Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[2aguy]

Clearly Americans shoot one another in astounding numbers, and something should be done while some are still alive. In my view, the obvious move is to make the NRA co-defendant in any gun-murder trial, as it is so obviously an accessory.

No...Americans are not shooting each other....criminals are.....and the NRA does not arm criminals.....wrong as wrong can be...

 

[2aguy]

Why am I responsible for someone else's actions whn I had no idea that's what he would do?
WHen you sell a car to someone are you responsible if they get into an accident with it?
Joe is the biggest dumbshit on this site

If I gave my car to someone knowing he was drunk, and he runs over a bunch of nuns and orphans with it, you are darned right someone is going to look at my level of liability.

The thing was, we used to hold gun sellers responsible for their actions. When the DC Snipers were found to have gotten their guns illegally (one being a minor, the other being a convicted felon), a court found the gun shop and the gun manufacturers liable.

And the gun industry ran right to congress and whined until they got civil immunity most merchants wouldn't dream of having.

Of course, the gun industry NEEDS mayhem. It needs for the occassional asshole to go out there and mow down a bunch of preschoolers. Because then all the rest of you will want guns, too, on the delusion they keep you safe.

When the DC Snipers were found to have gotten their guns illegally (one being a minor, the other being a convicted felon), a court found the gun shop and the gun manufacturers liable.

yeah...links and the key word here would be "illegally"....did the gun store fail to do a background check....and how did they find the gun manufacturer liable...link please....

 

[2aguy]

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

If someone has a criminal history, or a significant mental issue history, or a restraining order on them, would you like to know that when they're purchasing a gun?
.

Sorry to poke in here. Actually none of that is any of my business. If they have omitted a crime and gone to jail, they've paid for their crime and it's none of my business. Mental issues are between them and their doctor. Restraining orders are again none of my business. Even if a BC is conducted, none of that should be revealed to me if I'm the seller. A simple yes or no is all I should get.

Poking in is welcome!

This to me falls under the category of the government protecting its citizens. To me, violent criminals, mentally unstable individuals and those who represent enough of a danger to someone to be on the wrong side of a restraining order are a class of citizen who would qualify for greater scrutiny when purchasing a deadly weapon. So we'll disagree there, but I understand your point.

Let me ask you this - is there a level of compromise on the background check issue that you would consider? Examples might be waiting periods or specific personal history issues.
.

We already have federal background checks...right now......they are fine....you could make them faster, and make sure they do not keep a record.....

 

[80zephyr]

I don't know how many rounds I'll ever need, I might have to fight a tyranical government someday so no, you can't regulated magazine (not clip) size.

You see, that's the problem with gun grabbers, they are highly uneducated but feel they are experts on the subject and refuse to deal with the real problem. The moral decay they promote.

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

I hear that often, and it's pretty silly.

1) Total number of gun owners in the US = in excess of 100,000,000. Total number of military personnel continental US = about 2,300,000 give or take.

Now assuming that just half the gun owners refused to comply - a conservative estimate - they would still vastly outnumber the total military personnel available. Many if not most would have some form of military or combat arms training.

2) Aside from political appointees and the rare Democrat COs, who precisely do you think would enforce such nonsense? At least 3/4 of current military are pro-gun, and would more likely stand down, or join their friends and families on the firing line.

3) In any case, it is highly unlikely the military would sanction wanton destruction to enforce such an unconstitutional ruling.

4) You people really haven't learned a thing about the nature of insurrectionist warfare from the ME, have you.

I don't think there are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US.

There are, apparently, 1/3 of households which have guns. There could be 5 people in a household and only one of these people being an actual gun owner.

There are probably 100,000,000 guns in the US in private hands, but many people having multiple guns.

Funny, I just read an article today that women are buying guns...in droves. Methinks gun ownership is growing, not shrinking, a direct or the path the US is following.

Mark

 

[2aguy]

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

If someone has a criminal history, or a significant mental issue history, or a restraining order on them, would you like to know that when they're purchasing a gun?
.

Do this is a way that doesn't allow the anti gun extremists to exploit it to use against normal gun owners.....

Stripping people of their right to own a gun because they have insomnia is a no go...........and what if the abuser puts a restraining order on his victim........so that the woman is disarmed?

 

[2aguy]

The point is to form a registry. Just like California did.... And now they are putting the list to use to confiscate weapons.

