2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,973
- 52,245
- 2,290
Yep...the democrat party has always been a party of racists,
Do Democrats want to disarm minorities? | Fox News
In June, ABCās Jon Karl asked Murphy a simple question about his legislative proposal for background checks on private transfers of guns: āSo why -- why are we focusing on things that have nothing to do with the massacres we're responding to?ā Murphy couldnāt point to a single mass public shooting that would have been stopped by his bill. Indeed, I checked back to 2000 and also could not find a single such shooting.
-----
But it is worse than that. In my new book, āThe War on Guns,ā I show that the European Unionās 28 member nations already have these background checks on private transfers. Yet, they suffered a 50 percent higher casualty from mass public shootings than did the U.S. From 2000 to 2015, the U.S. states with these background checks also experienced higher frequencies of mass public shootings. They also had more injuries and deaths from these attacks.
------
But there wasnāt really any failure to prosecute. The vast majority of these denials were not real cases. Sharing a name and birthdate with a felon isnāt the same thing as actually being a felon.
Certain racial groups will encounter this problem more often than others. With some 40 percent of Vietnamese people bearing the name Nguyen, the problem of duplicate names is very likely to exist among people with this national heritage. Hispanics are more likely to share names with other Hispanics, and the same is true of blacks.
Also, because 30% of black males are forbidden from buying guns because of their criminal records, law-abiding black males are especially likely to have their names confused with those of prohibited people.
For many of these 2.4 million people, a mistaken denial might be a mere inconvenience. But some people really do have an urgent need to protect themselves from stalkers or enemies.
----------
The Obama administration hasn't done anything to fix this system. Indeed, it has pulled everyone off of checking for mistakes. It is difficult to appeal denials without the help of a lawyer, and few poor minorities can afford to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Gun buyers and sellers are stuck with all of the fees for universal background checks. In New York City and D.C., these fees are at least $125. In Washington state and Oregon, the costs of transferring a gun are about $60 and $55, respectively.
But background checks are supposed to benefit everyone, so why not pay for them out of general revenue? It isnāt as if gang members are the ones paying the fees. These are law-abiding citizens who may really need a gun for protection. Some of them are poor people living in high-crime urban areas. Often, the most likely victims of violent crime can least afford these costs.
Paying for these background checks out of general government revenue would not only be fair, it would go a long way toward putting opponentsā minds at ease. This should be an easy fix, but gun control advocates seem to be hell-bent on increasing the costs of owning a gun. They're the ones who are unwilling to compromise on this issue.
Do Democrats want to disarm minorities? | Fox News
In June, ABCās Jon Karl asked Murphy a simple question about his legislative proposal for background checks on private transfers of guns: āSo why -- why are we focusing on things that have nothing to do with the massacres we're responding to?ā Murphy couldnāt point to a single mass public shooting that would have been stopped by his bill. Indeed, I checked back to 2000 and also could not find a single such shooting.
-----
But it is worse than that. In my new book, āThe War on Guns,ā I show that the European Unionās 28 member nations already have these background checks on private transfers. Yet, they suffered a 50 percent higher casualty from mass public shootings than did the U.S. From 2000 to 2015, the U.S. states with these background checks also experienced higher frequencies of mass public shootings. They also had more injuries and deaths from these attacks.
------
But there wasnāt really any failure to prosecute. The vast majority of these denials were not real cases. Sharing a name and birthdate with a felon isnāt the same thing as actually being a felon.
Certain racial groups will encounter this problem more often than others. With some 40 percent of Vietnamese people bearing the name Nguyen, the problem of duplicate names is very likely to exist among people with this national heritage. Hispanics are more likely to share names with other Hispanics, and the same is true of blacks.
Also, because 30% of black males are forbidden from buying guns because of their criminal records, law-abiding black males are especially likely to have their names confused with those of prohibited people.
For many of these 2.4 million people, a mistaken denial might be a mere inconvenience. But some people really do have an urgent need to protect themselves from stalkers or enemies.
----------
The Obama administration hasn't done anything to fix this system. Indeed, it has pulled everyone off of checking for mistakes. It is difficult to appeal denials without the help of a lawyer, and few poor minorities can afford to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Gun buyers and sellers are stuck with all of the fees for universal background checks. In New York City and D.C., these fees are at least $125. In Washington state and Oregon, the costs of transferring a gun are about $60 and $55, respectively.
But background checks are supposed to benefit everyone, so why not pay for them out of general revenue? It isnāt as if gang members are the ones paying the fees. These are law-abiding citizens who may really need a gun for protection. Some of them are poor people living in high-crime urban areas. Often, the most likely victims of violent crime can least afford these costs.
Paying for these background checks out of general government revenue would not only be fair, it would go a long way toward putting opponentsā minds at ease. This should be an easy fix, but gun control advocates seem to be hell-bent on increasing the costs of owning a gun. They're the ones who are unwilling to compromise on this issue.
