Yeah....how does a British guy get fully automatic machine guns, and a 74 gun arsenal?

[BULLDOG]

That's what gun nuts claim,but I haven't seen the proof that those things keep their gun related deaths so low. If England believed that,they wouldn't have the gun laws that they do.

The UK's murder rate has been lower than ours as far back as I have looked. In fact in 1950 the UK's murder rate was .8 per 100000 before all their tough gun laws

All their gun laws that you love started in the 60's and the murder rate went UP through the next couple decades

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

gun laws have had no impact on murder rates of countries that have enacted them

Then you need to march right over there and tell the Queen that their gun laws are useless. I'll bet she will be grateful for the info, and change their laws immediately.

I really don't give a flying or any other kind of fuck about what goes on in the UK.

I gave you factual evidence that the gun laws they passed in the 60's did nothing to lower their murder rate.

You say their gun laws lowered their murder rate. You are wrong.

Please point out here I said that. Their laws are working. Ours are not.

The facts show that you are wrong.

You refusing to acknowledge reality does nothing to change those facts.

Got it. Their minute gun related death rate is higher than ours even though arithmetic says differently.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The UK's murder rate has been lower than ours as far back as I have looked. In fact in 1950 the UK's murder rate was .8 per 100000 before all their tough gun laws

All their gun laws that you love started in the 60's and the murder rate went UP through the next couple decades

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

gun laws have had no impact on murder rates of countries that have enacted them

Then you need to march right over there and tell the Queen that their gun laws are useless. I'll bet she will be grateful for the info, and change their laws immediately.

I really don't give a flying or any other kind of fuck about what goes on in the UK.

I gave you factual evidence that the gun laws they passed in the 60's did nothing to lower their murder rate.

You say their gun laws lowered their murder rate. You are wrong.

Please point out here I said that. Their laws are working. Ours are not.

The facts show that you are wrong.

You refusing to acknowledge reality does nothing to change those facts.

Got it. Their minute gun related death rate is higher than ours even though arithmetic says differently.

Their gun laws are not the reason for their lower murder rate

You can say otherwise as much as you want but you'll be wrong every time

 

[FA_Q2]

And 'firearm related death' is an asinine statistic. Straight out homicide rate is what matters and what it shows is that culture is the issue here. Briton did not see any changes in the homicide trend lines when passing their major gun control measures. No effect.

The OP is trying to claim we should not follow anything Great Britain has done. He claims the way we are doing things is better, yet they have an almost immeasurable murder rate and an even smaller gun related death rate. They are doing it right. We are the ones with the massive problem. Since we are talking about gun related deaths, what do you think would be more important than guns being easily available to people who shouldn't have them, and not even a background check before those people are able to buy one, or many?

We need to focus on actually fixing the problem rather than blindly passing the same laws that have been shown over and over again to be ineffective.

All or nothing. Typical RWNJ

No one said anything about all or nothing but you.

Anything to avoid actual facts.

That is gun nuts main claim." It won't stop a crook from getting a gun if he wants it bad enough." Well, no it won't, but it will stop a lot of them

Your straw man is irrelevant. It does not reduce homicide rates. If your goal is to reduce criminals with guns but not the crimes they commit or the amount of death it causes then maybe you can meet that goal. Unfortunately that is an asinine goal - we should be trying to reduce the EFFECTS of crime rather than the tools that are used to commit it.

 

[2aguy]

over 300 million firearms in legal private hands and murder is what 8000 remind us what percentage that is that would justify removing a right

Who wants to remove a right? A background check has nothing to do with rights. It will only stop someone who shouldn't be able to buy a gun anyway.

Are you kidding? GUNS FOR EVERYONE!

So you decided to join the NRA? You know you will be required to start dipping snuff and dating your cousin, don't you?

lets see waiting periods are law, background checks are law. what you want is to take weapons away from people not committing crimes while doing nothing about those that do commit crimes.

