Gun Control
- Thread starter Justin.T
- Start date
- Status
- oops, can't do that. More people die from medical malpractice but we don't outlaw doctors. The whole concept is a tad absurd.Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If one discusses the issue, consider that scholarly analyses of the AWB and mag bans found that they had no noticeable effect on any of the known crime indices. This was research funded by the DOJ - not a particularly friendly group.
They pointed out the reasons beingL
1. The existing supplies are such that the demand for those who truly wanted them could easily find grandfathered weapons and mags.
2. There was easy substitution of firearms with equal efficacy. The cosmetic changes to the ARs did nothing. Mini-14s were exempt and they have been used in massacres in relatively gun controlled nations (Canada and Norway). Massacres have occurred with 10 round magazine handguns (NY and VT are two). Some of claimed that you can charge the shooter when reloading. That assumes the shooter is close up. Not relevant to many rampages.
3. The gun world concluded from the studies that we should thus abandon gun control laws. Other studies have shown that any of the current laws have no impact on gun violence, BTW.
4. The authors and discussants concluded that only bans with mandatory confiscations of existing stocks and total bans on semi auto of all types plus higher capacity pump shotguns, lever action rifles would work.
Now such would entail cooperation of the population. That has not been clearly shown to be the case in Australia, Canada and USA states with such. Would the bad people turn them in? Surely, you jest. So good people do. You might argue that eventually attrition from the bad stocks will take them out. However, how long do guns last? We have seen antigun folks say that attrition will be a strong force because once you shoot the rounds from a higher capacity mag, that mag is used up.
Make sure you ban the thing that goes up.
Compliance would entail turning neighbor against neighbor and totalitarian level searches of houses to eliminate the guns.
Now such a ban would of course remove them from all the competition and hunting venues and plinking and square range practice, etc. But does that do anything?
Next you have to discuss compensation. It is estimated that there are about 10 to 12 million semi auto long arms out there. No one knows how many semi auto handguns. You can estimate that with 2 million handguns sold a year - over the years thats quite a bit. Gun estimates range from 100 million that would have to be confiscated to 300 million total guns in circulation.
Assume that you compensate people - which is probably the only Constitutional way to do it (assuming the 2nd Amend. is trashed).
Let's say each gun is worth $300 for gun.
$300 x 10,000,000 long arms = $3,000,000,000
$300 x 100,000,000,000 = $30,000,000,000
There are also the costs of running the program, which would be substantial. Check out the Canadian debacle - more expensive than thought and ineffective anyway.
I would suggest that those in favor of such a move - be compelled on their income tax to pay for such.
I understand the OP is a moral panic response that we have to do something. However, the costs of doing something and the violation of rights by a mandatory confiscation are staggering. We lose many more folks to cigarettes, cars, opiods and alcohol. The moral panic to ban them totally isn't there. That's because of the political dimension of gun banning. First folks don't buy into the need to have efficacious means of SD and they don't buy into defense against tyranny. Second, guns have become unfortunately totemic of the political right and thus the political left must want to destroy them independent of rational argument. Not that the right doesn't have its own totemic stupidity on issues, BTW.
There is nothing to stop folks like the OP from destroying their own guns and campaigning their friends and neighbors to do the same.
Now as far as defense against tyranny. That is poo-poo'ed by gun rights opponents. They are basically ignorant. Unfortunately gun rights advocates don't make the case well. They seem to support gun rights to fight against the tyranny of Obamacare or something else trivial.
However, if you know history - it was state militias that formed the core of the resistance to the British. Thus, forces outside of the governmental authorities of the time (the Crown) were instrumental to liberty.
In the precursors to the Civil War, private individuals fought against the legally empowered agents trying to seize runaway slaves. They even fought Federal troops that tried to seize such slave and even Black freemen. That is a defense against tyranny.
