CDZ Criminals in Britain vs. the United States.....and gun laws...

As FAQ2 says....this is meaningless...since the actual data shows that their gun murder rate was low when they were allowed to have gun......then after they banned guns their gun murder rate went up for about 10 years....and then returned to the same rate it was at before they banned guns....

Do you see why your question doesn't matter? Their gun control ban did not effect their gun murder rate....but as we see now....it also did not lower their gun crime rate...since gun crime is up in Britain....up 42% in London, and it is also higher all over Britain......

Their gun crime rate is going up....after they banned guns...in a normal world this means it isn't working.......especially since it went up 42% in London......the most surveilled city in the world......where they also have stop and frisk.....and they banned guns......

And the other important fact........that also makes your claim meaningless...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400 million guns in private hands and over 15 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2016...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

So the gun violence rate in a country with a populace which supports tighter gun laws is lower is what you are saying?

Personally I am for more reasoned gun laws but not necessarily tighter. Its not like I can't admire another society.


I am always curious when people say they want more "Reasoned" gun laws. Not attacking, still curious.....what gun laws do you want...and how would they actually work to stop actual criminals and mass shooters?

Here are the first few ideas to pop into my head.

Reasoned:

1 in 100 chance of a death sentence for committing a crime with a gun. Not speeding with a gun in your car mind you, but a violent crime. Mandatory if you get arrested for a violent gun crime twice. My of a violent crime is a mugging type event. You don't respect the lives of others, I don't respect yours.

No difference in regulations for private and corporate gun sales. Same back ground check, whatever.

No being drunk or stoned in possession of your gun. Being less than humanly capable gives up your Constitution to human right to bear arms.

No difference in murder and attempted murder charges, you shot me, no lower penalty for having poor aim.

No difference in registration of different types of guns. I have to register my car, you have to register your gun.

Your gun gets "stolen" you better report it. That registered gun is your baby.

I don't care if the NRA keeps track of the serial numbers and the FBI or your Sheriff's department needs a warrant to get even one of them. We should have a simple national system that makes sense.

To speak plainly, this ain't no kinder gentler stuff. My family is out there.


Some of your ideas are fine....the others don't work....

The background check on private sales is a non starter for the 2nd Amendment....the reason? The only way to make that work is registration of guns.....

3 problems with that....

1) gun registration is the first step for gun confiscation and gun banning...this is why the anti gunners are so hot to get it......Germany, Britain and Australia are just recent examples of this...The Germans even registered their guns in the 1920s...in order to make people safer, and when the nazis came to power in the 1930s, they used the gun registration records set up in the 20s to disarm Jews and the political enemies of the nazis......that is why background checks for private sales are fought against so hard....and they just don't work. Criminals use straw buyers to get guns from gun stores....those same straw buyers who pass the current federally mandated background checks for gun store purchases will pass background checks for private sales....and private sales are the least likely way that criminals will get guns...since they have stated to researchers that they are concerned that private sellers will be cops.....they get their guns from friends and family...who buy them from gun stores where they can pass background checks....

2) The Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision states that criminals do not have to register illegal guns....it violates their right against self incrimination.....so, the only people who would be forced to register their guns? Would be law abiding citizens who don't use their guns to break the law....

3) Cars are not guns......owning a car is not protected by the Constitution...owning a gun is......owning a gun is a Right...and you don't have to register with the government to exercise a Right...if you do..it isn't a Right and can be ended by the government...

Reporting Stolen Guns....why? Other than wanting it returned if found.......? Research shows that a gun used in a crime usually has been on the street, in criminal hands for about 9 years......so there is no actual value in knowing who the original owner of the gun is.....and since criminals who use guns in crimes are the ones who committed the crime...you can arrest them when you catch them....so there is no reason to put the original owner on the hook for it.....

you may say..what about Straw Buyers.....right? If it is registered to them, you can get them for giving the gun to a felon..right? Well, not really. They report the gun stolen....then when the gun is found with a felon...you can't do anything to them....and right now.....they already catch straw buyers in police stings, using normal police work...and gun registration and reports on stolen guns don't help those efforts....


You know your law. Just because a Judge or group of Judges decided something doesn't mean they are not wrong. Also some things are effectively your right.

-Background checks if they are legal for one purchase are legal for all. Anything else while legal may be contrived.

-Consider, what would have to happen for someone not be allowed to buy a car? The right to operate a car on the street can be taken away with due process. Practically owning a car seems like it is covered under my right to a pursuit of happiness, if I pay my taxes..

-That is pretty contrived thinking. I am required to register my car and pay my taxes every year even if I am "wanted" for avoiding turning in my 1040 last year.

-I share your worry about registration of guns and the loss of rights and it worries me also. Maybe I can throw a bone by letting the NRA, Tea Party or whoever keep the information and making law enforcement subpoena it.

The more paperwork required the more likely it is to catch Strawmen purchasers. Heck, I might even loosen up on my death sentence odds if a criminal turns one in.