Some background checks are law. I can legally buy a truckload of guns tomorrow without even giving my name, much less an ID or background check.

And if you are a felon doing that you can already be arrested for doing it since you cannot legally buy, own or carry a gun. Those laws already exist.....they just keep letting those people back on the street.

And you want universal background checks.....which is stupid because criminals already use straw buyers to get their guns from gun stores where they are already required to do federally mandated background checks. Straw buyers can pass your current background checks....which means that if they went to a private seller, and the private seller had to do a background check....they would still pass the background check and then sell or give the gun to the felon....

You want something that already fails.....does that mean you are stupid...or really fucking stupid?

 

[2aguy]

So....what British gun law kept this guy from walking into a British elementary school....or whatever they call it over there, and murdering a bunch of children...considering even if the police showed up, they wouldn't have guns until their special units arrived....

Hmmmmmm, I believe that fully automatic weapons are completelly illegal on this island nation.....as are all the other guns this guy had........

How Did a "Gun Nut" Amass 160 Firearms in "Gun Free" UK? - The Truth About Guns

In the wake of three high-profile mass shootings — Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs and Rancho Tehema — I wonder if firearms freedom fence sitters are starting to get the message: gun control doesn’t work. Background checks don’t stop criminals, crazies and terrorists from tooling-up and going postal. Background checks don’t stop them. Assault weapon bans don’t stop them. Ammunition capacity laws don’t stop them. A bullet to the brain? That stops them! Here’s more proof [via dailyrecord.co.uk] . . .

An eccentric pensioner who was found to have a massive arsenal of weapons after the fire brigade rushed to put out a blaze at his home has been jailed for five years.

Paul Bushell had amassed around 160 firearms, some of which were loaded and included sub-machine guns and Russian-made AKM 47 rifles.

The 74-year-old stashed the weapons in a basement and in the top floor room at his Edwardian mid-terrace house, without any of his family knowing about it.

The guns found included a Sten submachine, a British Mk1 machine gun, an Armalite AR10 rifle, and a M10 sub-machine gun.

The pensioner also had a Kommando semi-automatic pistol, a Russian AKm47 rifle and a FN 1910 semi-automatic pistol.

Now I’m not saying that Mr. Bushell is a bad guy. None of the reports of his UK “arsenal” (not the football team) indicated that he planned to do anything nefarious with his firearms.

I highlight his case to make an obvious point: if a good guy can amass 74 firearms — including machine guns — in an island country American antis hail as a “gun free zone,” what are the chances that gun control laws canchoke off the firearms supply to bad guys in the U.S., a country with some 300m firearms in private hands? Exactly, precisely, none.

I don't know how he did that. What I want to know is how lots of people in this country are able to do the same thing legally, and how England is able to maintain such a low murder rate, They are doing something right. We need to find out what that is and do it too.

The UK's murder rate has nothing to do with their gun laws but rather their culture, history, socioeconomic and societal variables that differ from those of the US.

The UK passed it's first strict gun laws in the 60s and the murder rate did not drop after those laws were passed

That's what gun nuts claim,but I haven't seen the proof that those things keep their gun related deaths so low. If England believed that,they wouldn't have the gun laws that they do.

They believe it .....but they are wrong...since their gun crime rate keeps going up and their violent crime rate keeps going up.... they have guns....so why aren't they murdering people with them? We keep telling you why, and why they are going to be murdering more people...but you refuse to see it...

 

[Chuz Life]

And 'firearm related death' is an asinine statistic. Straight out homicide rate is what matters and what it shows is that culture is the issue here. Briton did not see any changes in the homicide trend lines when passing their major gun control measures. No effect.

The OP is trying to claim we should not follow anything Great Britain has done. He claims the way we are doing things is better, yet they have an almost immeasurable murder rate and an even smaller gun related death rate. They are doing it right. We are the ones with the massive problem. Since we are talking about gun related deaths, what do you think would be more important than guns being easily available to people who shouldn't have them, and not even a background check before those people are able to buy one, or many?

