14 and 17 year old injured in shooting, why can't guns be banned?

[BULLDOG]

Yes they are criminals. Lots of thugs with a rap sheet as long as your arm who have never been to prison. Lots of non felony crimes to be convicted of. They are criminals usually long before they are convicted of a felony, and can legally buy and even carry a gun in lots of states. The NRA and gun nuts consider all those thugs to be good guys with guns all the way up to that felony conviction that might not ever happen. How is an individual seller supposed to know who he is selling the gun to? There is no requirement for background checks or records of any kind. The seller isn't even required to ask the thug's name. On top of all that, unless the long time thug has had his first felony conviction, he is legal to buy all the guns he wants, anyway. There is no need for a straw purchase for any of the gang members and thugs to bother with a straw purchase unless they have had that first felony conviction. Excuse me. I should have called those gang members and thugs "Good Guys with a Gun" like the NRA and gun nuts do.

The standard is a felony conviction.
I don't see a misdemeanor disturbing the peace charge as sufficient enough for denying a person a firearm.

And now you fall back to the flawed default position that gun owners are just criminals in waiting so we should treat them like they have already been tried and convicted of a gun crime.

If that's your default position on gun holders are you consistent with other crimes as well?

Shouldn't all men be considered rapists in waiting and be put on a state and federal registration because all rapists were "good guys" until they raped a woman ?

Can you not see how utterly ridiculous this position is?

OK, so there is a convicted felon who should never be anywhere near a gun. He's a felon, so you know he will lie if he has to, but to get a gun he doesn't have to. An individual seller has no legal obligation to even know the name of the purchaser he sells to. No background check, no records to file, no records to keep. All he needs to care about is if the buyer has the money. There you go. The felon just bought a gun, and there was nothing legal to stop him other than the fact that they told him he couldn't have a gun. I suspect lots of felons won't worry about what they were told if there is nothing else to interfere with them purchasing a gun. I never said all gun owners were criminals in waiting, but lots of them are. Do you think those thugs/gang members/ Good guys with guns will hesitate to use their legally bought guns to commit a crime, especially since there is no record of them ever buying the gun from an individual seller.
Your silly mark about rape doesn't apply.
When you sell a thug, with a rap sheet as long as your arm, a gun with no record of that sale, it's reasonably expected that that thug will eventually use that unregistered, unknown gun in a crime.

As I said in many if not most states it is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon.

And I don't know how many gun owners you think will just sell a gun to any Tom Dick or Harry.

It seems to me most illegal purchases are straw purchases where a family member or friend buys a gun for a person who can't. And the person who made that purchase committed a crime.

It's not my responsibility if our legal system doesn't enforce the law regarding straw purchases.

NRA-ILA | Study: Criminals Don’t Get Guns From Legal Sources

Cook and colleagues also found that criminals do not often buy guns on the used market, as they have a fear of buying a gun from a source they do not know. Fear of police stings, or from being turned in by law-abiding gun owners leads them to obtain guns from sources they trust, most often, family, fellow gang members, and other criminals. They also found that criminals do not hold guns for a long period, fearing that a gun could be traced to a specific crime.

You're the one who made the statement that legal gun owners are good guys until they decide not to be aren't you?

You are assuming that a person is more likely to commit a crime simply because he happens to own firearms

So if you apply that "logic" to those law abiding people who are "good guys" until they're not you have to concede that ALL people are not criminals until they are criminals and just like you want to treat gun owners as criminals before they have committed a crime in order to be consistent you would have to treat everyone as a criminal because they might maybe someday in the near or distant future commit a crime.

There are plenty of individuals who will happily sell their gun to any Tom Dick and Harry. Without any requirement for a background check, or any kind of check, no records kept of any kind, and the only requirement for an individual seller is to make sure they have the money, there is nothing about owning a gun that magically makes the owner care about who they sell to. Gun owners are no more ethical than golfers, bowlers, or any other group. Some gun owners are more inclined to commit a crime just because they own a gun. Those thugs and gang members mentioned before are a good example of that. Reasonable regulations to keep guns out of the hands of unethical people are not treating anyone like a criminal.

