Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    7:04 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: How Do We Keep Guns Out Of The Hands Of Criminals? Back to Topics
gocatgo

Champion Author
South Carolina

Posts:19,072
Points:3,144,085
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 15, 2013 10:52:50 AM

How do we keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

That of course means "We The People" are partly to blame. This is why more people are buying gun safes and have home burglary alarms which may explain the drop in gun thefts over the years.

Back ground checks on every gun buyer to identify who the felons are. Private sellers should be able to use every police station in America to check on any buyer. Most police stations are open 24/7 for our convenience. [L=https://docs.google.com/text deleted theft in America [/L] is part of the problem. That of course means We The People are part of the problem. Thi of course explains why so many people buy gun safes and have Burglary alarms.

[Edited by: gocatgo at 1/15/2013 10:59:04 AM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 11:07:51 AM

gocatgo - "Black, "once he commits a crime he keeps the guns he already has", Wrong at least in SC. Someone I know in my community was sent to prison for 9 months and is now a convicted felon. Every weapon he owned was removed from his home."

Just as I suspected, you do have problems thinking. The way you described it is not the way it works, even in South Carolina. The criminal's gun is not taken from him as soon as he commits the crime. And he is not sent to prison for 9 months before he becomes a convicted felon.

Once a person commits a crime, he is then a Criminal and still has his gun or guns. He still has to be caught before his weapons can be removed from him. And he must be convicted for a felony before he is sent to prison. if he is found innocent his guns must be returned to him even if he is really a criminal. Every weapon can be removed from his home but that does not guarantee that all guns have been taken from him, just those guns that they can find.

Don't commit any crimes around here, you would be too easy to catch!
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,072
Points:3,144,085
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 10:44:56 AM

Fly, "cause harm to law abiding citizens"? By asking that every buyer go through a background check to ensure felons are not buying guns? Not selling guns to every buyer with cash that cannot pass a background check is a common sense approach. Armed criminals can be dangerous.

Black, "once he commits a crime he keeps the guns he already has", Wrong at least in SC. Someone I know in my community was sent to prison for 9 months and is now a convicted felon. Every weapon he owned was removed from his home. His hunting days are gone too. Yes, I would deny a convicted felon a gun. That said I would be for restoring that right if the felon was crime free for say 10 years depending on the crime. Not selling guns to convicted felons is a No Brainer unless you are naive. "Civil war requires a rebellion." That happened when SC seceded from the Union and fired the first shot at Ft Sumter. From that point on America was at war. One last time, Bull Run was not the first battle of the Civil war which you apparently fail to understand. I have serious questions about your history credentials on the subject of the American Civil War. Also as a crime fighter you should know that felons are not allowed to possess a gun as per state and federal laws.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,228
Points:3,455,295
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 10:14:36 AM

BGT said: "And once a Criminal has paid his debt to society, would you still deny him a gun?"

--Well, we do abridge certain civil rights after someone has committed a felony, such as the right to own a weapon and the right to vote. They can also prevent someone from participating in certain segments of the economy due to proven malfeasence in that field.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,582
Points:3,144,010
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 10:02:30 AM


BlackGumTree, "Liberals were responsible for most of the changes. Instead of getting rid of guns, wouldn't it be better to get rid of Liberals?"

Bingo.

That would also improve our schools and universities and make our media resume its proper constitutional function as watchdog for the public again over time - as the current teachers and reporters are replaced through attrition.

It would take time, but then we didn't get to this pretty pass overnight, either.

Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,399
Points:2,965,395
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 9:52:57 AM

gocatgo - "But the idea of cash is all you need to buy a gun makes Zero sense. Respectfully I say you like many other cons are too willing to make it easy for any criminal to buy a gun."

Actually, the objective is to make it easy for law abiding citizens to buy guns. Criminals will get guns whether they're legal or not. Keep in mind that there are a LOT more law abiding citizens than there are criminals, so the easier it is to buy guns legally the better the ratio of armed good guys to armed bad guys. Crime statistics support that principle as well. The higher the level of legal gun restriction, the higher the level of crime.

[Edited by: ldheinz at 2/1/2013 9:54:45 AM EST]
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 9:36:25 AM

flyboyUT - "Cultural conditions, not gun laws, are the most important factors in a nation's crime rate. Young adults in Washington, D.C., are subject to strict gun control, but no social control, and they commit a staggering amount of armed crime."

Actually, it didn't used to be that way. Both my mother and my father were educated in Washington, DC and graduated from high school there. My father's high school had a rifle team - students were taught how to handle guns. And there was very little gun violence in Washington, DC at that time. (I don't know if my mother's high school had anything similar. They went to different high schools.)

The population of Washington, DC changed in the 1950s. The name of my father's high school was changed and it no longer has a rifle team. The social atmosphere of the lower class in Washington, DC has been downhill since especially after Jack Kennedy moved into the White House. A lot of the middle class moved out of Washington, DC into the nearby areas of Maryland and Virginia.

You are correct about the lack of social control especially from the parents of the miscreants. Liberals were responsible for most of the changes. Instead of getting rid of guns, wouldn't it be better to get rid of Liberals?