In more modern times, scholarship has clearly demonstrated that privately owned civilian firearms were crucial in protecting Civil Rights activists against the agents of the government (state and local police, night riders protected and encouraged by said states). Today, you find African-American activists suggesting the 2nd Amend. is necessary for them to protect themselves against the state. This is controversial as you may disagree with their analysis but it is clearly in the defense of tyranny vein. In the '60s and 70s, black activists carried firearms to protect themselves and suggest that they would fight against what they saw as tyranny. Again, you may not like their cause and the correlation of political polarization may make the current NRA unlikely to trumpet such incidents. However, the NRA has pointed out their contribution to fighting the Klan (which existed with the collusion of the state in many places).
Studies of genocide indicate that they occur if the target population is unable to defend itself. You may think that genocide is unlikely in the USA. Think again. In 1913, Germany was a civilized country. Historians were asked to predict which countries might go genocidial if you didn't know what happened in WWII. They said it would probably be France. It had a strong history of Anti-Semitism. In twenty years, Germany lost its civilized aspect to become one of history's greatest monster. Now, you may say - that will never happen here. We haven't faced the disruption Germany did. But what if we did?
We have some hints with the internment of the Japanese. Certainly our treatment of Native-Americans wasn't stellar. For historical buffs:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...rican-bund-rally-madison-square-garden-215522
I know folks who hide their religion to get jobs during the Depression because Jews weren't hired. One told me of her boss listening to the Nazi actions on the radio and saying that should happen here. There was a resultant altercation.
Some will say that you cannot fight the government as it has tanks and planes. They know little of such kind of warfare. It isn't 1000 nut jobs facing Abrams tanks. God forbid - warfare of such across the country assumes cooperation of the armed forced. You sure about that. Also, we have 5000 tanks. That's 100 tanks per state. You going to conquer the continental USA with such.
The existence of 10's of millions of long arms precludes thinking about such. Would the OP like to ride an APC through a large TX city to confiscate the existing gun stock?
To conclude, in the abstract if a celestial being removes all guns no one would be shot. Sure, before gun there were no massacres or genocides. Machete rampages like occur in modern Africa - so what - won't happen here.
There is no solution with any practical or conceivable confiscatory scheme. Suggesting such is just a political totem for cynical politicians of both sides to raise money and keep them getting elected. Sincere people should study up on the history, criminological and psychological literature before just shouting in moral panic.
They pointed out the reasons beingL
1. The existing supplies are such that the demand for those who truly wanted them could easily find grandfathered weapons and mags.
2. There was easy substitution of firearms with equal efficacy. The cosmetic changes to the ARs did nothing. Mini-14s were exempt and they have been used in massacres in relatively gun controlled nations (Canada and Norway). Massacres have occurred with 10 round magazine handguns (NY and VT are two). Some of claimed that you can charge the shooter when reloading. That assumes the shooter is close up. Not relevant to many rampages.
3. The gun world concluded from the studies that we should thus abandon gun control laws. Other studies have shown that any of the current laws have no impact on gun violence, BTW.
4. The authors and discussants concluded that only bans with mandatory confiscations of existing stocks and total bans on semi auto of all types plus higher capacity pump shotguns, lever action rifles would work.
Now such would entail cooperation of the population. That has not been clearly shown to be the case in Australia, Canada and USA states with such. Would the bad people turn them in? Surely, you jest. So good people do. You might argue that eventually attrition from the bad stocks will take them out. However, how long do guns last? We have seen antigun folks say that attrition will be a strong force because once you shoot the rounds from a higher capacity mag, that mag is used up.
Make sure you ban the thing that goes up.Compliance would entail turning neighbor against neighbor and totalitarian level searches of houses to eliminate the guns.
Now such a ban would of course remove them from all the competition and hunting venues and plinking and square range practice, etc. But does that do anything?
Next you have to discuss compensation. It is estimated that there are about 10 to 12 million semi auto long arms out there. No one knows how many semi auto handguns. You can estimate that with 2 million handguns sold a year - over the years thats quite a bit. Gun estimates range from 100 million that would have to be confiscated to 300 million total guns in circulation.
Assume that you compensate people - which is probably the only Constitutional way to do it (assuming the 2nd Amend. is trashed).
Let's say each gun is worth $300 for gun.
$300 x 10,000,000 long arms = $3,000,000,000
$300 x 100,000,000,000 = $30,000,000,000
There are also the costs of running the program, which would be substantial. Check out the Canadian debacle - more expensive than thought and ineffective anyway.