Sorry. The only thing we have to do is arrest the criminal who buys the gun. They already know they can't buy, own or carry the gun......the actual solution is to put them in jail for 30 years...you guys won't do that. If you have an actual gun trafficker...we already catch them using old fashioned police work.......snitches.

The problem isn't catching the criminals, the problem is keeping them locked up.....and you guys focusing on law abiding gun owners does nothing to stop gun crime.

Actual criminals don't buy their guns from strangers...they buy them from friends and family and from known sources...so you can register guns...and it will do nothing......you can have universal background checks...and they will do nothing.....you don't care....you just want to punish law abiding gun owners.

You don't know he has the gun until after he is caught for a crime. That is a pretty suckey plan.

 

[2aguy]

The standard is a felony conviction.
I don't see a misdemeanor disturbing the peace charge as sufficient enough for denying a person a firearm.

And now you fall back to the flawed default position that gun owners are just criminals in waiting so we should treat them like they have already been tried and convicted of a gun crime.

If that's your default position on gun holders are you consistent with other crimes as well?

Shouldn't all men be considered rapists in waiting and be put on a state and federal registration because all rapists were "good guys" until they raped a woman ?

Can you not see how utterly ridiculous this position is?

OK, so there is a convicted felon who should never be anywhere near a gun. He's a felon, so you know he will lie if he has to, but to get a gun he doesn't have to. An individual seller has no legal obligation to even know the name of the purchaser he sells to. No background check, no records to file, no records to keep. All he needs to care about is if the buyer has the money. There you go. The felon just bought a gun, and there was nothing legal to stop him other than the fact that they told him he couldn't have a gun. I suspect lots of felons won't worry about what they were told if there is nothing else to interfere with them purchasing a gun. I never said all gun owners were criminals in waiting, but lots of them are. Do you think those thugs/gang members/ Good guys with guns will hesitate to use their legally bought guns to commit a crime, especially since there is no record of them ever buying the gun from an individual seller.
Your silly mark about rape doesn't apply.
When you sell a thug, with a rap sheet as long as your arm, a gun with no record of that sale, it's reasonably expected that that thug will eventually use that unregistered, unknown gun in a crime.

As I said in many if not most states it is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon.

And I don't know how many gun owners you think will just sell a gun to any Tom Dick or Harry.

It seems to me most illegal purchases are straw purchases where a family member or friend buys a gun for a person who can't. And the person who made that purchase committed a crime.

It's not my responsibility if our legal system doesn't enforce the law regarding straw purchases.

NRA-ILA | Study: Criminals Don’t Get Guns From Legal Sources

Cook and colleagues also found that criminals do not often buy guns on the used market, as they have a fear of buying a gun from a source they do not know. Fear of police stings, or from being turned in by law-abiding gun owners leads them to obtain guns from sources they trust, most often, family, fellow gang members, and other criminals. They also found that criminals do not hold guns for a long period, fearing that a gun could be traced to a specific crime.

You're the one who made the statement that legal gun owners are good guys until they decide not to be aren't you?

You are assuming that a person is more likely to commit a crime simply because he happens to own firearms

So if you apply that "logic" to those law abiding people who are "good guys" until they're not you have to concede that ALL people are not criminals until they are criminals and just like you want to treat gun owners as criminals before they have committed a crime in order to be consistent you would have to treat everyone as a criminal because they might maybe someday in the near or distant future commit a crime.

There are plenty of individuals who will happily sell their gun to any Tom Dick and Harry. Without any requirement for a background check, or any kind of check, no records kept of any kind, and the only requirement for an individual seller is to make sure they have the money, there is nothing about owning a gun that magically makes the owner care about who they sell to. Gun owners are no more ethical than golfers, bowlers, or any other group. Some gun owners are more inclined to commit a crime just because they own a gun. Those thugs and gang members mentioned before are a good example of that. Reasonable regulations to keep guns out of the hands of unethical people are not treating anyone like a criminal.

Sorry. The only thing we have to do is arrest the criminal who buys the gun. They already know they can't buy, own or carry the gun......the actual solution is to put them in jail for 30 years...you guys won't do that. If you have an actual gun trafficker...we already catch them using old fashioned police work.......snitches.

