OBAMA THROWS A FIT

[SamanthaL 45]

Meaning - what we have now, is not good enough. There are ways around the laws presently in place. Doing nothing about them is not right. Saying passing a new law will do no good is a weak argument (no matter how many paragraphs you couch it in). We need to demand that our legislators keep working on this till they get something that will work.

There are ways around every law I can think of? Laws only stop law abiding citizens and only reprimand criminals after they have committed or attempted to commit a crime by breaking said law. Much like having locks on your doors. That keeps out people who are nosey basically. A criminal wants in your house, he will get in regardless of your lock system. You could pass a thousand new gun laws tomorrow including everyone turning in thier guns (you know criminals will be first in line for that one) but history shows up that doesn't really work. The newest numbers from England show gun crime has risen ridiculously since the handgun ban in '97. Murders with handguns have actually doubled with overall gun crime up by 35% in England and Wales. How is this possible since it's against the law? However, Washington DC after over turning it's handgun ban saw murder rates fall below triple digits for the first time since 1963. Is this solely because of the ban being lifted? Absolutely not, but did it play a part? Most certainly it did. It seems to be a trend that wherever handgun carry is introduced crime rates fall. I'd be willing to bet that even Illinois after rewriting thier language and issuing handgun carry permits over the next few years will see a dramatic decrease in violent and overall crime. Criminals attack where they know there is no danger, where they know they can't get shot! That's why you never see one of these mass murderers walk into a police station to unleash thier terror. I respect anyone's right and choice to not be associated with guns in any way but I will stick with mine. I'd much rather have one and not ever need it than to need one and not ever have it in the event it could save my life or the life of a friend or loved one. That being said, I think the only legislation that will "work" on reducing crime is to enforce the legislation we already have and start issuing maximum sentences for convictions. Criminals are allowed to walk free over and over again. Mental health also needs to be addressed by erasing the political correctness privacy B.S. that keeps these people from being reported who have known tendancies or are considered risks to the safety of others or themselves. A new gun law won't fix any of that.

Forgot the link:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

Edited April 20, 2013 by SamanthaL

[SamanthaL 45]

gunbroker.com happy hunting

Everything I've ever saw on there you gotta have it shipped to an FFL? Who will conduct a background check? Am I missing something? Just curious...

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

There are ways around every law I can think of? Laws only stop law abiding citizens and only reprimand criminals after they have committed or attempted to commit a crime by breaking said law. Much like having locks on your doors. That keeps out people who are nosey basically. A criminal wants in your house, he will get in regardless of your lock system. You could pass a thousand new gun laws tomorrow including everyone turning in thier guns (you know criminals will be first in line for that one) but history shows up that doesn't really work. The newest numbers from England show gun crime has risen ridiculously since the handgun ban in '97. Murders with handguns have actually doubled with overall gun crime up by 35% in England and Wales. How is this possible since it's against the law? However, Washington DC after over turning it's handgun ban saw murder rates fall below triple digits for the first time since 1963. Is this solely because of the ban being lifted? Absolutely not, but did it play a part? Most certainly it did. It seems to be a trend that wherever handgun carry is introduced crime rates fall. I'd be willing to bet that even Illinois after rewriting thier language and issuing handgun carry permits over the next few years will see a dramatic decrease in violent and overall crime. Criminals attack where they know there is no danger, where they know they can't get shot! That's why you never see one of these mass murderers walk into a police station to unleash thier terror. I respect anyone's right and choice to not be associated with guns in any way but I will stick with mine. I'd much rather have one and not ever need it than to need one and not ever have it in the event it could save my life or the life of a friend or loved one. That being said, I think the only legislation that will "work" on reducing crime is to enforce the legislation we already have and start issuing maximum sentences for convictions. Criminals are allowed to walk free over and over again. Mental health also needs to be addressed by erasing the political correctness privacy B.S. that keeps these people from being reported who have known tendancies or are considered risks to the safety of others or themselves. A new gun law won't fix any of that.

Forgot the link:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

And here's the facts:

http://johnmckay.blogspot.com/2013/01/mini-snopes-vs-british-crime-statistics.html

No one is suggesting your gun be taken away. So please calm down and start using paragraphs. Your stuff is hard to read.

[lostinblue 1,989]

And here's the facts:

http://johnmckay.blogspot.com/2013/01/mini-snopes-vs-british-crime-statistics.html

No one is suggesting your gun be taken away. So please calm down and start using paragraphs. Your stuff is hard to read.

What are they talking about here?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

What are they talking about here?

State gun laws? Not sure why you link this at all.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

That's right. Bingo. It's a crime. This happens and they choose to not prosecute that crime thousands and thousands and thousands of times per year. That is my argument. The people who pretend to care so much about lives and public safety do not care at all that people are publicly attempting to obtain firearms that they are prohibited from owning. These are the same people who want EXPANDED checks?

Since you also said it I will not bother to point out the lack of holes in it.

First of all, these people weren't able to buy a gun or guns after failing the background check. Proving that they knew that they wouldn't pass the background check before they made the attempt would likely be difficult for a huge number of cases to which you refer, thus making it expedient to disregard such cases.

If I am under age and go to a bar and they fail to check my ID and serve me alcohol I could get charged with under age drinking. If I got carded and presented false ID I could get charged for that as well.

I still don't have the option to go to a private bar and purchase alcohol there instead.

If I go to a licensed gun shop and honestly fill out the background check and fail, I think it is fair to guess that I didn't know that I would not pass.

But I can then simply switch to a private seller and get a gun or guns.

[SamanthaL 45]

And here's the facts:

http://johnmckay.blogspot.com/2013/01/mini-snopes-vs-british-crime-statistics.html

No one is suggesting your gun be taken away. So please calm down and start using paragraphs. Your stuff is hard to read.

