenient, right?

Reread the statement and try to logically dissect how that wouldn't restrict a persons ability to "possess" what they want.

Also, do you believe in mutually assured destruction in relation to Nuclear arms? Same concept.

You don't have the right to "possess whatever you want" in this country. Sorry, but that's the price of democracy and civilization. The government restricts people's right to possess all sorts of things: narcotics (I personally believe they go too far on this one in regard to marijuana), chemical weapons, certain explosives, certain animals, and yes, even firearms. Felons cannot possess firearms. You can't have a sawed-off shotgun. On and on.

Even constitutional rights are not absolute. You have the right to free speech, but not in every context. Fighting words, for example. You have the right against self-incrimination, but not to perjure yourself. You have to right to avoid cruel and unusual punishment, but the state can execute you (again, I disagree with the Supreme Court, but that's reality).


Your point on mutually assured destruction lacks any coherence so I'll skip it.

I can't imagine any of Obama's opponents using this negatively.

Not an assault rifle. Not impacted in any way by the exec. orders.

 

[Sun_Down]

On a related note, how can anyone oppose closing the gun show loophole? Anybody?

 

[Kable24]

On a related note, how can anyone oppose closing the gun show loophole? Anybody?

So, tell me what you believe the so called gun show loop hole is.

It's one of those political, media terms that gets under my skin.

 

[Kelly]

So, tell me what you believe the so called gun show loop hole is.

It's one of those political, media terms that gets under my skin.

The term "gun show loophole" is often used to describe the fact that federal law allows private sellers to sell firearms without background checks or record keeping.

From this article....

The vast majority of people who either visit or sell guns at gun shows are law-abiding citizens and dealers.

However, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms , and Explosives (ATF) reports that 30 percent of guns involved in federal illegal gun trafficking investigations are connected to gun shows.

This multi-state undercover investigation exposed how easy it is for criminals to buy guns at gun shows.

The City of New York investigated 7 gun shows in 3 states involving buys from 47 gun sellers using hidden cameras.

The investigation videos showed that 35 out of 47 sellers approached by undercover investigators at these gun shows sold guns illegally.

THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE
The term "gun show loophole" is often used to describe the fact that federal law allows private sellers to sell firearms without background checks or record keeping.

While private sellers are exempted from running background checks no matter where they make the sale, this loophole is associated with gun shows because they are the largest and most central marketplace where these private sellers can easily connect with purchasers who wish to avoid detection.

SELLING TO PROHIBITED PURCHASERS
Even though they are not required to perform background checks, private dealers cannot sell to someone who they have reason to believe is prohibited from buying guns.

Investigators attempted to purchase guns after telling private sellers that they probably could not pass a background check.
19 of 30 private sellers — 63% — broke the law by completing a sale to a buyer who they thought could not pass a background check.


Source: http://www.gunshowundercover2009.org/
NYC.gov

 

[SV Fan]

That include the cops? I live near Miami, you'd be surprised at how many times I watched a punk knock down a cop, steal his gun and get a way with it. It's something the news rarely covers too.

No I would allow cops to have guns, just make an outright ban on all citizens carrying guns within a city(as I said unless it's at your home, in a sealed case or designated place you can fire guns). As I said though this should be a city level law, not state or federal