The problem isn't catching the criminals, the problem is keeping them locked up.....and you guys focusing on law abiding gun owners does nothing to stop gun crime.

Actual criminals don't buy their guns from strangers...they buy them from friends and family and from known sources...so you can register guns...and it will do nothing......you can have universal background checks...and they will do nothing.....you don't care....you just want to punish law abiding gun owners.

You don't know he has the gun until after he is caught for a crime. That is a pretty suckey plan.

No...that is the only plan that actually works every time you try it.

I have detailed why all the other things you want do nothing.....

Everything else is simply security theater..meant to make guys like you feel good, but accomplishing nothing real. It is already a felony for a felon to merely have in their possession a gun...most of the time when they are caught with the gun they aren't committing any other crime other than possessing the gun...so you arrest them for having the gun, and put them away 30 years......that will get out into the criminal community, and only the stupid will have a gun near them outside of immediate criminal activity....that is how you stop gun crime.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The ownership and use of bombs is regulated....the ownership and use of cars are regulated...so you're saying there should be regulations on gun use and ownership?
Weeeelllllll...I dunno...it might work...

Ownership of guns is regulated.

Felons and those adjudicated to be mentally ill cannot legally purchase guns.

You want to hold law abiding gun owners responsible for the acts of criminals.

Isn't that the basis of most laws...the regulation of everyone - whether law abiding or not - to protect everyone from the acts of criminals?

"So everyone is subject to a search of their homes so as to maybe stop a criminal ?"


You seem to forget that gun ownership is a protected right.

And most laws merely spell out what are illegal activities and the punishments for for those who get apprehended for committing those acts.

It is already illegal for some people to buy guns.
It is already illegal to commit crimes with or without guns

There is your regulation.

"So everyone is subject to a search of their homes so as to maybe stop a criminal ?"
When did I say that?
You sure kicked that straw-man over...good work!

and I quote

Isn't that the basis of most laws...the regulation of everyone - whether law abiding or not - to protect everyone from the acts of criminals?

So if we want to protect everyone from the acts of criminals and it's OK to stomp on one protected right it must be OK to stomp on all protected rights no?

And laws do not protect people from the acts of criminals they merely state which activities are illegal and spell out the punishments if one is convicted of an illegal act.

We have thousands of gun laws stating what is legal and illegal regarding the purchase and use of firearms

 

[Skull Pilot]

If they haven't been convicted of a crime then by definition they are NOT criminals are they?

I don't know any person who belongs to the NRA that says convicted felons should be able to buy guns.

And in many if not most states it is already illegal for anyone, licensed dealer or private party, to knowingly sell a gun to anyone who is legally ineligible to buy a gun.

The laws on straw purchases are not enforced but that is not my fault so restricting me because our law enforcement fails to do its job is ludicrous.

Yes they are criminals. Lots of thugs with a rap sheet as long as your arm who have never been to prison. Lots of non felony crimes to be convicted of. They are criminals usually long before they are convicted of a felony, and can legally buy and even carry a gun in lots of states. The NRA and gun nuts consider all those thugs to be good guys with guns all the way up to that felony conviction that might not ever happen. How is an individual seller supposed to know who he is selling the gun to? There is no requirement for background checks or records of any kind. The seller isn't even required to ask the thug's name. On top of all that, unless the long time thug has had his first felony conviction, he is legal to buy all the guns he wants, anyway. There is no need for a straw purchase for any of the gang members and thugs to bother with a straw purchase unless they have had that first felony conviction. Excuse me. I should have called those gang members and thugs "Good Guys with a Gun" like the NRA and gun nuts do.

The standard is a felony conviction.
I don't see a misdemeanor disturbing the peace charge as sufficient enough for denying a person a firearm.

And now you fall back to the flawed default position that gun owners are just criminals in waiting so we should treat them like they have already been tried and convicted of a gun crime.

If that's your default position on gun holders are you consistent with other crimes as well?

Shouldn't all men be considered rapists in waiting and be put on a state and federal registration because all rapists were "good guys" until they raped a woman ?

Can you not see how utterly ridiculous this position is?