I would suggest that those in favor of such a move - be compelled on their income tax to pay for such.
I understand the OP is a moral panic response that we have to do something. However, the costs of doing something and the violation of rights by a mandatory confiscation are staggering. We lose many more folks to cigarettes, cars, opiods and alcohol. The moral panic to ban them totally isn't there. That's because of the political dimension of gun banning. First folks don't buy into the need to have efficacious means of SD and they don't buy into defense against tyranny. Second, guns have become unfortunately totemic of the political right and thus the political left must want to destroy them independent of rational argument. Not that the right doesn't have its own totemic stupidity on issues, BTW.
There is nothing to stop folks like the OP from destroying their own guns and campaigning their friends and neighbors to do the same.
Now as far as defense against tyranny. That is poo-poo'ed by gun rights opponents. They are basically ignorant. Unfortunately gun rights advocates don't make the case well. They seem to support gun rights to fight against the tyranny of Obamacare or something else trivial.
However, if you know history - it was state militias that formed the core of the resistance to the British. Thus, forces outside of the governmental authorities of the time (the Crown) were instrumental to liberty.
In the precursors to the Civil War, private individuals fought against the legally empowered agents trying to seize runaway slaves. They even fought Federal troops that tried to seize such slave and even Black freemen. That is a defense against tyranny.
In more modern times, scholarship has clearly demonstrated that privately owned civilian firearms were crucial in protecting Civil Rights activists against the agents of the government (state and local police, night riders protected and encouraged by said states). Today, you find African-American activists suggesting the 2nd Amend. is necessary for them to protect themselves against the state. This is controversial as you may disagree with their analysis but it is clearly in the defense of tyranny vein. In the '60s and 70s, black activists carried firearms to protect themselves and suggest that they would fight against what they saw as tyranny. Again, you may not like their cause and the correlation of political polarization may make the current NRA unlikely to trumpet such incidents. However, the NRA has pointed out their contribution to fighting the Klan (which existed with the collusion of the state in many places).
Studies of genocide indicate that they occur if the target population is unable to defend itself. You may think that genocide is unlikely in the USA. Think again. In 1913, Germany was a civilized country. Historians were asked to predict which countries might go genocidial if you didn't know what happened in WWII. They said it would probably be France. It had a strong history of Anti-Semitism. In twenty years, Germany lost its civilized aspect to become one of history's greatest monster. Now, you may say - that will never happen here. We haven't faced the disruption Germany did. But what if we did?
We have some hints with the internment of the Japanese. Certainly our treatment of Native-Americans wasn't stellar. For historical buffs:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...rican-bund-rally-madison-square-garden-215522
I know folks who hide their religion to get jobs during the Depression because Jews weren't hired. One told me of her boss listening to the Nazi actions on the radio and saying that should happen here. There was a resultant altercation.
Some will say that you cannot fight the government as it has tanks and planes. They know little of such kind of warfare. It isn't 1000 nut jobs facing Abrams tanks. God forbid - warfare of such across the country assumes cooperation of the armed forced. You sure about that. Also, we have 5000 tanks. That's 100 tanks per state. You going to conquer the continental USA with such.
The existence of 10's of millions of long arms precludes thinking about such. Would the OP like to ride an APC through a large TX city to confiscate the existing gun stock?
To conclude, in the abstract if a celestial being removes all guns no one would be shot. Sure, before gun there were no massacres or genocides. Machete rampages like occur in modern Africa - so what - won't happen here.
There is no solution with any practical or conceivable confiscatory scheme. Suggesting such is just a political totem for cynical politicians of both sides to raise money and keep them getting elected. Sincere people should study up on the history, criminological and psychological literature before just shouting in moral panic.
Precisely. If this was done out of a true desire to eliminate casualties, the rational approach would be to pick the most likely/most deadly to deal with first.
The fact is that the casualties from mass shootings are a convenient (and necessary) rationalization used to promote an existing agenda which has little or nothing to do with the proposed "solution".