We need to focus on actually fixing the problem rather than blindly passing the same laws that have been shown over and over again to be ineffective.

All or nothing. Typical RWNJ

No one said anything about all or nothing but you.

Anything to avoid actual facts.

That is gun nuts main claim." It won't stop a crook from getting a gun if he wants it bad enough." Well, no it won't, but it will stop a lot of them

As evidenced by what?

The sudden drop in mass killings we are now seeing?

 

[BULLDOG]

Who wants to remove a right? A background check has nothing to do with rights. It will only stop someone who shouldn't be able to buy a gun anyway.

Are you kidding? GUNS FOR EVERYONE!

So you decided to join the NRA? You know you will be required to start dipping snuff and dating your cousin, don't you?

lets see waiting periods are law, background checks are law. what you want is to take weapons away from people not committing crimes while doing nothing about those that do commit crimes.

Some background checks are law. I can legally buy a truckload of guns tomorrow without even giving my name, much less an ID or background check.

And if you are a felon doing that you can already be arrested for doing it since you cannot legally buy, own or carry a gun. Those laws already exist.....they just keep letting those people back on the street.

And you want universal background checks.....which is stupid because criminals already use straw buyers to get their guns from gun stores where they are already required to do federally mandated background checks. Straw buyers can pass your current background checks....which means that if they went to a private seller, and the private seller had to do a background check....they would still pass the background check and then sell or give the gun to the felon....

You want something that already fails.....does that mean you are stupid...or really fucking stupid?

Sure, you could be arrested, but it won't happen until he actually commits a crime, AND gets caught with it, because nobody can know he bought it to start with. Why do you want to wait until AFTER the crime to catch him?

 

[BULLDOG]

So....what British gun law kept this guy from walking into a British elementary school....or whatever they call it over there, and murdering a bunch of children...considering even if the police showed up, they wouldn't have guns until their special units arrived....

Hmmmmmm, I believe that fully automatic weapons are completelly illegal on this island nation.....as are all the other guns this guy had........

How Did a "Gun Nut" Amass 160 Firearms in "Gun Free" UK? - The Truth About Guns

In the wake of three high-profile mass shootings — Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs and Rancho Tehema — I wonder if firearms freedom fence sitters are starting to get the message: gun control doesn’t work. Background checks don’t stop criminals, crazies and terrorists from tooling-up and going postal. Background checks don’t stop them. Assault weapon bans don’t stop them. Ammunition capacity laws don’t stop them. A bullet to the brain? That stops them! Here’s more proof [via dailyrecord.co.uk] . . .

An eccentric pensioner who was found to have a massive arsenal of weapons after the fire brigade rushed to put out a blaze at his home has been jailed for five years.

Paul Bushell had amassed around 160 firearms, some of which were loaded and included sub-machine guns and Russian-made AKM 47 rifles.

The 74-year-old stashed the weapons in a basement and in the top floor room at his Edwardian mid-terrace house, without any of his family knowing about it.

The guns found included a Sten submachine, a British Mk1 machine gun, an Armalite AR10 rifle, and a M10 sub-machine gun.

The pensioner also had a Kommando semi-automatic pistol, a Russian AKm47 rifle and a FN 1910 semi-automatic pistol.

Now I’m not saying that Mr. Bushell is a bad guy. None of the reports of his UK “arsenal” (not the football team) indicated that he planned to do anything nefarious with his firearms.

I highlight his case to make an obvious point: if a good guy can amass 74 firearms — including machine guns — in an island country American antis hail as a “gun free zone,” what are the chances that gun control laws canchoke off the firearms supply to bad guys in the U.S., a country with some 300m firearms in private hands? Exactly, precisely, none.

I don't know how he did that. What I want to know is how lots of people in this country are able to do the same thing legally, and how England is able to maintain such a low murder rate, They are doing something right. We need to find out what that is and do it too.