I looked that up -- not sure if this is what you're referring to, but I found a California law is confiscating guns for these reasons: State Approves Funds For Confiscating Illegal Guns From Homes

Lynda Gledhill, spokesperson for the California DOJ, said that of the individuals deemed unfit to own guns, about 30 percent have a criminal record, 30 percent are mentally ill, 20 percent have a restraining order out on them and a small percentage have a warrant out for their arrest.

So there are specific people who they're going after.
.

The criminal record and arrest warrants already are listed on the federal background check currently done. How do you define mentally Ill? Sleep loss.....going to a grief counselor......?

And the restraining order.....how many are real, and how many are just part of the divorce process? And what if the serial abuser puts a restraining order on the victim..to disarm them?

 

[80zephyr]

However, it wasn't Obama that did the selling, it was the fear mongers who did that.

Who are the fear mongers that everyone listened to?

That I can't answer. Who are the fear mongers who say all Arabic looking people are evil terrorists? That I don't know either, I do know they're out there though.

Nope. Those are words that the left SAY we use. We do no such thing.

Mark

 

[2aguy]

Is the TSA no flight list accurate ? No
Next.

Have there been any more hijackings since 9-11? Nope.

Accurate enough.

No...because the muslim terrorists know that the victims won't be passive now......they had another play book on 9/11 and now that has changed..anyone trying to take over the plane will get attacked...

Oh.....and they gave pilots guns......and put other guys with guns on the planes...Air Marshals...you know...with guns.....

 

[80zephyr]

You Liberals are worried about guns? Seriously?

Fetuses aren't people.

View attachment 58776

Actually that's a load of rubbish. Something like 3/4 of all pregnancies end without a baby being born.

New study establishes when pregnancy starts

"Conceivably -- no pun intended – as a natural protective mechanism, the uterus tends to reject fertilized eggs that take too long to adhere to the lining because they may be less fit, the researchers say. On day 11, more than 50 percent of pregnancies fail and on day 12, that number jumps to over 80 percent."

The body isn't "pro-life", the body actually rejects a lot of pregnancies before the woman even knows she's pregnant.

Thats quite a stretch of logic. So, by extension, I can now murder someone because he may have been rejected by his mother during pregnancy anyway.

But, since he wasn't, I can simply become the middle man to make it happen.

That the way you see it?

Mark

 

[2aguy]

Clearly Americans shoot one another in astounding numbers, and something should be done while some are still alive. In my view, the obvious move is to make the NRA co-defendant in any gun-murder trial, as it is so obviously an accessory.

What do you consider "astonishing numbers"? And how do you justify making any group not associated with the crime a co-defendant?

Yes, I had difficulty with "Clearly..... astonishing numbers," until I realized that everyone that dissociates themselves from "Americans" either is Scandinavian, or wishes the USA was Finland.

According to the FBI (could there be a better source?) there were about 13,000 murders in the USA during 2010. This was slightly lower than murders during each of the previous 4 years. Only half of these murders were committed with handguns. About 25% were committed with other firearms. The remaining 25% were committed with mostly "knives or cutting instruments." Also, according to the 2010 Census, there were 308,758,105 people living in the USA during 2010

So, to answer your question: about 8,000 murders by gunshot, out of a population of 300,000,000 many of whom own guns is, Clearly Astonishing to iolo and others who seek "to make the NRA co defendant in any gun-murder trial."

According to the FBI (could there be a better source?) there were about 13,000 murders in the USA during 2010. This was slightly lower than murders during each of the previous 4 years. Only half of these murders were committed with handguns. About 25% were committed with other firearms. The remaining 25% were committed with mostly "knives or cutting instruments." Also, according to the 2010 Census, there were 308,758,105 people living in the USA during 2010

And according to the FBI, table 8 where you got the 2010 number, in 2014 the number was 8,124.....that means that as more Americans buy, own and carry guns.....our gun murder rate went down, not up...

And of those 8,124 gun murders, the majority are criminals murdering other criminals, not normal gun owners....

And according to bill clinton, Americans use guns to stop violent crime 1.5 million times a year...and this research was backed up by President Obama's CDC in 2013.....

 

[2aguy]

Opposed to the delusion that the government will keep us safe. Never has: Never will.

Yeah, because not letting any asshole get a gun never works.

Except for the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, Australia, Canada...

Where they have gun control and oddly, NOWHERE NEAR the homicide rates we have.

there criminals get guns whenever they want them...they just don't murder each other as often as American Criminals do.....

And the British police are getting more guns, and the Australian gun crime rate is going up........especially as they import more violent criminals....