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I was at a lobbyist/special interest group meeting some time ago concerned with the UAV regulations FAA is taking their sweet time expanding.
Someone said 'I don't see why DHS is involved with this. These drones aren't dangerous. No one is going to crash one into Air Force One" Or something similarly short sighted. The lunatics will find a way and bump fire stocks are not the most terrifying to me.
I love nothing more than when I hear a statistic that "gun violence" dropped following some regulation in another country. Gun violence will drop on occasion, but the murder rate and similar general rates don't drop.
The problem is media glorifying these idiot lunatics. Here is the reality. It seems he spent YEARS coming up with this and considerable financial resources. This is all he came up with? What a loser. Same as all the rest of 'em.
Someone said 'I don't see why DHS is involved with this. These drones aren't dangerous. No one is going to crash one into Air Force One" Or something similarly short sighted. The lunatics will find a way and bump fire stocks are not the most terrifying to me.
I love nothing more than when I hear a statistic that "gun violence" dropped following some regulation in another country. Gun violence will drop on occasion, but the murder rate and similar general rates don't drop.
The problem is media glorifying these idiot lunatics. Here is the reality. It seems he spent YEARS coming up with this and considerable financial resources. This is all he came up with? What a loser. Same as all the rest of 'em.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If you say ban all semis - you are saying more than a statement on mass shootings. Also, banning such is clearly a proposal of the total gun banner segment of the body politic. You can't escape that. Your call agrees with their suggested program. How do you reconcile that?
I think the scary thing about mass shootings, and the heart breaking thing, is that they happen to completely innocent people enjoying a completely innocent event. Like a lot of fatal situations can be avoided. My girlfriend and I can avoid a lot of gun crime by staying out of sketchy areas. We can avoid natural disasters by evacuating. There's been plenty of things over the years that have been regulated after they've caused casualties and been safer after.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
It seems you see no benefit of owning such weapons. Is that the case?
Do you see any benefit of alcohol? Should we ban it? I'm in danger on the roads because if its availability. I know of completely innocent people dead because of it.
What else should we ban?
Do you see any benefit of alcohol? Should we ban it? I'm in danger on the roads because if its availability. I know of completely innocent people dead because of it.
What else should we ban?
CalmerThanYou
New member
Think for just a minute Justin.
Without getting to detailed(I dislike discussing in detail how bad people or groups can take advantage of soft targets) a sick mind intent on killing innocents has many options that would produce much higher fatalities than using a firearm.
To think what could happen if the evil spend time and plan is not a pleasant thought.
Without getting to detailed(I dislike discussing in detail how bad people or groups can take advantage of soft targets) a sick mind intent on killing innocents has many options that would produce much higher fatalities than using a firearm.
To think what could happen if the evil spend time and plan is not a pleasant thought.
Glenn,
I would say this is just a thought after reading about Australia's gun legislation and also thinking about our current situation. The thing that stands out to me is this happens because of the absolute efficiency of the firearms used.
I'd also say, I'm willing to discuss compromises too.
I think saying they'd just use bombs is interesting because bombs are highly illegal and if caught with even the materials and intent you can do hard time which is why I think we have few people making bombs.
Shooterdownunder, care to elaborate? I talked to an Australian here once that found our gun culture to be intense. He also said it was funny cause here we have all these military grade weapons and he said in Australia they'd have a "huge" bust and it'd be some bikers with a sawed off shotgun and some rusted revolvers. Hardly an armament.
I would say this is just a thought after reading about Australia's gun legislation and also thinking about our current situation. The thing that stands out to me is this happens because of the absolute efficiency of the firearms used.
I'd also say, I'm willing to discuss compromises too.
I think saying they'd just use bombs is interesting because bombs are highly illegal and if caught with even the materials and intent you can do hard time which is why I think we have few people making bombs.
Shooterdownunder, care to elaborate? I talked to an Australian here once that found our gun culture to be intense. He also said it was funny cause here we have all these military grade weapons and he said in Australia they'd have a "huge" bust and it'd be some bikers with a sawed off shotgun and some rusted revolvers. Hardly an armament.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If you study the TX Tower incident, you see mass causalities. Not as many as Vegas. However, the shooter in Vegas had a bolt gun, he might have killed many. Would you ban them if the toll was 25 killed and 100 wounded? A rampage killer walks into a school class room with three 8 round revolvers. He shoots 24 kids. Should revolvers be banned?
