CDZ Gun Control

[2aguy]

How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them. Canada has a national firearms registry. We need to copy their model. We need a law demanding all firearms be registered to a national database. We need to know who has them and where they are. We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners. The federal government provides the money and technical expertise, and the State police carry it out. Like a funded mandate. Most firearms already have a serial number on them, so it would really be a matter of taking the information already on the ATF form 4473 and putting it in a national database. I think about 6 months should be enough time.

Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.

Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that "lost" them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn't. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag.


Continue to read the DAILY KOS and exactly how they want to Ban Guns........

Canada has a national firearms registry.

Sorry, this is not true....they stopped it .....they could not register the guns because it cost more in money, man power and time so they stopped doing it....I'll find the link...

 

[2aguy]

How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them. Canada has a national firearms registry. We need to copy their model. We need a law demanding all firearms be registered to a national database. We need to know who has them and where they are. We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners. The federal government provides the money and technical expertise, and the State police carry it out. Like a funded mandate. Most firearms already have a serial number on them, so it would really be a matter of taking the information already on the ATF form 4473 and putting it in a national database. I think about 6 months should be enough time.

Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.

Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that "lost" them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn't. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag.


Continue to read the DAILY KOS and exactly how they want to Ban Guns........

Canada gave up on registering guns...here is why.....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.

 

[2aguy]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control [Afraid of what a comprehensive background check will find?]

Because once a license is needed the rich can price them to the point that only the rich and the criminals will have them. The criminals will of course enjoy the free range chickens they get to prey on and the rich, well, it is the rich pushing gun control isn't it.

How else can they truly enslave you. So long as you are armed they can't truly oppress you. Once they can get the guns away from the masses though, well then all bets are off aren't they.

I would think that those who claim to be against the one percenters could figure out that it is the one percenters who are working like hell to disarm them.

I think this post ^^^ is the work of a paranoid. But I digress. Consider my posts, wherein I've suggested licensing be done by the States, or those states which require them, and that the license be easy to get with a comprehensive background investigation.

Of course a license could be suspended or revoked for good cause, cause defined by a state legislature, and heard by an administrative law judge whose finding could result with an acqauital, a suspension for a period of time, or a lifetime revocation.

Fines, and other punishments, would become part of the Penal Code as enacted by the state legislature and the governor.

Again....what does licensing actually do....other than generate revenue for the state and create a crime where you can punish people who don't use guns to actually commit crimes.....?

Glenn Reynolds: How gun laws put the innocent on trial

Cottrol noted that crimes like carrying or owning a pistol without a license are what the law has traditionally termed malum prohibitum — that is, things that are wrong only because they are prohibited. (The contrast is with the other traditional category, malum in se, those things, like rape, robbery, and murder, that are wrong in themselves.)

Traditionally, penalties for malum prohibitum acts were generally light, since the conduct that the laws governed wasn’t wrong in itself. But modern American law often treats even obscure and technical violations of gun laws as felonies and —Cottrol noted — prosecutors often go out of their way to prosecute these crimes more vigorously even than traditional crimes like rape or murder.


If it were up to me, I’d find it a violation of the due process clause to treat violation of regulatory statutes as a felony. Historically, only the most serious crimes — typically carrying the death penalty — were felonies.Nowadays, though, we designate all sorts of trivial crimes, such as possessing an eagle feather, as felonies. This has the effect of empowering police and prosecutors at the expense of citizens, since it’s easy to find a felony if you look hard enough, and few citizens have the courage of a veteran like Cort, who went to trial anyway. Most will plead to something.

Meanwhile, on the gun front, I think we need federal civil rights legislation to protect citizens who make innocent mistakes. Federal law already defines who is allowed to possess firearms. Under Congress’s civil rights powers (gun ownership and carrying, after all, are protected under the Second Amendment), I think we need federal legislation limiting the maximum penalty a state can assess for possessing or carrying a firearm on the part of someone allowed to own a gun under federal law to a $500 fine. That would let states regulate reasonably, without permitting this sort of injustice.

 

[2aguy]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Gun control does not work. It never has. All it does is restrict the rights of the law abiding.

What a silly claim! No wonder you cite no evidence; there is none. Many nations have rounded up the arms in civilian circulation after the chaos of a war or a revolution. These countries have significantly lower rates of gun violence than the USA.