The UK's murder rate has nothing to do with their gun laws but rather their culture, history, socioeconomic and societal variables that differ from those of the US.

The UK passed it's first strict gun laws in the 60s and the murder rate did not drop after those laws were passed

That's what gun nuts claim,but I haven't seen the proof that those things keep their gun related deaths so low. If England believed that,they wouldn't have the gun laws that they do.

They believe it .....but they are wrong...since their gun crime rate keeps going up and their violent crime rate keeps going up.... they have guns....so why aren't they murdering people with them? We keep telling you why, and why they are going to be murdering more people...but you refuse to see it...

Let's see. Who is more credible. Some anonymous gun nut with a boner for Great Britain, or an entire country? Give me a minute to think about this---------goober.

 

[BULLDOG]

The OP is trying to claim we should not follow anything Great Britain has done. He claims the way we are doing things is better, yet they have an almost immeasurable murder rate and an even smaller gun related death rate. They are doing it right. We are the ones with the massive problem. Since we are talking about gun related deaths, what do you think would be more important than guns being easily available to people who shouldn't have them, and not even a background check before those people are able to buy one, or many?

We need to focus on actually fixing the problem rather than blindly passing the same laws that have been shown over and over again to be ineffective.

All or nothing. Typical RWNJ

No one said anything about all or nothing but you.

Anything to avoid actual facts.

That is gun nuts main claim." It won't stop a crook from getting a gun if he wants it bad enough." Well, no it won't, but it will stop a lot of them

As evidenced by what?

The sudden drop in mass killings we are now seeing?

That's a pretty dumb remark, don't you think?

 

[jon_berzerk]

over 300 million firearms in legal private hands and murder is what 8000 remind us what percentage that is that would justify removing a right

Who wants to remove a right? A background check has nothing to do with rights. It will only stop someone who shouldn't be able to buy a gun anyway.

It will only stop someone who shouldn't be able to buy a gun anyway.

criminals go through other channels to get firearms

 

[BULLDOG]

over 300 million firearms in legal private hands and murder is what 8000 remind us what percentage that is that would justify removing a right

Who wants to remove a right? A background check has nothing to do with rights. It will only stop someone who shouldn't be able to buy a gun anyway.

It will only stop someone who shouldn't be able to buy a gun anyway.

criminals go through other channels to get firearms

Yes,and drug users go through many different channels to get their drugs too. Is that a reason to not limit their access through any one of those channels?

 

[BULLDOG]

over 300 million firearms in legal private hands and murder is what 8000 remind us what percentage that is that would justify removing a right

Who wants to remove a right? A background check has nothing to do with rights. It will only stop someone who shouldn't be able to buy a gun anyway.

It will only stop someone who shouldn't be able to buy a gun anyway.

criminals go through other channels to get firearms

BINGO!!! That is the point silly.

 

[2aguy]

Are you kidding? GUNS FOR EVERYONE!

So you decided to join the NRA? You know you will be required to start dipping snuff and dating your cousin, don't you?

lets see waiting periods are law, background checks are law. what you want is to take weapons away from people not committing crimes while doing nothing about those that do commit crimes.

Some background checks are law. I can legally buy a truckload of guns tomorrow without even giving my name, much less an ID or background check.

And if you are a felon doing that you can already be arrested for doing it since you cannot legally buy, own or carry a gun. Those laws already exist.....they just keep letting those people back on the street.

And you want universal background checks.....which is stupid because criminals already use straw buyers to get their guns from gun stores where they are already required to do federally mandated background checks. Straw buyers can pass your current background checks....which means that if they went to a private seller, and the private seller had to do a background check....they would still pass the background check and then sell or give the gun to the felon....

You want something that already fails.....does that mean you are stupid...or really fucking stupid?

Sure, you could be arrested, but it won't happen until he actually commits a crime, AND gets caught with it, because nobody can know he bought it to start with. Why do you want to wait until AFTER the crime to catch him?