OK, so there is a convicted felon who should never be anywhere near a gun. He's a felon, so you know he will lie if he has to, but to get a gun he doesn't have to. An individual seller has no legal obligation to even know the name of the purchaser he sells to. No background check, no records to file, no records to keep. All he needs to care about is if the buyer has the money. There you go. The felon just bought a gun, and there was nothing legal to stop him other than the fact that they told him he couldn't have a gun. I suspect lots of felons won't worry about what they were told if there is nothing else to interfere with them purchasing a gun. I never said all gun owners were criminals in waiting, but lots of them are. Do you think those thugs/gang members/ Good guys with guns will hesitate to use their legally bought guns to commit a crime, especially since there is no record of them ever buying the gun from an individual seller.
Your silly mark about rape doesn't apply.
When you sell a thug, with a rap sheet as long as your arm, a gun with no record of that sale, it's reasonably expected that that thug will eventually use that unregistered, unknown gun in a crime.

As I said in many if not most states it is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon.

And I don't know how many gun owners you think will just sell a gun to any Tom Dick or Harry.

It seems to me most illegal purchases are straw purchases where a family member or friend buys a gun for a person who can't. And the person who made that purchase committed a crime.

It's not my responsibility if our legal system doesn't enforce the law regarding straw purchases.

NRA-ILA | Study: Criminals Don’t Get Guns From Legal Sources

Cook and colleagues also found that criminals do not often buy guns on the used market, as they have a fear of buying a gun from a source they do not know. Fear of police stings, or from being turned in by law-abiding gun owners leads them to obtain guns from sources they trust, most often, family, fellow gang members, and other criminals. They also found that criminals do not hold guns for a long period, fearing that a gun could be traced to a specific crime.

You're the one who made the statement that legal gun owners are good guys until they decide not to be aren't you?

You are assuming that a person is more likely to commit a crime simply because he happens to own firearms

So if you apply that "logic" to those law abiding people who are "good guys" until they're not you have to concede that ALL people are not criminals until they are criminals and just like you want to treat gun owners as criminals before they have committed a crime in order to be consistent you would have to treat everyone as a criminal because they might maybe someday in the near or distant future commit a crime.

There are plenty of individuals who will happily sell their gun to any Tom Dick and Harry. Without any requirement for a background check, or any kind of check, no records kept of any kind, and the only requirement for an individual seller is to make sure they have the money, there is nothing about owning a gun that magically makes the owner care about who they sell to. Gun owners are no more ethical than golfers, bowlers, or any other group. Some gun owners are more inclined to commit a crime just because they own a gun. Those thugs and gang members mentioned before are a good example of that. Reasonable regulations to keep guns out of the hands of unethical people are not treating anyone like a criminal.

Even if I just provided a link to a study that says the main source of criminal weapons are family and friends of the criminal you still want to say that since some people sell guns to criminals that all gun owners are responsible.

OK so now you want "unethical" people to be barred from owning weapons.

FYI being unethical isn't a crime

And we already have plenty of reasonable gun control and some that is downright unreasonable

 

[2aguy]

Yes they are criminals. Lots of thugs with a rap sheet as long as your arm who have never been to prison. Lots of non felony crimes to be convicted of. They are criminals usually long before they are convicted of a felony, and can legally buy and even carry a gun in lots of states. The NRA and gun nuts consider all those thugs to be good guys with guns all the way up to that felony conviction that might not ever happen. How is an individual seller supposed to know who he is selling the gun to? There is no requirement for background checks or records of any kind. The seller isn't even required to ask the thug's name. On top of all that, unless the long time thug has had his first felony conviction, he is legal to buy all the guns he wants, anyway. There is no need for a straw purchase for any of the gang members and thugs to bother with a straw purchase unless they have had that first felony conviction. Excuse me. I should have called those gang members and thugs "Good Guys with a Gun" like the NRA and gun nuts do.

The standard is a felony conviction.
I don't see a misdemeanor disturbing the peace charge as sufficient enough for denying a person a firearm.

And now you fall back to the flawed default position that gun owners are just criminals in waiting so we should treat them like they have already been tried and convicted of a gun crime.

If that's your default position on gun holders are you consistent with other crimes as well?

Shouldn't all men be considered rapists in waiting and be put on a state and federal registration because all rapists were "good guys" until they raped a woman ?