What's your cut-off for banning?
You need to get beyond the moral panic if you want to defend your suggestion. All modern guns can be dangerous to many folks. Australia took out everything that would be useful for personal self-defense and they have no concealed carry of any sort. Is that your position?
The shooter had many rifles. If he had twenty lever action guns, say 10 round Marlins in 44 magnum, so that many were shot - would you ban these?
Cut to the chase, you oppose civilian ownership of firearms if your fear of harm is followed to its logic conclusion.
That's a legit position to discuss but cut to the chase. You don't think the reasons for firearms ownership outweigh their potential for misuse.
What's your cut-off for banning?
You need to get beyond the moral panic if you want to defend your suggestion. All modern guns can be dangerous to many folks. Australia took out everything that would be useful for personal self-defense and they have no concealed carry of any sort. Is that your position?
The shooter had many rifles. If he had twenty lever action guns, say 10 round Marlins in 44 magnum, so that many were shot - would you ban these?
Cut to the chase, you oppose civilian ownership of firearms if your fear of harm is followed to its logic conclusion.
That's a legit position to discuss but cut to the chase. You don't think the reasons for firearms ownership outweigh their potential for misuse.
She is more likely to die in a car, on a plane , heart attack, heck her doctor is something like 20 times more likely to kill her accidently than she is to die of being shot at some event.
She's more likely to die in a home invasion.
Is she carrying a gun at home to protect herself from that? If not better get her one.
This nation's full of semi autos and full of people who ain't gonna turn em in
Check out how well it has gone for NY to just get folks to register them.
Not very well.
All due respect, regardless of a few you see on forums talking about trades and deals,,,,,,,,,most gun owners in America are not willing to compromise one more inch.
If the backlash at NRA and those proposing gun control bills is any indication.
Glenn,
I just read your very long post and your most recent one. You really seem like an intelligent and well read guy. Lots of logic and reason behind your words. I appreciate that.
I'm absolutely not for a complete ban of firearms. I mean im even for lawful conceal carry. Im for self defense, hunting and sporting. I wish our "gun culture" would chill out and be less "Wild West" and "tacticool" but ya know that's just me.
There has just got to be something we can do about this. I live in a city with casinos and this week I've looked up and just imagined gun fire coming down at my girlfriend and it makes me really sad to think about. You know all is good until it's you or yours it happens to.
I just read your very long post and your most recent one. You really seem like an intelligent and well read guy. Lots of logic and reason behind your words. I appreciate that.
I'm absolutely not for a complete ban of firearms. I mean im even for lawful conceal carry. Im for self defense, hunting and sporting. I wish our "gun culture" would chill out and be less "Wild West" and "tacticool" but ya know that's just me.
There has just got to be something we can do about this. I live in a city with casinos and this week I've looked up and just imagined gun fire coming down at my girlfriend and it makes me really sad to think about. You know all is good until it's you or yours it happens to.
Justin,
I think it would be a mistake to ban all semi-automatic firearms. I think it would be a mistake to ban them if the only purpose for them was as a fun hobby and they had no useful purposes at all. The reason is that even if that were the only purpose for owning them, they would provide a lot of enjoyment and are still relatively safe compared to other purely recreational activities and susbtances which are not banned.
For example, alcohol consumption results in approximately 90,000 deaths every year in the U.S. but it is not banned even though the consumption of alcohol is done purely as recreation. ALL unlawful firearm deaths in the U.S. (not just those involving semi-automatics) total 11,000.
Tobacco is not banned although it results in approximately 480,000 deaths annually in the U.S. and it is purely recreational. But, you say, people who choose to use tobacco pay the consequences, not others. In fact, 41,000 people die each year in the U.S. from second hand smoke. Almost 4x more than die as the result of unlawful firearm use.
