Gun laws surprisingly lax in much of US

dZ

New member
Updated 9:13 PM ET April 13, 2000 http://news.excite.com/news/r/000413/21/health-psa
NEW YORK, Apr 13 (Reuters Health) -- US gun control laws vary widely among states, with most states failing to meet
"minimum standards for public safety," according to a report released by a nonprofit research institute.

In a study of state gun laws, researchers found that 42 states lack "basic" requirements such as licensing and gun
registration, and 31 have no waiting periods for buying a handgun. The study was conducted by the Open Society Institute,
a foundation established by the financier George Soros.

After reviewing gun statutes and interviewing state officials, the investigators found that only Massachusetts requires both
registration and licensing for all types of guns. Forty-three states allow people to buy assault weapons without registering
the guns or obtaining a license. These findings are key, according to the report, because registration and licensing are the
only way to track compliance with other gun laws, such as the federal law that domestic violence offenders may not own
guns.

The foundation also cites a number of states that have "virtually no firearm laws of their own" and even undermine federal
gun laws. These states include: Maine, Louisiana, Alaska, Texas, Montana, Kentucky, Vermont, North Dakota, Georgia, and
Arkansas. Only two states -- California and Connecticut -- have banned the private sale of assault weapons.

Eighteen states have no minimum age for shotgun possession, and six have no minimum age for possessing a handgun.
While federal law stipulates that no one younger than 18 may possess a handgun, the foundation reports that it found
officials enforce state laws rather than the more rigorous federal regulations. Further, according to the report, federal laws
generally apply only to licensed gun dealers, leaving private sellers, pawn shops, and gun shows largely unregulated.

"A common refrain heard in the gun control debate is that state and federal governments should simply enforce the current
laws instead of generating more," the foundation notes. "This report reveals the limited scope of the existing laws."
 
Same old anti-gun garbage they've been spouting for decades.

You ask them how registration and/or licensing would help prevent crime--they stumble around and have no answer.

Ask how r&l would help solve crimes--they stumble around and have no answer.

Like the fella sez, it ain't about crime, it's about control. I imagine Zimbabwe has gun control...

frown.gif
, Art
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>US gun control laws vary widely among states, with most states failing to meet "minimum standards for public safety," [/quote]

Minimum standards? Set by whom? Texas's minimum standards are just ducky, thank you very friggin' much. And who are you to define minimum standards for the people of the Great State of Texas?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>42 states lack "basic" requirements such as licensing and gun registration,[/quote]

You know, that might just be because registration is unlawful. Again, I fail to see how a bunch of lily-livered, ivory-tower dwelling, silver-spoon-fed castrati can have even the faintest idea of what 'basic requirements' the average citizen needs.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>31 have no waiting periods for buying a handgun.[/quote]

What the snot is your point? I still have the FBI crawling up my wazoo when I'm buying a weapon. And since it's been found that waiting periods, cooling off periods, or whateverthehell the current 'in vogue' term is don't work, why are you still harping about it?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Forty-three states allow people to buy assault weapons without registering the guns or obtaining a license[/quote]

Good! That may be because it's unlawful to register firearms. Are you seeing a pattern here? And since you wouldn't know an 'assault weapon' if it came up and bit you on your over-padded butt, why should we even consider your definition?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>registration and licensing are the
only way to track compliance with other gun laws, such as the federal law that domestic violence offenders may not own guns.[/quote]

Oh, BULL****! Try spoon-feeding that to your spineless cronies, because it doesn't wash out here in The Real World.

Listen to me very closely, you louse-infested offspring of a syphilitic camel. I'll even go slowly so you can keep up.

Domestic violence offenses now show up on NICS. Yes! You can now seize weapons retroactively (which is wrong, but that's a rant for another time) for misdemeanors! If you arrest someone for violating a gun law, the arrest tends to appear in crime records. F******g DUH! If they don't comply, ie;, the break the law--then you arrest them for breaking the law. That arrest then goes on several different records. What a concept!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The foundation also cites a number of states that have "virtually no firearm laws of their own" and even undermine federal gun laws. These states include: Maine, Louisiana, Alaska, Texas, Montana, Kentucky, Vermont, North Dakota, Georgia, and Arkansas.[/quote]

Hoo-YAAH! Go TEXAS!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>officials enforce state laws rather than the more rigorous federal regulations. [/quote]

Thank you, thank you, no applause, please. Might be because: a) the Federal laws are a huge confusing mish-mash, and b) federal types need to enforce Federal laws. Don't be dragging the State people into your mess--we're busy enough as it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> "This report reveals the limited scope of the existing laws." [/quote]

They aren't limited enough.

This 'report' is a badly written, biased, piece of hack work that, if it had been written about any other topic, would have been laughed at and punted back for editing. I've seen sixth-graders come up with a better report.

I damn sure expected a better effort from a bunch of ivory-tower, ivy-league elitists with their heads so far up their fundaments that they're trying not to choke on the hairball at the back of their throats.

Yes, I insulted you. Go home and cry to mummy.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited April 19, 2000).]
 
Hey, LawDog

Don't beat around the bush, mate ... say what you really think!!
wink.gif


Well said, by the way .... my choice for the states would be Vermont ... or Maine

B
 
We need to harp on the fact that this "study" only gave a 67 out of a possible 100 points to the "best" state -- Massachusetts. Write your local papers. Get on talk radio. Ask the question that is not being asked -- What does a state have to do to get a score of 100? Perhaps summary execution of all firearms owners? Door to door search and seizure of firearms while the occupants are held at gunpoint in their underwear -- or less -- while battle garbed men ransack their home?

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited April 20, 2000).]
 
What is most interesting is to take their study numbers and line them up with firearm crime rates of each state on a chart. THE TRENDS DO NOT TRACK. It makes the study data totaly useless as anti firearm information in my opinion. :p

------------------
"Very simply, gun control is people control. Those with the guns control the people unless the people also have guns to ensure their freedom" *Unknown*
 
Back
Top