Law abiding isn't much of a criterion. The guns used in most of America's mass slaughters were purchased legally i.e. by law abiding citizens. Every gun starts out as a legal gun. The number of families owning a gun has been dropping for decades. The number of guns in circulation continues to rise because guns are more and more the fetish of gun nuts who own dozens of them. Gun ownership has itself become more and more an indicator of mental illness and social dysfunction.

The number of families owning a gun has been dropping for decades.

Actually, that is both a lie of anti gun extremists and one of their fantasies......polling shows that gun ownership is the same or higher than it was...we now have over 357 million guns in private hands with over 13 million people actually carrying guns...

And you know what.....

Our gun murder rate has gone down.....

Our gun suicide rate has gone down....

Our gun accident rate has gone down......

Explain that please.

 

[froggy]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Does anything in your idea of gun control stop bad guys from getting guns?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

LOL

You actually believe that................

No. But the facts as stated are true. As single victim of a gun shot - fatal or not - has an enormous cost to local government.

Costs a lot to imprison people to now doesn't it.............Is it cheaper to get patched up with a gun shot or a knife wound............

I'd prefer we not have to patch up a five or six year old child.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Does anything in your idea of gun control stop bad guys from getting guns?

We won't know until we make the effort.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The gun grabbers know they can't get rid of guns in one fell swoop. Each time there is a shooting incident, the feinsteins, schumers and clintons will be screaming for more gun laws until we'll be like france or england.

What's wrong with France or England? Have you ever been to either country?

 

[2aguy]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

LOL

You actually believe that................

No. But the facts as stated are true. As single victim of a gun shot - fatal or not - has an enormous cost to local government.

Costs a lot to imprison people to now doesn't it.............Is it cheaper to get patched up with a gun shot or a knife wound............

I'd prefer we not have to patch up a five or six year old child.

and in a country of over 74.2 million children...how many children are accidentally killed with guns?

69.

 

[2aguy]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

LOL

You actually believe that................

No. But the facts as stated are true. As single victim of a gun shot - fatal or not - has an enormous cost to local government.

Costs a lot to imprison people to now doesn't it.............Is it cheaper to get patched up with a gun shot or a knife wound............

I'd prefer we not have to patch up a five or six year old child.

keeping criminals locked up is cheaper to society than letting them run around loose.......

 

[eagle1462010]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

LOL

You actually believe that................

No. But the facts as stated are true. As single victim of a gun shot - fatal or not - has an enormous cost to local government.

Costs a lot to imprison people to now doesn't it.............Is it cheaper to get patched up with a gun shot or a knife wound............

I'd prefer we not have to patch up a five or six year old child.

And how did this child get to this point..................Was it a knife, a gun, a baseball bat, a wreck..................Let's ban them all now..............

Live in padded rooms...................This attempt by you to deflect your own thread is

 

[2aguy]

The gun grabbers know they can't get rid of guns in one fell swoop. Each time there is a shooting incident, the feinsteins, schumers and clintons will be screaming for more gun laws until we'll be like france or england.

What's wrong with France or England? Have you ever been to either country?

Well...they stood by while 12 million people were sent to gas chambers........

 

[froggy]

What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?

The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.

Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.

I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.

I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.

[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]

Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

So, responsible people, any ideas?

Does anything in your idea of gun control stop bad guys from getting guns?

We won't know until we make the effort.

Once your effort is enforced the innocent suffer

 

[2aguy]

Time to turn the tables.................

The Dems want Gun Control OUT OF FEAR OF THEM............

So why are the Dems so afraid of guns?

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

LOL

You actually believe that................

No. But the facts as stated are true. As single victim of a gun shot - fatal or not - has an enormous cost to local government.

Costs a lot to imprison people to now doesn't it.............Is it cheaper to get patched up with a gun shot or a knife wound............

I'd prefer we not have to patch up a five or six year old child.

I prefer that 1.5 million Americans who use guns to stop violent crime each year, according to bill clinton and backed up by obama......be able to stop that crime and save the lives from those criminals.......

