Nobody doubts the M4 is an assault weapon. Are there any material differences between an M4 and an AR15?

[9thIDdoc]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That also has nothing to do with the OP. Do as I say; not as I do?

True. I'm the only one who even attempted to stay on subject anyway, so **** it. I found what I expected to find. All you are going to do is spout a handful of gun nut quotes anyway.

If you aren't willing to consider an honest response why ask the question?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

that won't happen because you retards add stuff like it being required to loan a firearm to friend or family member.

 

[BlackSand]

I wont give up my rights for something that is a guaranteed failure,,

.

Universal Background Checks are a wall-to-wall con-job from the assclowns on Capitol Hill ... Republican and Democrat.

Republicans get to pretend they are protecting your Rights.
Democrats get to pretend they are accomplishing something.

It's a greater hassle and inconvenience for law abiding citizens, but doesn't stop them from acquiring what they want.
It's a greater hassle and inconvenience for criminals, but doesn't stop them from acquiring what they want.

It allows people to identify who they are within their communities, and on social media,
so they can **** with each other some more over a complete con-job, and simply shore up the base in both parties.

.​

 

[9thIDdoc]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

what makes you think thats going to stop a felon from getting a gun??

It won't stop all of them any more than wearing a seat belt stops all car deaths. You can't get 100% success from any program.

The problem is crime; not guns and always has been. You want to stop crime? Everybody wants to stop crime (except criminals and the hopelessly insane) more gun laws are not the answer because:
You can't disinvent technology. Guns, and the knowledge to make them exist, are plentiful and here to stay. As far as crime is concerned that is actually a good thing because it can help even the odds between vulnerable potential victims and attackers. People never had much problem murdering each other before guns were invented and if every one of them disappeared it is doubtful that it would have much effect on murder rates. So you're stabbed to death or blown up instead of shot; is that somehow an improvement?
We had an "assault weapon ban" for ten years that had absolutely no effect except to inflate gun prices and increase sales. That ban was implemented as a trial. It received support from some gun owners because it was to settle the question of whether more restrictive gun laws would improve the situation or not. It didn't and so the question was answered. Unfortunately that hasn't stopped some of the sheep from continuing to bleet about the already settled issue. There are already laws intended stop everything the gun grabbers claim to want to stop and they can present no reasonable rationale to believe that new repressive laws will work any better. I have heard that the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. You don't curb crime by creating new criminals which is exactly the risk being run. Maybe it's past time to address the actual issues instead of continuing our wheels in the same rut and creating damage instead of progress.

 

[2aguy]

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

.

Yeah, and?

The ATF is currently approving upwards of 3 million Background Checks for new firearms purchases a month ...
And has been for quite some time ... They know what we have.

There are more firearms than people in the United States at this point.
It seems as though a lot of armed American Citizens also want to exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

Yes, lots of new guns are being sold. Lots of used guns being sold too. No obligation for a used seller to even care if the purchaser is a felon, or otherwise not legal to even be near a gun. You got the money, you get the gun. Don't tell me bad guys only steal guns or have a straw buyer. No need to steal or have a straw buyer, when they can buy them themselves.

Bad guys use straw buyers.....they do not use private sellers because they are afraid they are ATF, or the police.....if you did some basic research you would know this.....they use friends and family with clean records to buy the guns.....prosecutors don't want to prosecute baby momma's and grandmothers, the typical gang straw buyer because juries don't like to convict these women because they often claim the gang threatens them if they don't buy the guns.....

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | 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.

Read more at: America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review


Convicted Murderers Admit: Gun Laws Are a Joke

To gain insight into why and how, one local news station decided to go right to the source of the problem.

To get our data, we sent surveys to every killer who used a gun to murder someone in Harris County since 2014. We wanted to know how they got their gun, what they paid, and how often, if ever, they went through a background check.

The information from the inmates tells a story most of us already know:

• 90 percent of those surveyed received their gun on the black market. They either traded goods for the firearm or a friend gave them the gun.
• 63 percent of the guns were stolen and the majority of them were given to the perpetrator for free.
• 90 percent of the surveyors weren’t eligible to legally buy a gun because of past criminal convictions.
• 100 percent of the surveyors concealed carry despite failing to have a CCW permit.

