New Study Finds Firearms Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

From an article written on one of the exceptions:

http://insiderlouisville.com/news/20...o-the-streets/

Here is a link to Frontline on PBS which details the ILLEGAL methods by which criminals obtain firearms. Note that ALL the techniques used are ILLEGAL. You will note that law abiding citizens are not the source of these guns and that every scam used to get the guns is a crime in itself. Once again, the proposed gun control legislation will not stop any of these ILLEGAL transactions.
From the report:
"While many guns are taken off the street when people are arrested and any firearms in their possession are confiscated, a new study shows how easily arrestees believe they could illegally acquire another firearm. Supported by the National Institute of Justice and based on interviews with those recently arrested, the study acknowledges gun theft is common, with 13 percent of all arrestees interviewed admitting that they had stolen a gun. However a key finding is that "the illegal market is the most likely source"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

Here is a link to Frontline on PBS which details the ILLEGAL methods by which criminals obtain firearms. Note that ALL the techniques used are ILLEGAL. You will note that law abiding citizens are not the source of these guns and that every scam used to get the guns is a crime in itself. Once again, the proposed gun control legislation will not stop any of these ILLEGAL transactions.
From the report:
"While many guns are taken off the street when people are arrested and any firearms in their possession are confiscated, a new study shows how easily arrestees believe they could illegally acquire another firearm. Supported by the National Institute of Justice and based on interviews with those recently arrested, the study acknowledges gun theft is common, with 13 percent of all arrestees interviewed admitting that they had stolen a gun. However a key finding is that "the illegal market is the most likely source"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html

Yes somebody has to do something illegal to turn a legal gun into an illegal gun. Corrupt licensed gun dealers and straw purchases are a big deal. One easy way to lower the number of those is to restrict the number of licensed gun dealers and closely monitor their transactions.

Of course, law abiding citizens do not sell guns illegally. If they did, they would not be law abiding. Of course, people who did legally buy a gun often sell that gun illegally:

An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts.

Sales or gifts involve previously "law abiding citizens" giving or selling a gun to somebody not allowed to own a gun.

However, theft, from both owners and dealers, and corruption within the ranks of gun dealers, a group made larger by increased demand for guns, are the primary sources of illegal guns. If you heavily cut the number of licensed dealers, better monitor those remaining dealers, cut the number of gray market sales, in which background checks are not run, and put in heavier punishments for negligence in gun care that results in guns being stolen or somehow obtained by those who shouldn't have them, you have probably done the most you can on a supply-side.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

It should be painfully obvious to any fair minded person that ILLEGAL guns are the problem as well as violent racial cultures who commit violent crimes out of all proportion to their numbers. Gun control laws will not impact these groups but will penalize law abiding, legal gun owners. The proposed ban is nothing more than pandering to a liberal voting base.

Despite the disproportion, most blacks and Hispanics are no more violent than whites. So wouldn't it be your position that gun control laws would simply be penalizing anyone who is law-abiding, regardless of race/ethnicity?

[LittleBlueLW]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

No, on the contrary, it merely takes the subjective belief in one's own safety needs argument to its logical conclusion and shows the absurdity of it.

Wow. No thanks, I'll trust me to asses my own personal safety needs.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

No, on the contrary, it merely takes the subjective belief in one's own safety needs argument to its logical conclusion and shows the absurdity of it.

Hope you don't make those kinds of arguments in court.

It is the Second Amendment that describes the terms of the right, not the subjective beliefs / fears / whatever, of the right holder.

[Row6]

1 No loopholes on background checks

2 Focus on straw purchases

3 Minimum federal sentencing guidelines for felons caught with a gun.

4 Max clip size at 10.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Hope you don't make those kinds of arguments in court.

It is the Second Amendment that describes the terms of the right, not the subjective beliefs / fears / whatever, of the right holder.

You obviously haven't been reading this thread, as that is exactly the argument put forward to which I was responding.

I hope you don't do transactional work, attention to detail is critical.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by Row6

1 No loopholes on background checks

2 Focus on straw purchases

3 Minimum federal sentencing guidelines for felons caught with a gun.

4 Max clip size at 10.

I can live with that.

[MichiGator2002]

Magazine capacity limits won't survive constitutional challenge and are DOA in any legislature that might attempt them anyway.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Magazine capacity limits won't survive constitutional challenge and are DOA in any legislature that might attempt them anyway.

Maybe, maybe not depending on the judges and high it gets. Even the present conservative SC agrees that the 2nd amendment does not grant an absolute right.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Magazine capacity limits won't survive constitutional challenge and are DOA in any legislature that might attempt them anyway.