And here are a couple of articles that go into detail how the anti gunners will abuse background checks....

How Everytown’s background check law impedes firearms safety training and self-defense



The Bloomberg system applies to every firearms “transfer.” In normal firearms law, a “transfer” means “a permanent exchange of title or possession and does not include gratuitous temporary exchanges or loans.” Chow v. State. 393 Md. 431, 473, 903 A.2d 388, 413 (2006).



However, the Bloomberg laws create a very different definition. For example, the Washington state law says that “ ‘Transfer’ means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.” Rev. Code Wash. § 9.41.010(25).

In other words, it applies to sharing a gun while target shooting on one’s own property, or to lending a gun to a neighbor for a weekend hunting trip.

Under the Bloomberg system, transfers may take place only at a gun store. The transfer must be conducted exactly as if the retailer were selling a firearm out of her inventory. So the transferee (the neighbor borrowing the hunting gun) must fill out ATF Form 4473; the retailer must contact the FBI or its state counterpart for a background check on the transferee; and then, the retailer must take custody of the gun and record the acquisition in her Acquisition and Disposition book. Finally, the retailer hands the gun to the transferee and records the disposition in her Acquisition and Disposition book. A few days later, after the hunting trip is over, the process must be repeated for the neighbor to return the gun to the owner; this time, the owner will be the “transferee,” who will fill out Form 4473 and undergo the background check.
--------------
Safety training

Sensible firearms policy should encourage, not impede, safety instruction. The Bloomberg laws do just the opposite. They do so by making ordinary safety training impossible unless it takes place at a corporate target range. (The federal S. 374 allows transfers “at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms.”)

A target range is usually necessary for the component of some safety courses that includes “live fire” — in which students fire guns at a range under the supervision of an instructor. However, even the courses that have live fire also have an extensive classroom component. Some introductory courses are classroom-only. In the classroom, dozens of firearms transfers will take place. Many students may not yet own a firearm; even if a student does own a firearm, many instructors choose to allow only their own personal firearms in the classroom, as the instructor may want to teach particular facts about particular types of firearms. The instructor also wants to use firearms that he or she is certain are in good working order. In any classroom setting, functional ammunition is absolutely forbidden.
****************
The next article in the series...private sharing on private property, with a link to long term storage article...

Sharing firearms for informal target shooting: Another legitimate activity outlawed by Everytown’s ‘universal background checks’

Here are two things that a person might do with a firearm: 1. Sell the firearm to a complete stranger in a parking lot. 2. Share the firearm with a friend, while target shooting on one’s own property. Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown” lobby is promoting “universal background checks” as a means of addressing activity No. 1. But the Bloomberg laws also outlaw activity No. 2. In a previous post, I detailed how the unusual Bloomberg laws about “background checks” for “private sales” constrict safety training and self-defense; and also obstruct safe storage. This post addresses another non-sales activity, firearms sharing.
*************
How background checks affect long term storage when owner is away and wants to leave guns with friends...
Opinion | Safe storage of firearms: The harms from Bloomberg’s strange background check system
Although the Bloomberg system is promoted as addressing private sales of firearms, the Bloomberg laws as written apply to all firearms loans — whether for a few seconds or a few weeks. There are some limited exceptions (e.g., certain family members, or at a corporate target range). But these exceptions do not apply to safe storage situations.

Consider a person who will be away from home for an extended period, such as a member of the armed services being deployed overseas, a person going away to school, a family going on a long vacation, or someone evacuating her home due to a natural disaster. Such persons might wish to store firearms with a trusted friend or neighbor for months or years. Under the Bloomberg system, for the friend or neighbor to store the firearms, the following procedures must be followed:

The owner and the bailee must find a gun store that is willing to process the loan. The store must treat the loan as if it were selling a firearm out of its inventory. Under the threat of a five-year federal prison sentence for perjury, the bailee and gun store must answer the dozens of questions on ATF Form 4473. Next, the gun store contacts the FBI or a state counterpart for permission to proceed with the sale. Under ideal circumstances, permission to proceed is granted in less than 10 minutes. The retailer then logs the gun into his Acquisition and Disposition record book, as an acquisition. He next logs the gun out of the record book, as a disposition. He hands the firearm to the bailee. The process must be followed for every firearm. If there are two are more handguns, the store must send additional forms to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Depending on the state, a fee is charged for each background check requested. The gun store, of course, will process this transaction only if it can charge a fee to compensate it for handling the paperwork. Unlike with an inventory sale, the gun store is not making any profit on the gun itself.

Later, when the bailor returns and is ready to take custody of her firearms, the entire process must be repeated, with bailor and bailee both taking all the guns to the gun store, before they may be returned to the bailor.
 
Well, we may not agree 100% but I bet if we were in Congress instead of just yelling at talk show hosts we'd work something out with stiffer gun crime penalties, no forced registration and maybe something about private sales.
 

Forum List

Back
Top