Because they aren't catching them before they commit the crime....but let me revise that....they are catching felons with illegal guns all the time.....when they do traffic stops and drug raids.......and then the judge lets them go or the prosecutor drops the gun charge....which allows them to go out, get another illegal gun they can't buy, own or carry, and then murder another criminal......

Again......background checks didn't stop the 9,616 gun murders in 2015.........they don't stop any of the mass public shooters....

But hey....lets make another background check that also won't stop criminals or mass shooters.

 

[2aguy]

So....what British gun law kept this guy from walking into a British elementary school....or whatever they call it over there, and murdering a bunch of children...considering even if the police showed up, they wouldn't have guns until their special units arrived....

Hmmmmmm, I believe that fully automatic weapons are completelly illegal on this island nation.....as are all the other guns this guy had........

How Did a "Gun Nut" Amass 160 Firearms in "Gun Free" UK? - The Truth About Guns

In the wake of three high-profile mass shootings — Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs and Rancho Tehema — I wonder if firearms freedom fence sitters are starting to get the message: gun control doesn’t work. Background checks don’t stop criminals, crazies and terrorists from tooling-up and going postal. Background checks don’t stop them. Assault weapon bans don’t stop them. Ammunition capacity laws don’t stop them. A bullet to the brain? That stops them! Here’s more proof [via dailyrecord.co.uk] . . .

An eccentric pensioner who was found to have a massive arsenal of weapons after the fire brigade rushed to put out a blaze at his home has been jailed for five years.

Paul Bushell had amassed around 160 firearms, some of which were loaded and included sub-machine guns and Russian-made AKM 47 rifles.

The 74-year-old stashed the weapons in a basement and in the top floor room at his Edwardian mid-terrace house, without any of his family knowing about it.

The guns found included a Sten submachine, a British Mk1 machine gun, an Armalite AR10 rifle, and a M10 sub-machine gun.

The pensioner also had a Kommando semi-automatic pistol, a Russian AKm47 rifle and a FN 1910 semi-automatic pistol.

Now I’m not saying that Mr. Bushell is a bad guy. None of the reports of his UK “arsenal” (not the football team) indicated that he planned to do anything nefarious with his firearms.

I highlight his case to make an obvious point: if a good guy can amass 74 firearms — including machine guns — in an island country American antis hail as a “gun free zone,” what are the chances that gun control laws canchoke off the firearms supply to bad guys in the U.S., a country with some 300m firearms in private hands? Exactly, precisely, none.

I don't know how he did that. What I want to know is how lots of people in this country are able to do the same thing legally, and how England is able to maintain such a low murder rate, They are doing something right. We need to find out what that is and do it too.

The UK's murder rate has nothing to do with their gun laws but rather their culture, history, socioeconomic and societal variables that differ from those of the US.

The UK passed it's first strict gun laws in the 60s and the murder rate did not drop after those laws were passed

That's what gun nuts claim,but I haven't seen the proof that those things keep their gun related deaths so low. If England believed that,they wouldn't have the gun laws that they do.

They believe it .....but they are wrong...since their gun crime rate keeps going up and their violent crime rate keeps going up.... they have guns....so why aren't they murdering people with them? We keep telling you why, and why they are going to be murdering more people...but you refuse to see it...

Let's see. Who is more credible. Some anonymous gun nut with a boner for Great Britain, or an entire country? Give me a minute to think about this---------goober.

Yeah....their own statistics show they have more gun crime now, after they banned and confiscated guns.......it must be really hard for you to understand that....

 

[2aguy]

over 300 million firearms in legal private hands and murder is what 8000 remind us what percentage that is that would justify removing a right

Who wants to remove a right? A background check has nothing to do with rights. It will only stop someone who shouldn't be able to buy a gun anyway.

It will only stop someone who shouldn't be able to buy a gun anyway.

criminals go through other channels to get firearms

BINGO!!! That is the point silly.