Why are magazine capacity limits unconstitutional? Even though Heller is bad law (and will ultimately be reversed once we get a couple more Democratic appointments on the Court), it nevertheless unequivocally states that government may impose restrictions on guns and nowhere does it state that the 2nd Amendment protect magazine capacities.

Note also that there was a magazine limit in place for many years during the last assault weapons ban.

Finally, such a restriction is obviously not DOA in any legislature, as New York has recently shown.

Saying things you hope are true, doesn't make them so.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

You obviously haven't been reading this thread, as that is exactly the argument put forward to which I was responding.

I hope you don't do transactional work, attention to detail is critical.

No, I don't do title searches.

But I do get the big picture.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by Row6

Maybe, maybe not depending on the judges and high it gets. Even the present conservative SC agrees that the 2nd amendment does not grant an absolute right.

There is a large and qualitative difference between a standard capacity magazine in a legal rifle and a rocket launcher.

In any case, I think it is the underlying legislative rationale that rejects a civil militia function that is objectionable moreso than any particular regulatory initiative. As it stands, an AR15 with a standard capacity magazine certainly meets the Heller standard of an arm in common use. Aftermarket 100 round drums probably do not meet this same standard.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Yes somebody has to do something illegal to turn a legal gun into an illegal gun. Corrupt licensed gun dealers and straw purchases are a big deal. One easy way to lower the number of those is to restrict the number of licensed gun dealers and closely monitor their transactions.

You mean, monitor them more closely than today? I don't know if you ever try and buy a gun froma gun dealer, but the hoops they have to jump through is extensive.

If you heavily cut the number of licensed dealers, better monitor those remaining dealers

That would be an constitutional restraint on trade and against the 2nd amendment.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Even though Heller is bad law (and will ultimately be reversed once we get a couple more Democratic appointments on the Court)

'When my big brother shows up, your ass is grass.' Appeal to force?

And isn't what this is all about, the totalitarian impulse?

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

No, I don't do title searches.

Or transactional work, since you don't know the difference.

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

But I do get the big picture.

That remains to be seen.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

'When my big brother shows up, your ass is grass.' Appeal to force?

And isn't what this is all about, the totalitarian impulse?

I must say that I find it humorous that people like you continue to equate a society without an armed population with totalitarianism, notwithstanding the fact that there is no causal relationship whatsoever (e.g. U.K., Germany, France, Israel, Australia, etc.).

It is obvious that you believe that if you can somehow link guns with liberty you’ll have a better argument to justify your ownership of guns of all shapes and sizes.

I do not share your views, however, as I do not believe we must have an armed society to have a free society. On the contrary, I think guns have done great harm to our Nation and the sooner we get rid of them, the better.

[MichiGator2002]

Heller is no more likely to get reversed than Roe... less likely, seeing as Heller is based on a textual right and Roe a nontextual one. Any restriction on the individual right of gun ownership will need to satisfy a heightened scrutiny, most likel strict scrutiny. Only a majority on the court who, like yourself, don't consider the Constitution actually binding upon them could change that. Feel free to fantasize it any other way, but in the meantime, you won't be able to come up with a magazine cap limit that satisifies the state's burden, since the only state interest they serve is making people feel better.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

I must say that I find it humorous that people like you continue to equate a society without an armed population with totalitarianism, notwithstanding the fact that there is no causal relationship whatsoever (e.g. U.K., Germany, France, Israel, Australia, etc.).

It is obvious that you believe that if you can somehow link guns with liberty you’ll have a better argument to justify your ownership of guns of all shapes and sizes.

I do not share your views, however, as I do not believe we must have an armed society to have a free society. On the contrary, I think guns have done great harm to our Nation and the sooner we get rid of them, the better.

Of course you do. Because you want the state to control or regulate everything, including most individual behavior and attitudes. And you don't like the idea of a populace that holds the ability to resist as a trump card.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Heller is no more likely to get reversed than Roe... less likely, seeing as Heller is based on a textual right and Roe a nontextual one. Any restriction on the individual right of gun ownership will need to satisfy a heightened scrutiny, most likel strict scrutiny. Only a majority on the court who, like yourself, don't consider the Constitution actually binding upon them could change that. Feel free to fantasize it any other way, but in the meantime, you won't be able to come up with a magazine cap limit that satisifies the state's burden, since the only state interest they serve is making people feel better.

Heller was 5 to 4. Scalia is 77 and Kennedy is 76. They are not getting any younger.

Obama will in all likelihood get one or two more appointments during this term, and if the next president is a Democrat...