That's a fact based analysis that looks at semi-automatic firearms purely from a recreational standpoint and finds that they are less dangerous than other things that are readily tolerated, even embraced, as recreation.
And, of course, semi-automatics are not purely recreational. They are very useful for self-defense because they tend to be easier to shoot, easier to reload, and tend to have more capacity which is a tremendous benefit if facing multiple attackers.
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives
Besides, crazy people don't even need firearms or explosives to commit mass murder. The Nice truck attack killed and injured more than Paddock did with his rifles. Anyone with a drivers license and a credit card can rent a truck.
Take away firearms and people crash airplanes into buildings killing almost 3000. Restrict air travel and someone kills 96 people and injures over 400 by running a truck into a crowd. Take away guns and people release nerve gas in the subway, injuring over 5000 people. Take guns and knives and trucks away, and someone kills 87 people with a gascan and a match in a nightclub.
In fact, people are regularly killed with weapons in prisons even though ALL weapons are banned in prison.
The problem is clearly PEOPLE, not things. Restricting things is a misguided "solution" which can not hope to succeed since it does not address the actual problem.
I think it would be a mistake to ban all semi-automatic firearms. I think it would be a mistake to ban them if the only purpose for them was as a fun hobby and they had no useful purposes at all. The reason is that even if that were the only purpose for owning them, they would provide a lot of enjoyment and are still relatively safe compared to other purely recreational activities and susbtances which are not banned.
For example, alcohol consumption results in approximately 90,000 deaths every year in the U.S. but it is not banned even though the consumption of alcohol is done purely as recreation. ALL unlawful firearm deaths in the U.S. (not just those involving semi-automatics) total 11,000.
Tobacco is not banned although it results in approximately 480,000 deaths annually in the U.S. and it is purely recreational. But, you say, people who choose to use tobacco pay the consequences, not others. In fact, 41,000 people die each year in the U.S. from second hand smoke. Almost 4x more than die as the result of unlawful firearm use.
That's a fact based analysis that looks at semi-automatic firearms purely from a recreational standpoint and finds that they are less dangerous than other things that are readily tolerated, even embraced, as recreation.
And, of course, semi-automatics are not purely recreational. They are very useful for self-defense because they tend to be easier to shoot, easier to reload, and tend to have more capacity which is a tremendous benefit if facing multiple attackers.
That is incorrect. The fact is that you can legally buy the components to make explosives and can legally possess them in most places. Do an internet search on tannerite or binary explosives.
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/binary-explosives
"Therefore, ATF does not regulate the sale and distribution of these component chemicals, even when sold together in binary "kits." "
Besides, crazy people don't even need firearms or explosives to commit mass murder. The Nice truck attack killed and injured more than Paddock did with his rifles. Anyone with a drivers license and a credit card can rent a truck.
Freedom comes with risks. Some people will misuse their freedom to do bad things. You can take away freedoms to try to reduce the risks, but it is a futile strategy because the problem is PEOPLE.
Take away firearms and people crash airplanes into buildings killing almost 3000. Restrict air travel and someone kills 96 people and injures over 400 by running a truck into a crowd. Take away guns and people release nerve gas in the subway, injuring over 5000 people. Take guns and knives and trucks away, and someone kills 87 people with a gascan and a match in a nightclub.
In fact, people are regularly killed with weapons in prisons even though ALL weapons are banned in prison.
The problem is clearly PEOPLE, not things. Restricting things is a misguided "solution" which can not hope to succeed since it does not address the actual problem.
Rangerrich99
New member
First, let me offer my condolences to you and your customer. Four friends of mine were supposed to go to that concert (I was even invited to go), but fortunately for my friends and myself, none of them ended up being able to go.
In response to your OP, I can't say I have the perfect answer to solve the problem of what to do about mass shooters like Mr. Paddock. But I don't believe adding a few more restrictions to the books is going to work, and I'll try to tell you why.
The fact is, depending on who you ask, there are anywhere between 300 and 20,000 existing gun laws on the books right now, and not one of them would've have stopped the events in Vegas. Now you say that you think we should all give up our semi-automatic rifles and pistols in some national mandatory gun buy back program (confiscation, in other words) to make our country safer. Someone already did the math, I won't repeat that here. But we are talking about billions of dollars. Just where is the government supposed to get that money? More taxes for us? Good luck with that.