That isn't the point...since we have already shown that they use straw buyers to buy guns at gun stores....since they can pass background checks......the friends and family plan....

 

[BULLDOG]

So you decided to join the NRA? You know you will be required to start dipping snuff and dating your cousin, don't you?

lets see waiting periods are law, background checks are law. what you want is to take weapons away from people not committing crimes while doing nothing about those that do commit crimes.

Some background checks are law. I can legally buy a truckload of guns tomorrow without even giving my name, much less an ID or background check.

And if you are a felon doing that you can already be arrested for doing it since you cannot legally buy, own or carry a gun. Those laws already exist.....they just keep letting those people back on the street.

And you want universal background checks.....which is stupid because criminals already use straw buyers to get their guns from gun stores where they are already required to do federally mandated background checks. Straw buyers can pass your current background checks....which means that if they went to a private seller, and the private seller had to do a background check....they would still pass the background check and then sell or give the gun to the felon....

You want something that already fails.....does that mean you are stupid...or really fucking stupid?

Sure, you could be arrested, but it won't happen until he actually commits a crime, AND gets caught with it, because nobody can know he bought it to start with. Why do you want to wait until AFTER the crime to catch him?

Because they aren't catching them before they commit the crime....but let me revise that....they are catching felons with illegal guns all the time.....when they do traffic stops and drug raids.......and then the judge lets them go or the prosecutor drops the gun charge....which allows them to go out, get another illegal gun they can't buy, own or carry, and then murder another criminal......

Again......background checks didn't stop the 9,616 gun murders in 2015.........they don't stop any of the mass public shooters....

But hey....lets make another background check that also won't stop criminals or mass shooters.

If they catch all the felons with guns, how do they manage to commit all those crimes? Expecting every bad guy to run a stop sign and get caught with a gun is not a very productive way to catch them.

 

[2aguy]

lets see waiting periods are law, background checks are law. what you want is to take weapons away from people not committing crimes while doing nothing about those that do commit crimes.

Some background checks are law. I can legally buy a truckload of guns tomorrow without even giving my name, much less an ID or background check.

And if you are a felon doing that you can already be arrested for doing it since you cannot legally buy, own or carry a gun. Those laws already exist.....they just keep letting those people back on the street.

And you want universal background checks.....which is stupid because criminals already use straw buyers to get their guns from gun stores where they are already required to do federally mandated background checks. Straw buyers can pass your current background checks....which means that if they went to a private seller, and the private seller had to do a background check....they would still pass the background check and then sell or give the gun to the felon....

You want something that already fails.....does that mean you are stupid...or really fucking stupid?

Sure, you could be arrested, but it won't happen until he actually commits a crime, AND gets caught with it, because nobody can know he bought it to start with. Why do you want to wait until AFTER the crime to catch him?

Because they aren't catching them before they commit the crime....but let me revise that....they are catching felons with illegal guns all the time.....when they do traffic stops and drug raids.......and then the judge lets them go or the prosecutor drops the gun charge....which allows them to go out, get another illegal gun they can't buy, own or carry, and then murder another criminal......

Again......background checks didn't stop the 9,616 gun murders in 2015.........they don't stop any of the mass public shooters....

But hey....lets make another background check that also won't stop criminals or mass shooters.

If they catch all the felons with guns, how do they manage to commit all those crimes? Expecting every bad guy to run a stop sign and get caught with a gun is not a very productive way to catch them.

Moron.....they catch these guys with illegal guns all the time......and instead of putting them in prison for 30 years....they let them go....

Baltimore's yearlong war on 'trigger pullers' and illegal guns, by the numbers

Davis believes one reason is that those arrested for guns in the city aren't landing in prison for long periods of time.

-----------------

Possession of an illegal gun in Baltimore is a misdemeanor rather than a felony, which Davis unsuccessfully tried to change during the last General Assembly session.