In Texas, a felon in possession of a firearm can serve 2 to 1- years in prison.
But in Harris County, the average jail sentence for the offense is 3-and-a-half months.

It should be no surprise that criminals are buying guns on the unregulated market.

But when asked, the convicted killers abc13 interviewed were all well aware of the gun laws.

Many were previously convicted and knew they wouldn’t pass federally mandated background checks.

Others suggested they would never put a family member in a position to buy a gun for them since the penalty for that so-called ‘straw purchase’ is severe.

Despite gun control laws that focus on expanded background checks and banning “assault weapons,” the survey results prove neither one of would have prevented these murderers from committing their crime.

When asked what can be done to keep guns off the streets, each criminal had different views.

“I feel guns is not the problem. People just need to respect each other, and stop been [sic] disrespectfully [sic]. Youngster in the hood need to listen when older people tellin them something. Guns WILL always be in the streets of H-town! Sorry to say that

,” said 44-year-old Cedric Jones.

 

[2aguy]

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

.

Yeah, and?

The ATF is currently approving upwards of 3 million Background Checks for new firearms purchases a month ...
And has been for quite some time ... They know what we have.

There are more firearms than people in the United States at this point.
It seems as though a lot of armed American Citizens also want to exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

Yes, lots of new guns are being sold. Lots of used guns being sold too. No obligation for a used seller to even care if the purchaser is a felon, or otherwise not legal to even be near a gun. You got the money, you get the gun. Don't tell me bad guys only steal guns or have a straw buyer. No need to steal or have a straw buyer, when they can buy them themselves.

This is the thing.....if you really wanted universal background checks for legitimate crime fighting, versus just as a way to get gun registration...here is how you do it.....

You make the Background Check system open to every citizen........that way, if you want to sell your private gun, you take the name, birthday, of the person who wants to buy the gun, use your phone, punch in the info. and if they have a criminal record, mental health blocks on gun buying, or outstanding warrants, it simply pops up on your phone.....and you can keep from selling the gun......

No Fee, a free app for you computer or phone......

That is how you actually do it......

But that isn't how you want to do it because that doesn't give you gun registration.......you wouldn't be able to push gun registration with a free app that anyone can use for free with no registration required....

But you don't want universal background checks to keep guns away from criminals, because you know they don't keep guns away from criminals.....they steal guns, or use straw buyers who can pass any background check.

You want universal background checks because you know they are a tool to get gullible Americans to give you gun registration...which is your real goal...because you need gun registration to know who has what guns when you get the power to ban and confiscate those guns.....

 

[2aguy]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

It doesn't cost 3 or 4 dollars, it can cost up to 250 dollars.......

Universal Background checks don't stop criminals from getting guns....they steal them or use straw buyers. The straw buyers can pass any background check .


Mass public shooters have no criminal record before they attack and so can pass any background check....

So you don't care about this issue........you just want to fool uninformed Americans into giving you Universal Background checks so you can come back.....after criminals and mass shooters still get guns because universal background checks don't stop them........and demand gun registration...which is your true goal.....

 

[BULLDOG]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That also has nothing to do with the OP. Do as I say; not as I do?

True. I'm the only one who even attempted to stay on subject anyway, so **** it. I found what I expected to find. All you are going to do is spout a handful of gun nut quotes anyway.

If you aren't willing to consider an honest response why ask the question?

"The sky is blue" is an honest answer, but if the question is "what is 2+2" it's hardly a valid answer.

 

[BULLDOG]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

that won't happen because you retards add stuff like it being required to loan a firearm to friend or family member.

Of course there are details to be worked out, but with a blanket refusal, there isn't much chance of that. I assume most would know if a family member can legally posses a gun. That isn't necessarily true of your friends. Is your friend a recent friend you met last week, or a lifelong friend from childhood? All things to be considered and worked out. Most sellers wouldn't sell to a felon if they knew it. Without an obligation for them to find out, nobody will even check. Of course, there will be unethical sellers who will sell guns and claim they were just loaning them to a friend, but I doubt it will be a large percentage of sellers. That is something else to figure out, but in the mean time, you will keep lots of disallowed felons and gang members from an easy source for guns.