Not to mention the fact that the buy back wouldn't get all of those guns. No buy back program ever has. And with literally tens of millions of semi-automatic weapons out there, it's more than likely after such a buy back there would still be tens of millions of them 'in the wild.'
I could keep going on in this vein but hopefully my point is made. More laws aren't the solution. The truth is, the government doesn't come close to enforcing all the laws that are on the books now. If they can't enforce the laws we already have, then what on God's green earth makes anyone think that they'll adequately enforce a few new ones?
And we have some pretty tough laws on the books as it is, and the government isn't taking advantage of any of them. Here a short list of some of those laws that we already have, that the government isn't enforcing at all:
(from a NRA-ILA article, "Not Enforcing Existing Gun Laws—That's a Crime")
"So let me cite—from a federal public defender fact sheet—a few of the existing federal statutes dealing with armed criminals once they have their guns. I’ll give you the prison term first along with the citations in the United States Code (U.S.C.).
10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)—for possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon, fugitive, or drug user … And possession means touching a gun, any gun, handgun, rifle or shotgun. Any firearm that Sen. Dianne Feinstein would ban for us, is already an illegal gun for violent criminals.
10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(j)—for possession of a stolen firearm.
10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(i)—for shipment or transport of a stolen firearm across state lines.
10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(b)—for shipping, transporting or receipt of a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony.
5 to 30 years consecutive mandatory minimum sentences—18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(a)—for carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking.
The death penalty or up to life imprisonment—18 U.S.C. § 924(j)—for committing murder while possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking.
15 years mandatory minimum—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—for a “prohibited person” who has three prior convictions for drug offenses or violent felonies.
10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(g)—for interstate travel to acquire or transfer a firearm to commit crimes."
According to the DOJ, these laws are enforced at a rate of less than 2%. In spite of the fact that every year they come across tens of thousands of potential prosecute-able cases. The next question is obviously why? Their answer has always been that they don't have the money or the resources to follow up on these cases. So instead they try to focus on big cases or sting operations like the infamous failure, "Fast and Furious."
The bottom line, I believe, is this: everyone wants to try to make sure things like Vegas or Sandy Hook or Aurora don't happen again. I don't think there was any realistic way to stop Paddock, but we may have been able to stop Sandy Hook and Aurora. Using the laws that are already on the books.
It's also interesting to note that both the left and the right as well as 95% of gun owners are in favor of better enforcing existing gun laws more stringently, according to several polls conducted by both the left and the right, as well as by the NRA itself.
Of course, in order to enforce our existing laws, we'd have to get Congress to at least increase funding to the BATF, NICS, and the DOJ. Agencies that most gun owners view with a wary eye, at best.
But there seem to be other issues as well, such as the vagueness of the existing laws. How to handle the mental illness question is another. I could try to go on, but I feel I'm drifting off-course as it is. Instead I'll leave this with some links to articles that discuss these issues, by those that are not only better writers than myself, but also better informed.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/09/politics/obama-executive-orders-gun-control-enforcement-gap/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/13/gun-laws-that-cost-two-state-lawmakers-their-seats-had-little-effect-study-finds
http://www.newsweek.com/american-gun-laws-arent-being-enforced-390456
In response to your OP, I can't say I have the perfect answer to solve the problem of what to do about mass shooters like Mr. Paddock. But I don't believe adding a few more restrictions to the books is going to work, and I'll try to tell you why.
The fact is, depending on who you ask, there are anywhere between 300 and 20,000 existing gun laws on the books right now, and not one of them would've have stopped the events in Vegas. Now you say that you think we should all give up our semi-automatic rifles and pistols in some national mandatory gun buy back program (confiscation, in other words) to make our country safer. Someone already did the math, I won't repeat that here. But we are talking about billions of dollars. Just where is the government supposed to get that money? More taxes for us? Good luck with that.
