Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[Slade3200]

I had to stop after I got to this part...

“The problem you don't want to see because you simply hate guns, and want them banned, is that the problem isn't that we don't have regulations on guns....I just showed you a few of the 20,000 local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to guns.....”

I own 11 guns and don’t want them banned. Know who you are talking to before you make false presumptions.

You point out all the regulations and say they are enough but then you say regulating guns is unconstitutional? Well which is it? Do you support the regulations we have in place on guns. Do some of the regulations make sense to you and do you see them as constitutionally legal?

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

black ground checks only work when all party's participating are doing their job. a guy gets discharged from the airforce but Airforce does not give reason guy goes and buys an AR and shoots up a church his ex-wife family attends and then gets taken down with a good guy with an AR.

Great, then let’s work on getting more people to do their job and make them more effective, right?!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

black ground checks only work when all party's participating are doing their job. a guy gets discharged from the airforce but Airforce does not give reason guy goes and buys an AR and shoots up a church his ex-wife family attends and then gets taken down with a good guy with an AR.

Great, then let’s work on getting more people to do their job and make them more effective, right?!

Works for me

 

[2aguy]

The public space is just that...public...we all have a Right to it but it can't be all at the same time...so we have to have some minor rules to deal with it.

Guns are not like that, I can carry my gun all day long and as long as I don't use it to commit a crime, you are not effected by it......

And just like the First Amendment....you can't be touched until you use it to violate the Rights of someone else....you can write anything you want, but if you commit libel, then you broke the law...up to that point...as the anti-gunners keep saying, you weren't a criminal till you broke that law..

What they and you want is to prevent people from writing, speaking and saying anything because you are afraid they will break the law with their speech.....that is what you are doing to the 2nd Amendment.

Others justify regulating the second amendment because they feel it helps safety and the general welfare of our citizens

We have those regulations......it is against the law...already, to use any gun to commit a crime......it is against the law to use a gun to threaten someone unlawfully....it is against the law for any felon to buy, own or carry any gun, at anytime.....if you do any of these things you can already be arrested

Those above cover everything we need to regulate guns. Anything else is simply your phobia about guns.

The problem you don't want to see because you simply hate guns, and want them banned, is that the problem isn't that we don't have regulations on guns....I just showed you a few of the 20,000 local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to guns.....

Our problem is that democrat politicians, judges and prosecutors keep letting out violent gun criminals after they have been arrested over and over again with illegal guns.....of the 10,982 gun murders committed in 2017 for example.....using the most recent mass public shooting number for 2018.....93 were killed by mass shooters........of the rest, the majority of those shooters were criminals shooting other criminals, most often when they were already on parole for other gun offenses......and often the first time offenders are 15,16, year old gang members using guns for crime....

So we don't have a gun problem, we don't have a gun regulation problem, we have a democrats letting known, repeat, violent gun offenders out of jail on bond, where they then shoot people, and out of prison on reduced sentences...often bargaining away the gun charge as if it is just inconsequential...

Japan has kept their criminals from using guns by having a life sentence for anyone who uses a gun in an actual crime......this is how you stop gun crime....not by targeting people who don't use their legal guns for crime...

But because you just want to attack guns.....you won't understand that actual criminals with guns are the issue....and if you make the actual punishment steep...like Japan does, then gun crime will go down, and you don't have to do anything else......

Now that I have explained the actual problem and the actual solution...you can proceed to ignore the actual problem, the actual solution and just tell us we need to ban guns...

http://www.atimes.com/article/japans-gun-control-laws-strict-yakuza-turn-toy-pistols/



Ryo Fujiwara, long-time writer on yakuza affairs and author of the book, The Three Yamaguchi-Gumi, says that the punishment for using a gun in a gang war or in a crime is now so heavy that most yakuza avoid their use at all – unless it is for an assassination.

“In a hit, whoever fires the gun, or is made to take responsibility for firing the gun, has to pretty much be willing to go to jail for the rest of their life. That’s a big decision. The repercussions are big, too. No one wants to claim responsibility for such acts – the gang office might actually get shut-down.”

The gang typically also has to support the family of the hit-man while he is in prison, which is also a financial burden for the organization.

Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Laws make it a crime to illegally possess a gun, with a punishment of jail time of up to 10 years.