 

[2aguy]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

that won't happen because you retards add stuff like it being required to loan a firearm to friend or family member.

Of course there are details to be worked out, but with a blanket refusal, there isn't much chance of that. I assume most would know if a family member can legally posses a gun. That isn't necessarily true of your friends. Is your friend a recent friend you met last week, or a lifelong friend from childhood? All things to be considered and worked out. Most sellers wouldn't sell to a felon if they knew it. Without an obligation for them to find out, nobody will even check. Of course, there will be unethical sellers who will sell guns and claim they were just loaning them to a friend, but I doubt it will be a large percentage of sellers. That is something else to figure out, but in the mean time, you will keep lots of disallowed felons and gang members from an easy source for guns.

And again, the actual solution?

Allow anyone to access the background check system for free......put the app on your phone, get the name and birthdate of the buyer, punch it in, and see if he has a criminal record, a mental health block for buying guns or outstanding warrants.

Done.

But the problem for bulldog.....that would mean you don't need to register guns....and registering guns is the whole point for pushing universal background checks.

 

[BULLDOG]

I wont give up my rights for something that is a guaranteed failure,,

.

Universal Background Checks are a wall-to-wall con-job from the assclowns on Capitol Hill ... Republican and Democrat.

Republicans get to pretend they are protecting your Rights.
Democrats get to pretend they are accomplishing something.

It's a greater hassle and inconvenience for law abiding citizens, but doesn't stop them from acquiring what they want.
It's a greater hassle and inconvenience for criminals, but doesn't stop them from acquiring what they want.

It allows people to identify who they are within their communities, and on social media,
so they can **** with each other some more over a complete con-job, and simply shore up the base in both parties.

.​

No program will stop criminals from getting guns 100%, but it would eliminate one large source for them. More than 90% of Americans, and that includes about 75% of NRA members want background checks. The American people don't see it as much of an inconvenience.

 

[2aguy]

I wont give up my rights for something that is a guaranteed failure,,

.

Universal Background Checks are a wall-to-wall con-job from the assclowns on Capitol Hill ... Republican and Democrat.

Republicans get to pretend they are protecting your Rights.
Democrats get to pretend they are accomplishing something.

It's a greater hassle and inconvenience for law abiding citizens, but doesn't stop them from acquiring what they want.
It's a greater hassle and inconvenience for criminals, but doesn't stop them from acquiring what they want.

It allows people to identify who they are within their communities, and on social media,
so they can **** with each other some more over a complete con-job, and simply shore up the base in both parties.

.​

No program will stop criminals from getting guns 100%, but it would eliminate one large source for them. More than 90% of Americans, and that includes about 75% of NRA members want background checks. The American people don't see it as much of an inconvenience.

And you have been told that those supporting universal background checks have been lied to about them.....you don't tell them what they really mean or what the real goal is for universal background checks...if you did that, they wouldn't support them.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

"assault weapon" isn't a valid description of anything. M4 isn't an "assault weapon" either.

Any weapon can be used in an assault. So I guess they are all "assault weapons" from a bb gun to a machine gun.

Whether assault rifles exist is a really dumb discussion. Our military has a definition of Assault Rifle, and the M4 certainly meets that definition. I'm asking how the M4 differs from an ar15, other than being full auto capable. I've already shown that the AR15 can be easily converted to full auto in #5.

How many people in the U.S. were killed in 2020 by assault weapons??
And how many were killed by hand guns?
Why the hell are you concerned about assault weapons?

 

[progressive hunter]

I wont give up my rights for something that is a guaranteed failure,,

.

Universal Background Checks are a wall-to-wall con-job from the assclowns on Capitol Hill ... Republican and Democrat.

Republicans get to pretend they are protecting your Rights.
Democrats get to pretend they are accomplishing something.

It's a greater hassle and inconvenience for law abiding citizens, but doesn't stop them from acquiring what they want.
It's a greater hassle and inconvenience for criminals, but doesn't stop them from acquiring what they want.

It allows people to identify who they are within their communities, and on social media,
so they can **** with each other some more over a complete con-job, and simply shore up the base in both parties.