Can you not see how utterly ridiculous this position is?

OK, so there is a convicted felon who should never be anywhere near a gun. He's a felon, so you know he will lie if he has to, but to get a gun he doesn't have to. An individual seller has no legal obligation to even know the name of the purchaser he sells to. No background check, no records to file, no records to keep. All he needs to care about is if the buyer has the money. There you go. The felon just bought a gun, and there was nothing legal to stop him other than the fact that they told him he couldn't have a gun. I suspect lots of felons won't worry about what they were told if there is nothing else to interfere with them purchasing a gun. I never said all gun owners were criminals in waiting, but lots of them are. Do you think those thugs/gang members/ Good guys with guns will hesitate to use their legally bought guns to commit a crime, especially since there is no record of them ever buying the gun from an individual seller.
Your silly mark about rape doesn't apply.
When you sell a thug, with a rap sheet as long as your arm, a gun with no record of that sale, it's reasonably expected that that thug will eventually use that unregistered, unknown gun in a crime.

As I said in many if not most states it is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon.

And I don't know how many gun owners you think will just sell a gun to any Tom Dick or Harry.

It seems to me most illegal purchases are straw purchases where a family member or friend buys a gun for a person who can't. And the person who made that purchase committed a crime.

It's not my responsibility if our legal system doesn't enforce the law regarding straw purchases.

NRA-ILA | Study: Criminals Don’t Get Guns From Legal Sources

Cook and colleagues also found that criminals do not often buy guns on the used market, as they have a fear of buying a gun from a source they do not know. Fear of police stings, or from being turned in by law-abiding gun owners leads them to obtain guns from sources they trust, most often, family, fellow gang members, and other criminals. They also found that criminals do not hold guns for a long period, fearing that a gun could be traced to a specific crime.

You're the one who made the statement that legal gun owners are good guys until they decide not to be aren't you?

You are assuming that a person is more likely to commit a crime simply because he happens to own firearms

So if you apply that "logic" to those law abiding people who are "good guys" until they're not you have to concede that ALL people are not criminals until they are criminals and just like you want to treat gun owners as criminals before they have committed a crime in order to be consistent you would have to treat everyone as a criminal because they might maybe someday in the near or distant future commit a crime.

There are plenty of individuals who will happily sell their gun to any Tom Dick and Harry. Without any requirement for a background check, or any kind of check, no records kept of any kind, and the only requirement for an individual seller is to make sure they have the money, there is nothing about owning a gun that magically makes the owner care about who they sell to. Gun owners are no more ethical than golfers, bowlers, or any other group. Some gun owners are more inclined to commit a crime just because they own a gun. Those thugs and gang members mentioned before are a good example of that. Reasonable regulations to keep guns out of the hands of unethical people are not treating anyone like a criminal.

Even if I just provided a link to a study that says the main source of criminal weapons are family and friends of the criminal you still want to say that since some people sell guns to criminals that all gun owners are responsible.

OK so now you want "unethical" people to be barred from owning weapons.

FYI being unethical isn't a crime

And we already have plenty of reasonable gun control and some that is downright unreasonable

Here...for when Harmonica posts his city stats again...Baltimore has every single gun law they want....rifle bans, magazine limits, gun registration, fingerprinting owners, background checks, universal background checks.......I put the stats below...

They say that in this year, 2017...Baltimore is going to double New Yorks number.....it is a lack of police, the Ferguson effect and low sentences for gun offenders.......just like we keep telling them...it isn't normal, law abiding gun owners...these shooters can't buy, own or carry guns......yet the gun grabbers want to get Jane Q. citizens gun that she will use to stop her own rape....

2016:

Baltimore population ....614,000, gun murders 318
New York Population...8.6 million, gun murders 335


Baltimore population....614,000

Baltimore population falls, nearing a 100-year low, U.S. Census says

The figures put Baltimore at about 614,664 people, down more than 1 percent.
New York..... 8,600,000
Population Of New York City 2017
Gun murder in Baltimore 2016...
The total of 318 killings by year's end made 2016 the second-deadliest year per capita on record,
Gun murders in New york....

NYC saw historically low number of shootings in 2016

Murders were also down in 2016, to 335 homicides