Illegal possession more than one gun, the penalty goes up to 15 years in prison. If you own a gun and matching ammunition, that’s another charge and a heavier penalty. The most severe penalty is for the act of discharging a gun in a train, on a bus, or most public spaces, which can result in a life sentence.

---

A low-ranking member of the Kobe-Yamaguchi-gumi put it this way: “All of the smart guys got rid of their guns a long-time ago. The penalties are way too high. You get life in prison if you just fire a gun. That’s not fun.”

I had to stop after I got to this part...

“The problem you don't want to see because you simply hate guns, and want them banned, is that the problem isn't that we don't have regulations on guns....I just showed you a few of the 20,000 local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to guns.....”

I own 11 guns and don’t want them banned. Know who you are talking to before you make false presumptions.

You point out all the regulations and say they are enough but then you say regulating guns is unconstitutional? Well which is it? Do you support the regulations we have in place on guns. Do some of the regulations make sense to you and do you see them as constitutionally legal?

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

 

[2aguy]

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

black ground checks only work when all party's participating are doing their job. a guy gets discharged from the airforce but Airforce does not give reason guy goes and buys an AR and shoots up a church his ex-wife family attends and then gets taken down with a good guy with an AR.

Great, then let’s work on getting more people to do their job and make them more effective, right?!

Yep....... we already have a background check system........anti-gunners wanted it, and now they are back for more in the Universal Background Checks since the first background check system doesn't keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters......

Also....we could start actually prosecuting straw buyers...people who knowingly buy guns to supply them to criminals....we can already catch these people without registering guns, the problem is the baby mommas and grandmothers are not good subjects for prosecutors....

We already have all the laws we need to stop gun crime and gun murder.....the problem is that too many in the justice system are not implementing them....they are allowing repeat gun offenders out on bail, and out of prison on reduced sentences and plea bargaining away the gun charge.......

If we enforced existing laws, the repeat gun offenders who are commiting 90% of the 10,982 gun murders would stop.....just like the criminals in Japan did when they faced life in prison for using a gun in any crime....that means point a gun at a store clerk for a robbery, and not even fire the gun.....life sentence....you do that, and gun crime will dry up over night.....and the gangs will start using even more 15 year olds to be their killers.

Straw Purchasing Guns: US Needs to Take It Seriously | [site:name] | National Review

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies.

It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.

In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

 

[Slade3200]

I had to stop after I got to this part...

“The problem you don't want to see because you simply hate guns, and want them banned, is that the problem isn't that we don't have regulations on guns....I just showed you a few of the 20,000 local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to guns.....”

I own 11 guns and don’t want them banned. Know who you are talking to before you make false presumptions.

You point out all the regulations and say they are enough but then you say regulating guns is unconstitutional? Well which is it? Do you support the regulations we have in place on guns. Do some of the regulations make sense to you and do you see them as constitutionally legal?

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

Wow, that whole straw buyer process sounds pretty intense. Surely you wouldn’t assume that every criminal who wanted a gun would have the will and the resources to do all that. Right? Some, yes, I’m sure they would, but that process alone sounds like it would detour a good percentage of criminals from getting guns. Also, what about the mentally ill who you agree shouldn’t be carrying. Wouldn’t universal
Background checks and an improved system help identify more of those individuals?

 

[2aguy]

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

Wow, that whole straw buyer process sounds pretty intense. Surely you wouldn’t assume that every criminal who wanted a gun would have the will and the resources to do all that. Right? Some, yes, I’m sure they would, but that process alone sounds like it would detour a good percentage of criminals from getting guns. Also, what about the mentally ill who you agree shouldn’t be carrying. Wouldn’t universal
Background checks and an improved system help identify more of those individuals?

Again...you register the individual who can't buy guns, not all gun owners, there is no need. And if the straw buyer process was so difficult, the criminals wouldn't use it as one of their main sources for illegal guns....friends and family are a major source for illegal guns....and again, the baby mommas and grandmothers buying the guns for their boyfriend and grandson criminals often do it under threats........

Mass shooters rarely use straw buyers because they can already pass current background checks, which means they can use regular gun stores. They have no criminal records...for example...the Pulse Night Club shooter passed a criminal background check for his job as a security guard....he passed a current, federally mandated background check for each gun he bought, he was under covert FBI surveillance for a year, he was given a complete FBI criminal investigation as well, and he was interviewed by the FBI 2 times.....he passed all of it even though someone reported him as a possible terrorist....then he went on to attack the night club.

Criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....bypassing both current Federal background checks, and if they wanted to buy a gun from a private individual, their straw buyer could buy the gun from those sources too...since they can pass background checks.

Besides...from actual research, criminals do not like to use unknown, private sellers......they are too afraid the sellers might be police.

Besides....it is already against the law to use a gun in a crime...if you do we can already arrest you. It is already against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun.....if they are caught they can already be arrested.

We have all the laws we need to reduce gun crime...the problem isn't that we don't have enough laws, the problem is that judges give bail to repeat gun offenders, prosecutors plea bargain away the gun charge, and politicians reduce sentences for gun offenders because they think the criminal justice system is unfair..

That is where the gun violence problem comes from...not John and Jane citizen having a gun for self defense.

The focus on banning guns is a waste of time. The focus needs to be on keeping the known, repeat gun offenders in prison.

Japan keeps their criminals from using guns with a life sentence for any crime involving a gun....that is how you actually dry up gun crime. Here? You have felons, with repeat arrests for illegal gun possession getting personal recognizance bonds, walking out of the court room in a matter of days, going out and shooting people.....that is our problem...

Here are the reasons we have a gun problem in our big cities...if any of these criminals were refused bond for repeat gun violations, and then, when convicted were sentenced to 30 years to life for using a gun, even for armed robbery where they didn't fire the weapon.....criminals would stop using guns for crime. The gangs would start using gullible 15 year olds to commit their murders, but the majority of gun crime would dry up....

Look at the following stories...the facts and reality of lax enforcement.......if you kept these guys in jail, you wouldn't have gun violence....

Top cop laments violence as 66 shot, 5 fatally, over long Fourth of July weekend


Between last Wednesday and Friday, 42 people were charged with felony gun-related offenses, he said, but only 15 remain in custody.


That lack of accountability for gun offenders has damaged the Police Department’s relationship with the communities most beset by violence, Johnson said, making victims of crimes less likely to cooperate with officers.
-----
“It’s not about mass incarceration. It’s not about having quotas. But when somebody has a demonstrated track record of being a violent gun offender, that should say something to the judges who are making decisions about bail. They shouldn’t be out on the street,” Lightfoot said. “We can’t keep our communities safe if people just keep cycling through the system because what that says to them is, I can do whatever I want, I can carry whatever I want, I can shoot up a crowd and I’m going to be back on the street. How does that make sense? It doesn’t.”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/criminal_justice_reform_comes_home_to_roost.html
=======

CWB Chicago: You Be The Judge: We give you the case details. You try to guess their bail amount.

McKay was sentenced to four years for robbery in 2008; two years for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (firearm) in 2010; seven years for being a felon in possession of a weapon (firearm) in 2012; and three years for possession of fentanyl in 2016.
-----
For McKay, who has two gun convictions and a robbery conviction, Willis set bail at….$5,000. McKay will need to put down a 10% deposit of $500 to go free. Willis also ordered him to go on electronic monitoring if he is released.

Some details that Willis did not know:
• McKay’s 2008 robbery conviction involved an armed carjacking. Prosecutors reduced the charge to “ordinary” robbery as part of a plea deal.• In 2012, McKay’s second gun case also included allegations that he fired the weapon. Prosecutors dropped the weapon discharge count and seven other weapons charges in a plea deal.• The 2016 drug possession charge started as allegations of manufacture-delivery of fentanyl, but, again, prosecutors pleaded that down to possession.

========


Under DA Krasner, more gun-possession cases get court diversionary program

In June 2018, Maalik Jackson-Wallace was arrested on a Frankford street and charged with carrying a concealed gun without a license and a gram of marijuana. It was his first arrest.

The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office recommended the Frankford man for a court diversionary program called Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) that put him on two years’ probation. His record could have been expunged if he had successfully completed the program.

But Jackson-Wallace, 24, was arrested again on gun-possession charges in March in Bridesburg. He was released from jail after a judge granted a defense motion for unsecured bail. And on June 13, he was arrested a third time — charged with murder in a shooting two days earlier in Frankford that killed a 26-year-old man.

Jackson-Wallace’s case has been cited by some on social media as an example of how they say District Attorney Larry Krasner’s policies are too lenient and lead to gun violence.



In fact, statistics obtained from the DA’s Office show that in 2018, Krasner’s first year in office, 78 gun-possession cases were placed in the ARD program — compared with just 12 such diversions in gun-possession cases the previous year, 11 in 2016, 14 in 2015. and 10 in 2014.