--------------

That means 52 people with illegal guns were put behind bars for a total of 65 years — just over a year per person, on average.

---------

Davis said police currently have a list of 431 "trigger pullers" and have identified 566 trigger pullers since the war room's creation.

Of those identified as trigger pullers, 11 have been arrested for murder, 28 have been arrested for attempted murder, and 80 have been arrested for illegal possession of a firearm, he said. Also, 32 have been killed, and 52 others have been wounded in shootings.

"We're convinced that we're looking at the right people who are disproportionately responsible for violence in the city. It happens from time to time that there will be an outlier, but we are looking at the right people," Davis said.

"We know who they are. They're in the game, they're choosing not to leave the game, and they choose to carry a gun again and again and again, because they know there's not a significant consequence for carrying a gun.

"And those are the people we have to continue to focus on."
================

The Left’s Phony War on Guns, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review

Chicago has Wild West levels of homicide.

(Worse, in fact; the criminality and violence of the ungoverned West has been greatly exaggerated, and some of those old cow towns had lower per capita crime rates back when they had no formal government than they do today.)

Do you know what kind of crime illegal possession of a firearm is in the state of Illinois?

It is a misdemeanor.

A 2014 study conducted by the Chicago Sun-Times found that in most cases, Cook County judges handed down the minimum sentence for gun possession, and in most cases, the criminals ended up serving far less than that, doing only a few months.

Those charged with simple possession had an average of four prior arrests; those charged with the more serious crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm had an average of ten previous arrests.


Ten arrests, and the eleventh is for a gun-related crime.
One wonders how many undetected crimes are covered by such criminal careers.
Many in Illinois have argued that, given the state of crime there, stiffer sentences are warranted.
A bill was introduced to that end, and it was opposed by Democrats who argued that stiffer sentences for those actually committing crimes with guns would “unfairly target African-Americans,” as the Sun-Times put it.
The NRA, to its discredit, opposed that bill, too, arguing that the penalties for simple possession in absence of other criminal activity were too stiff.
But that’s an argument for liberalizing Illinois gun laws, not for forgoing the punishment of criminals.
The NRA did support harsher punishment for felons in possession of firearms, and for the use of firearms in crimes. Democrats have generally opposed them.

Read more at: The Left’s Phony War on Guns

 

[BULLDOG]

over 300 million firearms in legal private hands and murder is what 8000 remind us what percentage that is that would justify removing a right

Who wants to remove a right? A background check has nothing to do with rights. It will only stop someone who shouldn't be able to buy a gun anyway.

It will only stop someone who shouldn't be able to buy a gun anyway.

criminals go through other channels to get firearms

BINGO!!! That is the point silly.

That isn't the point...since we have already shown that they use straw buyers to buy guns at gun stores....since they can pass background checks......the friends and family plan....

Yep. We know some drug users buy their drugs from someone they went to school with. I guess we can just ignore the possibility that they might be getting them another way. Only one way for those things to happen, right?

 

[Chuz Life]

We need to focus on actually fixing the problem rather than blindly passing the same laws that have been shown over and over again to be ineffective.

All or nothing. Typical RWNJ

No one said anything about all or nothing but you.

Anything to avoid actual facts.

That is gun nuts main claim." It won't stop a crook from getting a gun if he wants it bad enough." Well, no it won't, but it will stop a lot of them

As evidenced by what?

The sudden drop in mass killings we are now seeing?

That's a pretty dumb remark, don't you think?

Do you really need for someone to explain the difference between a question and a remark for you?

 

[BULLDOG]

Some background checks are law. I can legally buy a truckload of guns tomorrow without even giving my name, much less an ID or background check.

And if you are a felon doing that you can already be arrested for doing it since you cannot legally buy, own or carry a gun. Those laws already exist.....they just keep letting those people back on the street.