Not to mention the fact that the buy back wouldn't get all of those guns. No buy back program ever has. And with literally tens of millions of semi-automatic weapons out there, it's more than likely after such a buy back there would still be tens of millions of them 'in the wild.'
I could keep going on in this vein but hopefully my point is made. More laws aren't the solution. The truth is, the government doesn't come close to enforcing all the laws that are on the books now. If they can't enforce the laws we already have, then what on God's green earth makes anyone think that they'll adequately enforce a few new ones?
And we have some pretty tough laws on the books as it is, and the government isn't taking advantage of any of them. Here a short list of some of those laws that we already have, that the government isn't enforcing at all:
(from a NRA-ILA article, "Not Enforcing Existing Gun Laws—That's a Crime")
"So let me cite—from a federal public defender fact sheet—a few of the existing federal statutes dealing with armed criminals once they have their guns. I’ll give you the prison term first along with the citations in the United States Code (U.S.C.).
10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)—for possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon, fugitive, or drug user … And possession means touching a gun, any gun, handgun, rifle or shotgun. Any firearm that Sen. Dianne Feinstein would ban for us, is already an illegal gun for violent criminals.
10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(j)—for possession of a stolen firearm.
10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(i)—for shipment or transport of a stolen firearm across state lines.
10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(b)—for shipping, transporting or receipt of a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony.
5 to 30 years consecutive mandatory minimum sentences—18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(a)—for carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking.
The death penalty or up to life imprisonment—18 U.S.C. § 924(j)—for committing murder while possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking.
15 years mandatory minimum—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—for a “prohibited person” who has three prior convictions for drug offenses or violent felonies.
10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(g)—for interstate travel to acquire or transfer a firearm to commit crimes."
According to the DOJ, these laws are enforced at a rate of less than 2%. In spite of the fact that every year they come across tens of thousands of potential prosecute-able cases. The next question is obviously why? Their answer has always been that they don't have the money or the resources to follow up on these cases. So instead they try to focus on big cases or sting operations like the infamous failure, "Fast and Furious."
The bottom line, I believe, is this: everyone wants to try to make sure things like Vegas or Sandy Hook or Aurora don't happen again. I don't think there was any realistic way to stop Paddock, but we may have been able to stop Sandy Hook and Aurora. Using the laws that are already on the books.
It's also interesting to note that both the left and the right as well as 95% of gun owners are in favor of better enforcing existing gun laws more stringently, according to several polls conducted by both the left and the right, as well as by the NRA itself.
Of course, in order to enforce our existing laws, we'd have to get Congress to at least increase funding to the BATF, NICS, and the DOJ. Agencies that most gun owners view with a wary eye, at best.
But there seem to be other issues as well, such as the vagueness of the existing laws. How to handle the mental illness question is another. I could try to go on, but I feel I'm drifting off-course as it is. Instead I'll leave this with some links to articles that discuss these issues, by those that are not only better writers than myself, but also better informed.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/09/politics/obama-executive-orders-gun-control-enforcement-gap/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/13/gun-laws-that-cost-two-state-lawmakers-their-seats-had-little-effect-study-finds
http://www.newsweek.com/american-gun-laws-arent-being-enforced-390456
You say you're not pushing anyone's agenda, and yet, you bring more than a few of the anti gun bigot's wish list, practically verbatim.
You said you were a cop, tell me, is it right to punish people who have committed no crime, and broken no laws, because someone else did break laws and commit crimes??
Because that's what every one of these gun control proposals is.
Most of the points I was going to cover have already been mentioned, some, several times.
BTW, you do realize that you are part of the "gun culture" too? To some people, that makes you a ticking time bomb, just waiting to go off and murder as many people as you possibly can.
Are you?
tony pasley
New member
I can only answer by quoting a man much wiser than any of us today" Those who would trade Liberty for security deserve neither and will get neither." Ben Franklin Take a close look at the history of gun control in the 1900s the millions that were killed by corrupt governments. American civilians donating rifles to send to England to arm their Home Guard You will never be able to stop sick evil people from committing mass killings. There are to many tools out there for them to use and if you eliminate 1 tool they will find another type of tool to use. That is just a plain hard fact. .
- Status