============

Officials Address 'Vicious Cycle' Of I-Bond Violations After Violent Weekend

Many of the gun offenders arrested by Chicago police over the weekend walked out of jail on bond, without having to pay a dime.

As of Monday morning, 19 people had been arrested on gun-related charges. By Monday afternoon, 11 were back on the street, some with prior gun offenses.

“We know who a lot of these people are,” Chicago Police Supt. Eddie Johnson said. “And how do we know that? Because we keep arresting them over and over and over and over and over again. And it’s just a vicious cycle.”

In a tweet Sunday night, a Chicago police spokesperson criticized the practice of letting gun offenders out on Individual Recognizance Bonds or “I-Bonds.”
-----

The tweet said, in part, “Letting gun offenders out on I-Bonds shows there is absolutely no repercussion for carrying illegal guns In Chicago.”
-----
In a statement, an office representative said since the beginning of this year, 72% of gun related cases received monetary bail or no bond.
==================
http://www.cwbchicago.com/2019/05/man-connected-to-whitney-young-high.html

The man who is charged with driving the carjacked SUV of a Whitney Young High School teacher this week is on probation for possessing a handgun—a probation term that was cut in half just three weeks ago by a Cook County judge.

The CPD arrest report that documents the capture of Nicholas Williams on Tuesday says cops and federal agents found Williams “in possession” of a loaded 9-millimeter handgun with a defaced serial number. But, a source with knowledge of the case told CWBChicago tonight that the gun was “ditched” and weapons charges could not be approved.

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to an after-hours email seeking comment.

Court records show that in Aug. 2017 Williams was charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon for allegedly carrying a handgun in the front of his waistband during a traffic stop on the West Side. Police said in a report that the gun had been reported stolen one month earlier.

A grand jury returned a 12 felony count true bill against Williams. But the Cook County State’s Attorney dropped all charges on May 3, 2018.

Five months after that case was dropped, Williams was charged with a new set of eight weapons felonies for allegedly carrying a handgun in the front of his waistband while riding his bike on the West Side.

----

Last month, Judge Maria Kuriakos-Ciesil sentenced Williams to two year’s probation, 30 hours of community service and 175 days time served in the case.

His attorneys asked for a reduced sentence and, on April 29th, Kuriakos-Ciesil granted the motion by reducing Williams’ punishment to one year of TASC probation and 30 hours of community service.

-------------------------
14 year old shot two men, released without bond or home confinement...


Cook County, IL: 14-Year-Old Charged With Shooting Two, Freed Without Supervision - The Truth About Guns

Welcome to Cook County, Illinois, where crime often has no meaningful consequences. Between a State’s Attorney’s Office reluctant to file charges and judges who mollycoddles defendants, Chicagoland has become the modern Wild West.

Case in point: a 14-year-old who (reportedly) shot and tried to kill two in a nice uptown neighborhood was released by a judge Friday to his parent with no bond – not even electronic home monitoring.


The Cook County judge claims the police failed to bring this suspected would-be gang killer (pictured above, right) in front of a judge quickly enough. So the judge, in order to penalize the police, released the kid without conditions other than to report to court next week.

Of course, the judge is really only penalizing the community as the accused certainly missed his calling as a choir boy.

The police, on the other hand, said they had concerns about the young man’s safety. Police released images of the suspects to the media in an effort to identify them and the media published them.

The Chicago mainstream media refer to the accused as a “boy.” Even though this “boy”reportedly shot one man in the back, abdomen, buttocks and groin and the other in the head.
===========

16 year old shooter released on 10,000 bond.....Cuomo's Raise the age bill for family court let this shooter go free on bail...

Case Of 16-Year-Old Accused Of Shooting Up Bronx Street Prompts Criticism Of NY's Raise The Age Law
https://www.dailywire.com/news/44304/case-16-year-old-accused-shooting-bronx-street-hank-berrien
Bronx Supreme Court Justice John Collins made Garcia’s release contingent on either $10,000 bail or $25,000 bond, he made bail and he was freed.