 

[MaryL]

Why do pro gun people shut down their cerebrum on this ? The Constitution WAS written during an era of primitive gun technology, the same way freedom of speech was written in an era of printing press and not the internet, So we get terrorism on the dark net buying guns legally and creating suicide cells, I somehow don't think Jefferson and Co, would have approved ANY of that as an extension of "freedom".

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

Who 's sacrificing ...A gun is a piece of metal, And I will be DAMNED if I NEED a gun just to live in this country, don't you people get it?

 

[2aguy]

In order to enforce a background check on private sellers the Government would need to register all firearms. Without registration there is no legal way the Government can prove a private citizen sold their firearm to anyone else without a background check. Making the law unenforceable. Registration is nothing more than a means for the Government to seize weapons at their convenience.

and that would be a bad thing, why?

If you guys are arguing that you can't own your penis surrogates....oh, sorry, Constituationally mandated rights without having to tolerate 33,000 deaths, 70,000 injuries and 1.5 million gun crimes a year, because you refuse to take the actions to keep those things from happening, then I really have no problem giving up the "right".

You don't need a gun, you want a gun.

Suicides are 21,000 of those 30,000 so they don't count...since 19,970 Americans committed suicide without guns and Japan, South Korea and China all have absolute gun control and higher suicide rates than us.........

And 1.5 million crimes a year are stopped by Americans with guns

357,000,000 million guns in private hands....

505 accidental gun deaths in 2013.

8,124 gun murders.....of criminals murdering other criminals......

 

[2aguy]

Why do pro gun people shut down their cerebrum on this ? The Constitution WAS written during an era of primitive gun technology, the same way freedom of speech was written in an era of printing press and not the internet, So we get terrorism on the dark net buying guns legally and creating suicide cells, I somehow don't think Jefferson and Co, would have approved ANY of that as an extension of "freedom".

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

Who 's sacrificing ...A gun is a piece of metal, And I will be DAMNED if I NEED a gun just to live in this country, don't you people get it?

Oh...we get it......go and do your thing...just leave us alone to do ours....

 

[2aguy]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

Why don't you tell us? You raised the point, so within the 18 clauses of Article I, Section 8 can we find one or more of those enumerated powers authorizing Congress to mandate background checks?

I don't see any power that would allow congress to mandate background checks for all sales.

Interstate commerce. It's a weak argument but they will argue that commerce within the state affects commerce between states. They will cite Wickard v Fillbern as proof.

Lots of people are "crazy" and never shoot up anything. You, for example.

Okay, you see, there's a difference between "Crazy" and "saying stuff you don't like".

I'm sorry I have to explain this to you.

But let's look at that.

For the job I started last year, the company did-

1) A complete background check.
2) A credit check
3) Checked where I went to school
4) Asked several co-workers about me (even though they had two of my former co-workers already working for them, which is how I heard about the job.)

In short, before they let me issue a single purchase order on their behalf, they thoroughly checked me out.

Seems to me we should probably do the same before we let people have guns.

If they had done a background check on James "Joker" Holmes, they'd have found his university was in the process of expelling him.

Had they done a background check on Dylan Roof, they'd have found he had been arrested for drugs and was under a restraining order for stalking a girl.

Had they done a background check on Seung-Hui Cho (The Virginia Tech Shooter) they'd have found a history of anti-social, violent behavior dating back to junior high school.

Getting expelled from school is not a reason to fail the federal background check, twit.

Dylan Roof went through a background check and both the Feds and the state law enforcement screwed up.......

And there is no way Cho's background would have shown up on a background check......

 

[The Rabbi]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

Why don't you tell us? You raised the point, so within the 18 clauses of Article I, Section 8 can we find one or more of those enumerated powers authorizing Congress to mandate background checks?

I don't see any power that would allow congress to mandate background checks for all sales.

Interstate commerce. It's a weak argument but they will argue that commerce within the state affects commerce between states. They will cite Wickard v Fillbern as proof.

Lots of people are "crazy" and never shoot up anything. You, for example.

Okay, you see, there's a difference between "Crazy" and "saying stuff you don't like".

I'm sorry I have to explain this to you.

But let's look at that.

For the job I started last year, the company did-

1) A complete background check.
2) A credit check
3) Checked where I went to school
4) Asked several co-workers about me (even though they had two of my former co-workers already working for them, which is how I heard about the job.)

In short, before they let me issue a single purchase order on their behalf, they thoroughly checked me out.

Seems to me we should probably do the same before we let people have guns.