And you want universal background checks.....which is stupid because criminals already use straw buyers to get their guns from gun stores where they are already required to do federally mandated background checks. Straw buyers can pass your current background checks....which means that if they went to a private seller, and the private seller had to do a background check....they would still pass the background check and then sell or give the gun to the felon....

You want something that already fails.....does that mean you are stupid...or really fucking stupid?

Sure, you could be arrested, but it won't happen until he actually commits a crime, AND gets caught with it, because nobody can know he bought it to start with. Why do you want to wait until AFTER the crime to catch him?

Because they aren't catching them before they commit the crime....but let me revise that....they are catching felons with illegal guns all the time.....when they do traffic stops and drug raids.......and then the judge lets them go or the prosecutor drops the gun charge....which allows them to go out, get another illegal gun they can't buy, own or carry, and then murder another criminal......

Again......background checks didn't stop the 9,616 gun murders in 2015.........they don't stop any of the mass public shooters....

But hey....lets make another background check that also won't stop criminals or mass shooters.

If they catch all the felons with guns, how do they manage to commit all those crimes? Expecting every bad guy to run a stop sign and get caught with a gun is not a very productive way to catch them.

Moron.....they catch these guys with illegal guns all the time......and instead of putting them in prison for 30 years....they let them go....

Baltimore's yearlong war on 'trigger pullers' and illegal guns, by the numbers

Davis believes one reason is that those arrested for guns in the city aren't landing in prison for long periods of time.

-----------------

Possession of an illegal gun in Baltimore is a misdemeanor rather than a felony, which Davis unsuccessfully tried to change during the last General Assembly session.

--------------

That means 52 people with illegal guns were put behind bars for a total of 65 years — just over a year per person, on average.

---------

Davis said police currently have a list of 431 "trigger pullers" and have identified 566 trigger pullers since the war room's creation.

Of those identified as trigger pullers, 11 have been arrested for murder, 28 have been arrested for attempted murder, and 80 have been arrested for illegal possession of a firearm, he said. Also, 32 have been killed, and 52 others have been wounded in shootings.

"We're convinced that we're looking at the right people who are disproportionately responsible for violence in the city. It happens from time to time that there will be an outlier, but we are looking at the right people," Davis said.

"We know who they are. They're in the game, they're choosing not to leave the game, and they choose to carry a gun again and again and again, because they know there's not a significant consequence for carrying a gun.

"And those are the people we have to continue to focus on."
================

The Left’s Phony War on Guns, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review

Chicago has Wild West levels of homicide.

(Worse, in fact; the criminality and violence of the ungoverned West has been greatly exaggerated, and some of those old cow towns had lower per capita crime rates back when they had no formal government than they do today.)

Do you know what kind of crime illegal possession of a firearm is in the state of Illinois?

It is a misdemeanor.

A 2014 study conducted by the Chicago Sun-Times found that in most cases, Cook County judges handed down the minimum sentence for gun possession, and in most cases, the criminals ended up serving far less than that, doing only a few months.

Those charged with simple possession had an average of four prior arrests; those charged with the more serious crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm had an average of ten previous arrests.


Ten arrests, and the eleventh is for a gun-related crime.
One wonders how many undetected crimes are covered by such criminal careers.
Many in Illinois have argued that, given the state of crime there, stiffer sentences are warranted.
A bill was introduced to that end, and it was opposed by Democrats who argued that stiffer sentences for those actually committing crimes with guns would “unfairly target African-Americans,” as the Sun-Times put it.
The NRA, to its discredit, opposed that bill, too, arguing that the penalties for simple possession in absence of other criminal activity were too stiff.
But that’s an argument for liberalizing Illinois gun laws, not for forgoing the punishment of criminals.
The NRA did support harsher punishment for felons in possession of firearms, and for the use of firearms in crimes. Democrats have generally opposed them.

Read more at: The Left’s Phony War on Guns

Odd that they were able to become shooters. Why didn't they all get caught in traffic stops before they had a chance to do more crimes? You said that is how we catch people who shouldn't have guns.