As The New York Post explains, “The law already guarantees that he can’t be held in a jail that also houses adults — and if convicted, his sentencing judge would have to take his age into account.”
--------
On Monday, prosecutor Daniel Defilippi indicated he would try to stop the case from being transferred to Family Court. Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis, referring to the case as a “prime example” of the problems with the Raise the Age bill, said, “One of the things we brought up during debate was how this encourages gang recruitment. Gangs can recruit young people to do dirty work because they won’t be treated the same when caught.
------
Residents of the neighborhood acknowledged that the neighborhood has become a frightening place to live; one said, “We don’t go out. We don’t go to the park. I keep my kids in the house. We’re scared.” Another commented, “People don’t feel safe. People shooting in the street like that? No one is safe.” A third commented of the young girl, “She is lucky. Like an angel is watching over her because she was really close.”

 

[XponentialChaos]

great. so before we go changing things, how about some research instead of emo-grandstanding.

Did you know around half of US homicides were committed with handguns? I found that out by researching it.

how many laws do we have?
why are they not working?
what laws would you suggest that would have stopped any known mass shooting in the last decade?

The way you frame the question is par for the course. If an action won't stop shootings it's to be ridiculed. The idea that actions can reduce shootings is dismissed as nonsensical. When the experience of other countries is put forward the exceptional USA excuse is trotted out immediately. Fair enough, it's not my country, I just giggle at the loons.

The way to reduce the US firearm homicide and mass shooting rates is to severely limit the numbers of handguns and military style semi automatic rifles in circulation.

I understand you don't want to do that, rather you happily accept the current consequences. No worries.

Your theory.....to reduce gun crime we reduce the number of guns...

You just posted that, that is your theory.....

26 years, the opposite happened....More Americans went out, bought guns, own them and carry them....according to your theory, gun crime goes up.

That is your theory, not mine....

The actual result...

over that 26 years....

Gun Crime down 75%.

Gun murder down 49%

Violent Crime down 72%

So, again, your theory....more guns = more gun crime

actual experience....more guns .....gun murder, gun crime, violent crime went down 50%, 75%, 72%.

In science....when you propose a theory...you implement the theory, and the exact opposite of that theory happens. .......in Science that means your theory is wrong.

I've seen you mention this point a few times now. The variable that this doesn't account for is time. As time has passed in those 26 years, I assume the norms have changed or law enforcement has improved, or something culturally has happened to reduce those homicides. Now I'm sure you'll credit that to more guns = less crime, to which we'll just disagree.

But how about we try looking at something different? Let's try removing that time variable just to see what happens. I looked at gun ownership rates by state and gun-related homicides by state. There was a positive correlation of approximately 0.7, which would be considered a moderate to strong correlation. That is, generally speaking the more armed citizens there are, the more gun homicides there are.

I'm curious what your take on this is, because it goes directly against what you have been claiming. More guns = more death.

Here are the links that I used. I just did a little spreadsheet with the values.

Gun ownership by state
Firearm death rates in the United States by state - Wikipedia

 

[Blues Man]

great. so before we go changing things, how about some research instead of emo-grandstanding.

Did you know around half of US homicides were committed with handguns? I found that out by researching it.

how many laws do we have?
why are they not working?
what laws would you suggest that would have stopped any known mass shooting in the last decade?

The way you frame the question is par for the course. If an action won't stop shootings it's to be ridiculed. The idea that actions can reduce shootings is dismissed as nonsensical. When the experience of other countries is put forward the exceptional USA excuse is trotted out immediately. Fair enough, it's not my country, I just giggle at the loons.

The way to reduce the US firearm homicide and mass shooting rates is to severely limit the numbers of handguns and military style semi automatic rifles in circulation.

I understand you don't want to do that, rather you happily accept the current consequences. No worries.

Your theory.....to reduce gun crime we reduce the number of guns...

You just posted that, that is your theory.....

26 years, the opposite happened....More Americans went out, bought guns, own them and carry them....according to your theory, gun crime goes up.

That is your theory, not mine....

The actual result...

over that 26 years....

Gun Crime down 75%.

Gun murder down 49%

Violent Crime down 72%

So, again, your theory....more guns = more gun crime

actual experience....more guns .....gun murder, gun crime, violent crime went down 50%, 75%, 72%.

In science....when you propose a theory...you implement the theory, and the exact opposite of that theory happens. .......in Science that means your theory is wrong.

When Richmond, VA had Operation Exile in force their murder rate dropped twice as much as comparable urban areas

 

[Blues Man]

Oh, here's one.

You're as full of shit as I expected.

Not the mini argument. So why isn't it the most popular semi automatic?