If they had done a background check on James "Joker" Holmes, they'd have found his university was in the process of expelling him.

Had they done a background check on Dylan Roof, they'd have found he had been arrested for drugs and was under a restraining order for stalking a girl.

Had they done a background check on Seung-Hui Cho (The Virginia Tech Shooter) they'd have found a history of anti-social, violent behavior dating back to junior high school.

Getting expelled from school is not a reason to fail the federal background check, twit.

Dylan Roof went through a background check and both the Feds and the state law enforcement screwed up.......

And there is no way Cho's background would have shown up on a background check......

Cho was actually prohibited. But privacy laws passed by Democrats guaranteed the information could not be accessed.

 

[Centinel]

Who 's sacrificing ...A gun is a piece of metal, And I will be DAMNED if I NEED a gun just to live in this country, don't you people get it?

You're perfectly free not to own a gun. Lots of people don't own guns.

I was under the impression that you supported federal gun control legislation. If this is correct, you still haven't outlined what sort of legislation you want, so I can't comment on it.

 

[2aguy]

Opposed to the delusion that the government will keep us safe. Never has: Never will.

Yeah, because not letting any asshole get a gun never works.

Except for the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, Australia, Canada...

Where they have gun control and oddly, NOWHERE NEAR the homicide rates we have.

You mean Japan.....when they had the gang wars in the 80s, 90s and 2006 and are now gearing up for another one.......

Gangs buying up guns and hitmen.....2015

Yakuza rivals buying up guns, recruiting assassins - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun

By proposing high pay, the recruiters are trying to encourage the gang warfare by hinting that those who carry out the first hits will be paid more,” the source said.

A former high-ranking gang member living in the Kanto region said he began receiving calls asking about the availability of loaded guns from around late August, when the Yamaguchi-gumi split came to light.

The calls, eight in total, to the former gangster’s mobile phone continued into September.

Without saying who made the calls, the former gangster said the requests likely came from both sides involved in the Yamaguchi-gumi breakup.

The large number of intermediaries involved in supplying guns made it difficult to pinpoint who was actually going on the shopping spree, the former mobster said.


-----------------
By Benjamin David Baker
November 20, 2015

Japan Faces a Possible Mob War After Yakuza Gang Fractures

However, few things are more dangerous than when mob families go to war.

This fear seems to have been vindicated. According to the Asahi Shimbun, both the Yamaguchi-gumi and the thirteen splinter groups have been busy buying up weapons and lining up hitmen.

The first shots in this mob war might have already been fired outside a hot spring facility in Iida, Nagano Prefecture.

The 43-year-old man who was shot and killed outside a bathhouse on October 6 wanted to leave a Yamaguchi-gumi affiliate and join the newly formed rival organization consisting of the rebel gangs.

In what might be retaliation for this murder, a boss in the original Yamaguchi-gumi was killed on Sunday. Tatsuyuki Hishida was found tied up in his apartment after being bludgeoned to death. Police report that the killing was most likely in response to the Yamaguchi-gumi’s split.

The Japanese government has good reason to fear a gang war.

Between 1985 and 1987, 25 Yakuza members were killedand around 70 were injured in a feud involving affiliated rival gangs. That bloodshed was triggered in part over disagreement over who should become the head of the Yamaguchi-gumi. A few years ago, another war broke out between two rival gangs on the southern island of Kyushu, in which mobsters attacked each other with machine guns and grenades.






-------------
The Great Japanese Gang Wars

The season for pineapples (yakuza slang for hand grenades) may finally be over. Jake Adelstein and Nathalie-Kyoko Stucky on the bloody, seven-year battle between the Dojin-kai and the Seido-kai.


In Southern Japan, the brutal pineapple season may finally be over; pineapple is yakuza slang for “hand grenade”—one of the many weapons utilized in a seven-year gang war between the Dojin-kai (1,000 members) and the splinter group the Kyushu Seido-kei (500 members).

It’s a gang war in which there have been over 45 violent incidents, including bombings, shots exchanged during high-speed car chases, and 14 deaths. At least seven deaths, including one civilian's, were from gunfire; a phenomenally high figure when you consider the number of gun deaths for all of Japan in 2011 was eight people. (Japan has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the world.)