 

[kiwiman127]

Why I'm for the Brady Bill
"Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot.
It was on that day 10 years ago that a deranged young man standing among reporters and photographers shot a policeman, a Secret Service agent, my press secretary and me on a Washington sidewalk.
I was lucky. The bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and lodged in my lung, an inch from my heart. It was a very close call. Twice they could not find my pulse. But the bullet's missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and nurses at George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.
Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.
Thomas Delahanty, a Washington police officer, took a bullet in his neck. It ricocheted off his spinal cord. Nerve damage to his left arm forced his retirement in November 1981.
Tim McCarthy, a Secret Service agent, was shot in the chest and suffered a lacerated liver. He recovered and returned to duty.
Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance.
This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981.
Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.
While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.
The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser's sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill -- on a nationwide scale -- can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.
And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.
Critics claim that "waiting period" legislation in the states that have it doesn't work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don't. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.
Even with the current gaps among states, those that have waiting periods report some success. California, which has a 15-day waiting period that I supported and signed into law while Governor, stopped nearly 1,800 prohibited handgun sales in 1989. New Jersey has had a permit-to-purchase system for more than two decades. During that time, according to the state police, more than 10,000 convicted felons have been caught trying to buy handguns.
Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns.
This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.-Ronald Reagan
Why I'm for the Brady Bill

 

[froggy]

It's an economic issue, gun violence is paid for by the taxpayer. Since Democrats are fiscally responsible, vis a vis fiscally conservative, they hope to reduce taxes by not having to pay on the local level for first respondents, EMT's, Public Hospital emergency room costs, follow up treatment for those who survive; and the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of those who shoot and many times kill another.

LOL

You actually believe that................

No. But the facts as stated are true. As single victim of a gun shot - fatal or not - has an enormous cost to local government.

Costs a lot to imprison people to now doesn't it.............Is it cheaper to get patched up with a gun shot or a knife wound............

I'd prefer we not have to patch up a five or six year old child.

and in a country of over 74.2 million children...how many children are accidentally killed with guns?

69.

46,471: Drug Overdoses Killed More Americans Than Car Crashes or Guns

 

[froggy]

Why not get the Real culprit

 

[2aguy]

Why I'm for the Brady Bill
"Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot.
It was on that day 10 years ago that a deranged young man standing among reporters and photographers shot a policeman, a Secret Service agent, my press secretary and me on a Washington sidewalk.
I was lucky. The bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and lodged in my lung, an inch from my heart. It was a very close call. Twice they could not find my pulse. But the bullet's missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and nurses at George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.
Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.
Thomas Delahanty, a Washington police officer, took a bullet in his neck. It ricocheted off his spinal cord. Nerve damage to his left arm forced his retirement in November 1981.
Tim McCarthy, a Secret Service agent, was shot in the chest and suffered a lacerated liver. He recovered and returned to duty.
Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance.
This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981.
Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.
While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.
The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser's sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill -- on a nationwide scale -- can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.
And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.
Critics claim that "waiting period" legislation in the states that have it doesn't work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don't. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.
Even with the current gaps among states, those that have waiting periods report some success. California, which has a 15-day waiting period that I supported and signed into law while Governor, stopped nearly 1,800 prohibited handgun sales in 1989. New Jersey has had a permit-to-purchase system for more than two decades. During that time, according to the state police, more than 10,000 convicted felons have been caught trying to buy handguns.
Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns.
This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.-Ronald Reagan
Why I'm for the Brady Bill

And the Brady Bill did nothing....more Americans own guns than ever before and our gun murder rate has been going down....

Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.
While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.

Please.....name one of the above actions that stopped one criminal or mass shooter from getting and using a gun.....

 

[kiwiman127]

Why I'm for the Brady Bill
"Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot.
It was on that day 10 years ago that a deranged young man standing among reporters and photographers shot a policeman, a Secret Service agent, my press secretary and me on a Washington sidewalk.
I was lucky. The bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and lodged in my lung, an inch from my heart. It was a very close call. Twice they could not find my pulse. But the bullet's missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and nurses at George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.
Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.
Thomas Delahanty, a Washington police officer, took a bullet in his neck. It ricocheted off his spinal cord. Nerve damage to his left arm forced his retirement in November 1981.
Tim McCarthy, a Secret Service agent, was shot in the chest and suffered a lacerated liver. He recovered and returned to duty.
Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance.
This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981.
Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.
While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.
The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser's sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill -- on a nationwide scale -- can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.
And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.
Critics claim that "waiting period" legislation in the states that have it doesn't work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don't. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.
Even with the current gaps among states, those that have waiting periods report some success. California, which has a 15-day waiting period that I supported and signed into law while Governor, stopped nearly 1,800 prohibited handgun sales in 1989. New Jersey has had a permit-to-purchase system for more than two decades. During that time, according to the state police, more than 10,000 convicted felons have been caught trying to buy handguns.
Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns.
This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.-Ronald Reagan
Why I'm for the Brady Bill

And the Brady Bill did nothing....more Americans own guns than ever before and our gun murder rate has been going down....

Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.
While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.

Please.....name one of the above actions that stopped one criminal or mass shooter from getting and using a gun.....

One second, let me comb through all arrests since the Brady Bill was passed.
Actually, you just love to ask that question and you know it's damn near impossible to answer that question due to a few decades, 10,000 of thousands municipalities and millions of police records.
As I have stated several times, my wife and I are avid hunters, so naturally we have a few guns.
I am not anti-gun, but I definitely think the amount of guns that are in America and the types of guns is simply insane. I belong to a couple of hunting groups and majority of us grown-ups agree that it's gotten out of hand.
I see folks like you as one of the problems. How many threads have you started on the subject? You are crazy to be this obsessed and I won't even tell you what my wife (a Psychologist) has to say about folks like yourself. When I say you're crazy, that isn't far off what evidence based studies have concluded. Definitely, insecure.
The point of posting the Ronald Reagan's opinion piece, it shows how far off the board gun mania has gotten. The hero of the conservative movement, isn't one of you because you and the rest of your paranoid gun nuts have gone too far by being motivated by fear and your gullible enough to believe all the fear mongering.

 

[2aguy]

Why I'm for the Brady Bill
"Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot.
It was on that day 10 years ago that a deranged young man standing among reporters and photographers shot a policeman, a Secret Service agent, my press secretary and me on a Washington sidewalk.
I was lucky. The bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and lodged in my lung, an inch from my heart. It was a very close call. Twice they could not find my pulse. But the bullet's missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and nurses at George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.
Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.
Thomas Delahanty, a Washington police officer, took a bullet in his neck. It ricocheted off his spinal cord. Nerve damage to his left arm forced his retirement in November 1981.
Tim McCarthy, a Secret Service agent, was shot in the chest and suffered a lacerated liver. He recovered and returned to duty.
Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance.
This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981.
Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.
While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.
The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser's sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill -- on a nationwide scale -- can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.
And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.
Critics claim that "waiting period" legislation in the states that have it doesn't work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don't. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.
Even with the current gaps among states, those that have waiting periods report some success. California, which has a 15-day waiting period that I supported and signed into law while Governor, stopped nearly 1,800 prohibited handgun sales in 1989. New Jersey has had a permit-to-purchase system for more than two decades. During that time, according to the state police, more than 10,000 convicted felons have been caught trying to buy handguns.
Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns.
This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.-Ronald Reagan
Why I'm for the Brady Bill

And the Brady Bill did nothing....more Americans own guns than ever before and our gun murder rate has been going down....

Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.
While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.

Please.....name one of the above actions that stopped one criminal or mass shooter from getting and using a gun.....

One second, let me comb through all arrests since the Brady Bill was passed.
Actually, you just love to ask that question and you know it's damn near impossible to answer that question due to a few decades, 10,000 of thousands municipalities and millions of police records.
As I have stated several times, my wife and I are avid hunters, so naturally we have a few guns.
I am not anti-gun, but I definitely think the amount of guns that are in America and the types of guns is simply insane. I belong to a couple of hunting groups and majority of us grown-ups agree that it's gotten out of hand.
I see folks like you as one of the problems. How many threads have you started on the subject? You are crazy to be this obsessed and I won't even tell you what my wife (a Psychologist) has to say about folks like yourself. When I say you're crazy, that isn't far off what evidence based studies have concluded. Definitely, insecure.
The point of posting the Ronald Reagan's opinion piece, it shows how far off the board gun mania has gotten. The hero of the conservative movement, isn't one of you because you and the rest of your paranoid gun nuts have gone too far by being motivated by fear and your gullible enough to believe all the fear mongering.

No....he wasn't presented with the facts....since at one time he was a democrat and gave that up...had he had a chance to see the left wing influence in the anti gun agenda, and seen how dumb all of their laws were and how they only targeted law abiding normal people, he would have changed his mind.