Ban AR 15s and it will be then you'll want to ban the mini as well

Yep

So why not just be honest and say you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles?

 

[irosie91]

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

Wow, that whole straw buyer process sounds pretty intense. Surely you wouldn’t assume that every criminal who wanted a gun would have the will and the resources to do all that. Right? Some, yes, I’m sure they would, but that process alone sounds like it would detour a good percentage of criminals from getting guns. Also, what about the mentally ill who you agree shouldn’t be carrying. Wouldn’t universal
Background checks and an improved system help identify more of those individuals?

no----if a person really wants to kill ------he will find a way------that's why they are called "criminals"

 

[iceberg]

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

Why do you oppose universal?

useless.

Keeps honest people honest, keeps criminals laughing

Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

How would it be either?

Gangbangers don't worry about background checks

I’m not talking about gang bangers

SHE BANGS - SHE BANGS!!!

sorry - you made that pop into my head this am.

 

[iceberg]

you keep saying "military style" as if that means shit or can really be defined.

They've had the shit defined out of them. What it boils down to is a semi automatic rifle that will take large capacity removable magazines. It's not rocket science except to gun nuts at their most obtuse.

a ruger 10/22 is a low power .22 rifle. it's semi-automatic and you can put large capacity mags in them.

thank you for making my point, dipshit.

now - limit AR15s to 15 round mags and we're cool, right? gun now equals good? something tells me you're about change up the definition AGAIN and AGAIN proving my point.

 

[iceberg]

I have the right not to be shot for no reason.

According to the gun nuts, your reason free shooting is an acceptable price to pay for easy access to handguns and military style semi automatic rifles.

OH - now MILITARY style comes into play OF WHICH isn't that easy to define since the MILITARY uses ALL styles of guns.

god damn you're a circle-jerk in motion.

 

[OldLady]

As for population..well yes..it is easier to enforce a law in a smaller population...just as a matter of logistics and expense.

Shaking my head here. Police departments need to coordinate here as there, and the expense per capita is not substantially different. Have the same number of law enforcement officers per 100,000 of the population, and you're pretty much there. Really, that argument doesn't hold water at all.

I'd rather accept your "culture" argument (at least with respect to a substantial number of gun nuts), along with an unwarranted (and often hypocritical) subservience to the Founders and their 18th century concept of a well-regulated society.

I had to stop after I got to this part...

“The problem you don't want to see because you simply hate guns, and want them banned, is that the problem isn't that we don't have regulations on guns....I just showed you a few of the 20,000 local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to guns.....”

I own 11 guns and don’t want them banned. Know who you are talking to before you make false presumptions.

You point out all the regulations and say they are enough but then you say regulating guns is unconstitutional? Well which is it? Do you support the regulations we have in place on guns. Do some of the regulations make sense to you and do you see them as constitutionally legal?

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps

This is where your arguments go total fruitcake. This is not why guns should be registered. The government has no intention of taking lawfully owned guns from lawful owners. This argument is complete and total fear mongering and 100% totally untrue, unfounded and deeply Dale-ish.

 

[cnm]

Based on... what?

You do understand the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table - right?

Based on the experience of developed nations.

The Constitution has been amended before and can be again. There is not the will to do so as a sky high firearms homicide rate and regular mass shootings are considered to be an acceptable price to pay for easy access to handguns and assault style rifles.

The mechanism to do so is perfectly accessible as soon as the will is there.

 

[cnm]

Australia.....1st world country.

With a very low rate of firearms homicides and mass shootings. A fraction of that of the US.

 

[cnm]

Oh, as to a specific question you posed, a law that prevented the sale of an assault style weapon in Nevada may well have reduced the number of casualties in the latest mass shooting

Wrong.....

Number killed in Gilroy using Russian semi-auto rifle...3.

You leave out the wounded. Be that as it may, those 3 dead may well have survived if it had not been legal to sell the weapon to a law abiding owner.

 

[cnm]

First...you keep saying Military style..

Military style you invincibly obtuse gun nut.

 

[cnm]

OH - now MILITARY style comes into play OF WHICH isn't that easy to define since the MILITARY uses ALL styles of guns.

You're an invincibly obtuse gun nut who, because you can't argue ideas argue pointless semantics. I've already defined military style, you ignore it, else you have nothing to say.

 

[cnm]

European solutions for American problems are almost always doomed...IMO.

That's because you don't think it's a problem.