.​

No program will stop criminals from getting guns 100%, but it would eliminate one large source for them. More than 90% of Americans, and that includes about 75% of NRA members want background checks. The American people don't see it as much of an inconvenience.

if its such a large source maybe you could show us with a link where a criminal got a gun through a private sale??

and your percentages are wrong,, most people are against universal background checks,,

 

[BULLDOG]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

what makes you think thats going to stop a felon from getting a gun??

It won't stop all of them any more than wearing a seat belt stops all car deaths. You can't get 100% success from any program.

The problem is crime; not guns and always has been. You want to stop crime? Everybody wants to stop crime (except criminals and the hopelessly insane) more gun laws are not the answer because:
You can't disinvent technology. Guns, and the knowledge to make them exist, are plentiful and here to stay. As far as crime is concerned that is actually a good thing because it can help even the odds between vulnerable potential victims and attackers. People never had much problem murdering each other before guns were invented and if every one of them disappeared it is doubtful that it would have much effect on murder rates. So you're stabbed to death or blown up instead of shot; is that somehow an improvement?
We had an "assault weapon ban" for ten years that had absolutely no effect except to inflate gun prices and increase sales. That ban was implemented as a trial. It received support from some gun owners because it was to settle the question of whether more restrictive gun laws would improve the situation or not. It didn't and so the question was answered. Unfortunately that hasn't stopped some of the sheep from continuing to bleet about the already settled issue. There are already laws intended stop everything the gun grabbers claim to want to stop and they can present no reasonable rationale to believe that new repressive laws will work any better. I have heard that the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. You don't curb crime by creating new criminals which is exactly the risk being run. Maybe it's past time to address the actual issues instead of continuing our wheels in the same rut and creating damage instead of progress.

Yes, crime is the problem. Crime caused by criminals with guns is a really big part of that. 90% of Americans, including 75% of NRA members say your oppressive law claim is bullshit. Why are you so fanatic about keeping an easy source of guns available to felons?

 

[2aguy]

"assault weapon" isn't a valid description of anything. M4 isn't an "assault weapon" either.

Any weapon can be used in an assault. So I guess they are all "assault weapons" from a bb gun to a machine gun.

Whether assault rifles exist is a really dumb discussion. Our military has a definition of Assault Rifle, and the M4 certainly meets that definition. I'm asking how the M4 differs from an ar15, other than being full auto capable. I've already shown that the AR15 can be easily converted to full auto in #5.

How many people in the U.S. were killed in 2020 by assault weapons??
And how many were killed by hand guns?
Why the hell are you concerned about assault weapons?

AR-15s give them the ability to ban handguns......AR-15s work the same way as semi-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns....if they get gullible Americans to agree that AR-15s should be banned then they can come back and say that all those other rifles, pistols and shotguns need to be banned too since, again, they all operate the same way....

 

[2aguy]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

what makes you think thats going to stop a felon from getting a gun??

It won't stop all of them any more than wearing a seat belt stops all car deaths. You can't get 100% success from any program.

The problem is crime; not guns and always has been. You want to stop crime? Everybody wants to stop crime (except criminals and the hopelessly insane) more gun laws are not the answer because:
You can't disinvent technology. Guns, and the knowledge to make them exist, are plentiful and here to stay. As far as crime is concerned that is actually a good thing because it can help even the odds between vulnerable potential victims and attackers. People never had much problem murdering each other before guns were invented and if every one of them disappeared it is doubtful that it would have much effect on murder rates. So you're stabbed to death or blown up instead of shot; is that somehow an improvement?
We had an "assault weapon ban" for ten years that had absolutely no effect except to inflate gun prices and increase sales. That ban was implemented as a trial. It received support from some gun owners because it was to settle the question of whether more restrictive gun laws would improve the situation or not. It didn't and so the question was answered. Unfortunately that hasn't stopped some of the sheep from continuing to bleet about the already settled issue. There are already laws intended stop everything the gun grabbers claim to want to stop and they can present no reasonable rationale to believe that new repressive laws will work any better. I have heard that the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. You don't curb crime by creating new criminals which is exactly the risk being run. Maybe it's past time to address the actual issues instead of continuing our wheels in the same rut and creating damage instead of progress.