On June 11, senior members of the Dojin-kai and the Kyushu Seido-kai (a.k.a. Seido-kai) visited the Fukuoka Police Kurume Police Station with an official announcement that they were ending the conflict. TheSeido-kai brought a virtual white flag, a notification of their dissolution (解散届け), in which they wrote, “For a long time we have made everyone ill at ease, disturbed people, and been a nuisance to society. We have decided our breakup is the only way to restore peace.” The Dojin-kai in turn proclaimed, “Since the Seido-kai is dissolved, this situation is over and we apologize to people and the authorities for the anxiety we have caused.”
--------------------

Handouts for Hand Grenades: Yakuza Gang War Leads to an Explosive Bounty

TOKYO -- Japan’s Fukuoka Prefecture Police have become the first in Japan to offer cash rewards to anyone who reports finding a hand grenade (or "pineapples" in yakuza slang) starting today, April 2.

A long-running gang war in the prefecture has raised public fear in the area, and the handy hand-grenade has increasingly become the weapon of choice amongst rival gang members. As Japan has put into place increasingly harsher laws regulating the actions of the Japanese mafia, aka the yakuza, forcing many out of business--the remaining thugs are fighting viciously over what's left of the pie

When gang members aren't lobbing grenades or shooting at each other, they are shooting at the offices of companies trying to cut organized crime Last year, on Nov. 26, Toshihiro Uchino, the 72-year-old president of Hakushin Construction --which was trying to cut ties to local gangs---was shot to death outside his home in Kitakyushu.


The most violent of the groups and considered the primary user of hand grenades is the Kyushu Seidokai. The Kyushu Seidokai has expanded into Tokyo, setting up several front companies, and joined forces with Tadamasa Goto, a former Yamaguchi-gumi boss turned Buddhist priest, who has now re-emerged as a powerful player in Japan's underworld. Tokyo Police are also worried that "pineapples" may be thrown around the metropolis in the near future. "A coalition between Goto and the Kyushu Seido-kai doesn't bode well for the public safety," said a detective who works organized crime. "We’re not excited about the possibility of yakuza lobbing grenades into Tokyo offices and homes."
--------

Japan braces for violence among 'yakuza' crime gangs

TOKYO — Japan is bracing for war.

Not with other countries, but with the nation's notorious gangsters.

A 43-year-old man was gunned down in the parking lot of a hot springs resort in western Japan earlier this month in what authorities say they fear could be the start of a deadly war among the nation's largest organized crime gangs, known collectively as the yakuza.

The powerful Yamaguchi-gumi crime syndicate, which marked its 100th anniversary this year, split into two rival groups in September. Police arrested a member of the Yamaguchi-gumi in the hot springs shooting and identified the victim as a member of the breakaway group.

Analysts said the rupture was due to long-running disputes over succession plans and high fees that member groups were required to pay Yamaguchi-gumi leaders.
-------
A dispute over the gang’s leadership in the early 1980s led to a two-year war that left an estimated 30 gangsters dead, 70 others wounded and more than 500 in police custody. However, there are no statistics on the number of civilians killed or injured in the violence.

 

[80zephyr]

Unfortunately the law doesnt work like that. See Wickard v Fillburn.

Wickard v. Filburn would have been a correct ruling if the commerce clause read, "Regulate any activity that might have some affect on commerce among the several states." But that's not what the constitution says. It says "regulate commerce among the several states." Growing corn to consume on one's farm is not commerce among the several states, nor is selling a firearm to a person in the same state.

I agree with you and you can scream that from today to next week. But the Supreme Court precedent is there and has never been overturned.

You are correct, but IMO the SCOTUS screwed up.

Mark

 

[2aguy]

Opposed to the delusion that the government will keep us safe. Never has: Never will.

Yeah, because not letting any asshole get a gun never works.

Except for the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, Australia, Canada...

Where they have gun control and oddly, NOWHERE NEAR the homicide rates we have.

Above I gave FBI sources murder rates in the USA, with a population of 300,000,000.

A. Of the countries you mentioned, Japan has the population closest to the USA at about 127 million. Not even 50%. Ethnically, they are homogeneous.
B. All have histories of incredible violence toward their neighbors, except for Aussies and Canadians.
C. Aussies and Canadians live in countries where there are very few people per land area.

Concluding that only the difference between the USA and another nation's gun laws is the ONLY reason that 8,000 gunshot inflicted murders of 300,000,000 mostly armed citizens is narrow-minded.

He knows the truth, I have posted about Japanese culture and why they have very little crime of any kind...

And Australia is starting to see more gun violence and illegal guns........after the confiscation...

the British are now giving guns to more of their police...

Canada is also seeing increased gun crime.....