Okay you're saying those are "the facts" and that is ovisouly discrediting the previous article but how do you know the stats in this article are correct? Down at the bottom of your link one guy points out how John's Hopkins study on US gun crime artificially inflated thier numbers by including "Airguns, BB guns, compressed air guns, other spring loaded weapons _and_ Law Enforcement actions." Just depends who is doing the study as to how the numbers are skewed. Ask the people of England and the government if they think crime is getting better. I have friends there that talk about it all the time. I know a couple or three years ago they armed routine foot soldier for the first time ever and not only armed them but with sub-machine guns. Why now after such a successful gun ban?

I type however I feel at the moment...if you don't like my typing, no one is holding a gun on you making you read it

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't really see any loopholes this legislation would have closed? And please dear God, tell me where I can purchase a firearm online without having a background check done. I'm looking for a simple home defense shotgun for my

house.

The information is not hard to find. And those are the loopholes that legislation was designed to close. But the NRA and the Senate minority that is enslaved to it love and support armed criminals. Nothing could be more important to them than criminals having ready, easy and hassle free access to firearms.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/want-buy-gun-without-background-check-armlist-can-help

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Okay you're saying those are "the facts" and that is ovisouly discrediting the previous article but how do you know the stats in this article are correct? Down at the bottom of your link one guy points out how John's Hopkins study on US gun crime artificially inflated thier numbers by including "Airguns, BB guns, compressed air guns, other spring loaded weapons _and_ Law Enforcement actions." Just depends who is doing the study as to how the numbers are skewed. Ask the people of England and the government if they think crime is getting better. I have friends there that talk about it all the time. I know a couple or three years ago they armed routine foot soldier for the first time ever and not only armed them but with sub-machine guns. Why now after such a successful gun ban?

I type however I feel at the moment...if you don't like my typing, no one is holding a gun on you making you read it

My husband is from the United Kingdom. He and I have loads of friends there. So I already know what they think about their rate of gun crime compared to that of the US.

I've seen the PSNI on the streets of Northern Ireland with sub-machine guns. That's law enforcement. So let's keep it apples to apples, OK?

[himher 634]

The information is not hard to find. And those are the loopholes that legislation was designed to close. But the NRA and the Senate minority that is enslaved to it love and support :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: I'm such a whining crybaby........

Reworded:

The information is not hard to find. And those are the loopholes that legislation was designed to close. But the NRA and the Senate minority that is enslaved to it love and support the rights of honest citizens to protect themselves from the criminals that thrive under liberals in liberal-governed areas of the country. Nothing could be more important to them than honest citizens having ready, easy and hassle free access to firearms.

When a criminal tries to obtain a firearm and gets identified with a background check, his name is logged with the FBI. The FBI then, based on why that criminal is denied, refers that criminal over to the ATF for prosecution. They never prosecute anyone. Because NOTHING is more important to liberals than protecting the rights of criminals and ensuring that criminals have ready, easy, and hassle free access to their victims. Liberals LOVE criminals and LOVE having criminals on the streets.

Under the umbrella of liberalism cities like New Orleans, or Washington DC, or Atlanta, or Chicago run up annual violent crime and murder numbers so high that the violent death rates in these cities exceed the rates in Iraq at the peak of the war. It is these same liberals who do such a great job in these cities that want gun control for the rest of the country. They want to do it in such a way as to keep their protected and loved violent criminals on the streets. Because they LOVE having them there.

Edited April 21, 2013 by himher

[himher 634]

First of all, these people weren't able to buy a gun or guns after failing the background check. Proving that they knew that they wouldn't pass the background check before they made the attempt would likely be difficult for a huge number of cases to which you refer, thus making it expedient to disregard such cases.

If I am under age and go to a bar and they fail to check my ID and serve me alcohol I could get charged with under age drinking. If I got carded and presented false ID I could get charged for that as well.

I still don't have the option to go to a private bar and purchase alcohol there instead.

If I go to a licensed gun shop and honestly fill out the background check and fail, I think it is fair to guess that I didn't know that I would not pass.

But I can then simply switch to a private seller and get a gun or guns.

Well now lets play fun with numbers. 2010 numbers are published and if you wanna know the source go do your own research. HINT: it's on NCJRS.gov

Let's look together:

Table 1. Background checks by the FBI in 2010

Applications for firearm transfer

6,037,394

Denials 72,659 denial rate 1.2%

Most common denial reasons / percent of denials

Felony indictment or conviction 34,459 47.4% (these people don't know they are felons is your argument)

Fugitive 13,862 19.1% (these people don't know that they are fugitives is your argument)

State law prohibition 7,666 10.6%

Denials that were caused by protective orders, felony convictions, and domestic violence misdemeanor convictions comprised nearly 76% of referrals to field divisions. (these people don't know that they were convicted of felonies or domestic violence is your argument)

Charges were referred for prosecution in 11 cases where ATF retrieved a firearm and in two cases that were given to local law enforcement.

So you're kidding right? What possible good can come of an expanded background check system where out and out fugitives get dinged for TRYING TO BUY A GUN and nothing happens to them except a private business owner says "no, sorry"?

Expanded paperwork and fees (I know taxes and fees are the solution to EVERYTHING on planet Lib) do not get violent criminals off the streets.

So your alcohol thing is a joke. It's like if you killed someone drunk driving, was released and ordered not to drink, then expecting every store and bar owner to prevent you from doing it

Edited April 21, 2013 by himher

[himher 634]

Yeah gunbroker requires an FFL transfer. The site isn't aware if that actually happens but the new laws wouldn't change that.

OH I thought it was one of the private party sites.

Come to think of it I dunno then. Never bought one where I wasn't background checked LOL. I like to buy 'em new.