Yes, crime is the problem. Crime caused by criminals with guns is a really big part of that. 90% of Americans, including 75% of NRA members say your oppressive law claim is bullshit. Why are you so fanatic about keeping an easy source of guns available to felons?

1.1 million Americans use guns to save lives each year according to the Centers for Disease control..

Meanwhile, criminals using illegal guns murdered 10,235 people in 2019, but over 70-80% of the victims were other criminals, not normal Americans. And of the rest, the majority of the victims were friends and family of the criminals, hit by mistake...

You want to ban and confiscate guns for the owners of 600 million guns to target criminals who murder other criminals and who will get illegal guns no matter how many laws you pass....

When the simple solution to gun crime and murder is to simply keep violent criminals in prison...but you don't care about gun crime...you want to ban guns.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Boggles the mind how dumb people like the OP is.
People killed by assault rifles in 2020 is less than 100.
Handguns?... over 20,000.
People murdered by law abiding citizens with a legal permit??.... not even on the map.
People murdered by career criminals who, they themselves, are also career criminals that won't pay one iota attention a gun ban 20.000

 

[2aguy]

Boggles the mind how dumb people like the OP is.
People killed by assault rifles in 2020 is less than 100.
Handguns?... over 20,000.
People murdered by law abiding citizens with a legal permit??.... not even on the map.
People murdered by career criminals who, they themselves, are also career criminals that won't pay one iota attention a gun ban 20.000

More people die from falling off ladders....

 

[BULLDOG]

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

.

Yeah, and?

The ATF is currently approving upwards of 3 million Background Checks for new firearms purchases a month ...
And has been for quite some time ... They know what we have.

There are more firearms than people in the United States at this point.
It seems as though a lot of armed American Citizens also want to exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

Yes, lots of new guns are being sold. Lots of used guns being sold too. No obligation for a used seller to even care if the purchaser is a felon, or otherwise not legal to even be near a gun. You got the money, you get the gun. Don't tell me bad guys only steal guns or have a straw buyer. No need to steal or have a straw buyer, when they can buy them themselves.

Bad guys use straw buyers.....they do not use private sellers because they are afraid they are ATF, or the police.....if you did some basic research you would know this.....they use friends and family with clean records to buy the guns.....prosecutors don't want to prosecute baby momma's and grandmothers, the typical gang straw buyer because juries don't like to convict these women because they often claim the gang threatens them if they don't buy the guns.....

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | 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.

Read more at: America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review


Convicted Murderers Admit: Gun Laws Are a Joke

To gain insight into why and how, one local news station decided to go right to the source of the problem.

To get our data, we sent surveys to every killer who used a gun to murder someone in Harris County since 2014. We wanted to know how they got their gun, what they paid, and how often, if ever, they went through a background check.

The information from the inmates tells a story most of us already know:

• 90 percent of those surveyed received their gun on the black market. They either traded goods for the firearm or a friend gave them the gun.
• 63 percent of the guns were stolen and the majority of them were given to the perpetrator for free.
• 90 percent of the surveyors weren’t eligible to legally buy a gun because of past criminal convictions.
• 100 percent of the surveyors concealed carry despite failing to have a CCW permit.

In Texas, a felon in possession of a firearm can serve 2 to 1- years in prison.
But in Harris County, the average jail sentence for the offense is 3-and-a-half months.

It should be no surprise that criminals are buying guns on the unregulated market.

But when asked, the convicted killers abc13 interviewed were all well aware of the gun laws.

Many were previously convicted and knew they wouldn’t pass federally mandated background checks.

Others suggested they would never put a family member in a position to buy a gun for them since the penalty for that so-called ‘straw purchase’ is severe.

Despite gun control laws that focus on expanded background checks and banning “assault weapons,” the survey results prove neither one of would have prevented these murderers from committing their crime.

When asked what can be done to keep guns off the streets, each criminal had different views.

“I feel guns is not the problem. People just need to respect each other, and stop been [sic] disrespectfully [sic]. Youngster in the hood need to listen when older people tellin them something. Guns WILL always be in the streets of H-town! Sorry to say that

,” said 44-year-old Cedric Jones.

I will be happy to read your entire remark as soon as you post something other than your handful of memorized bumper sticker statements and your massive store of cut and paste crap.