[Edited by: BlackGumTree at 2/1/2013 9:38:42 AM EST]
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 9:15:43 AM

gocatgo - "Black, "I am able to think". Yeah and the 1st battle of the Civil War was Bull Run? I'm very aware of "your", Lol, thinking.

"Doing nothing until after a criminal is caught is not a serious plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. One thing a do nothing plan will do is sell more guns to anyone with ready cash which makes a lot of criminals happy."

Being able to think and actually doing it appears to be two different things for you. A person is not a criminal until after they have committed a crime in one sense of the word but legally not a criminal until they have been convicted of committing a crime.

The person who has not yet committed a crime is not a criminal and can purchase a gun without a problem. Once he has committed his first crime he keeps the guns he already has. So as a Liberal you only think of keeping guns out or the hands of criminals instead of thinking about how to prevent crimes. That is where Conservatives differ from Liberals.

And once a Criminal has paid his debt to society, would you still deny him a gun? A Conservative would rather discourage him from committing another crime regardless of whether he uses a gun or not.

You do have problems thinking.

And about the Civil War - a civil war requires a rebellion. Who rebelled? Caution - this will actually require thinking on your part.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,228
Points:3,455,295
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 8:53:07 AM

Rumbleseat - how have I criticized your great nation? I have the utmost respect for your country and your countrymen. I can't always say that of some other Canadians who post here in the US forum, but I've always known you to be reasonable as most Canadians I've met are (liberal, but reasonable).

Flyboy said: "Cultural conditions, not gun laws, are the most important factors in a nation's crime rate. Young adults in Washington, D.C., are subject to strict gun control, but no social control, and they commit a staggering amount of armed crime. Young adults in Zurich are subject to minimal gun control, but strict social control, and they commit almost no crime."

--And this is also where Nick is so blind he WILL NOT see. I know plenty of folks from when I used to live in rural areas who have dozens of guns at the house. They're used for hunting, for varmint control and even for legitimate shooting sports. Yet these rural areas have very low instances of gun crime? How does Nick justify that, I wonder?

I think Flyboy is absolutely right. It's a matter of culture. Here now, most murder is, sadly, black on black. Hmmm.. back in the great depression, unemployment rates among black folks was like 50% (higher than it is now), yet the proportion of black folks who were in prison was less, as was the murder rate. So I think that means unemployment isn't exactly the factor. And this is before the voting rights act and other civil rights of the '40s, '50s and '60s. So I think we can't blame discrimination, which has gone way down (next to zero IMHO). So what's the factor? I believe culture and illegitimacy are the big problems of crime, to tell you the truth (and I mean illegitimacy among ALL races - which is going up in America, unfortunately). Again, culture.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,342
Points:3,832,775
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 7:23:04 AM

Since you seem to insist on bringing Canada in only in a derogatory way, then I will simply say, you seem to have more freedom to carry guns, I seem to have more freedom from being killed by gunfire.
Criticizing Canada does absolutely nothing to save a single life in the USA.

You keep bringing up the RIGHT to own guns, but any RIGHT can be taken away for various offences. You have several classes of people who do not have that right, but there is no UNIVERSAL background check of all the databases in which the records of those people are kept, and various private sales are totally exempt from background checks.
Until everybody cares about the loopholes you can drive a truck through, a certain number of people in the prohibited groups will still be able to actually purchase guns.
Why is that not of PRIMARY importance?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,266
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 4:52:14 PM

An interesting article -- biased but interesting
.
>>>What have we learned from Switzerland?' Guns in themselves are not a cause of gun crime; if they were, everyone in Switzerland would long ago have been shot in a domestic quarrel.

Cultural conditions, not gun laws, are the most important factors in a nation's crime rate. Young adults in Washington, D.C., are subject to strict gun control, but no social control, and they commit a staggering amount of armed crime. Young adults in Zurich are subject to minimal gun control, but strict social control, and they commit almost no crime.

America-with its traditions of individual liberty-cannot import Switzerland's culture of social control. Teenagers, women, and almost everyone else have more freedom in America than in Switzerland.

What America can learn from Switzerland is that the best way to reduce gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership. While America cannot adopt the Swiss model, America can foster responsible gun ownership along more individualistic, American lines. Firearms safety classes in elementary schools, optional marksmanship classes in high schools and colleges, and the widespread availability of adult safety training at licensed shooting ranges are some of the ways that America can make its tradition of responsible gun use even stronger.<<<The key idea I picked up on in this is that its people not the object that make the difference - "Young adults in Washington, D.C., are subject to strict gun control, but no social control, and they commit a staggering amount of armed crime." substitute your favorite American large city for Washington DC and it still fits.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,582
Points:3,144,010
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 2:21:28 PM


AC-302, "We have limits on those freedoms, including firearms ownership"

As a direct result of the abuses of the Crown, it should be noted.

The same Crown that the Canadians accepted.

This is a fundamental difference in our two countries, the effects of which penetrate into almost every part of the laws that govern us.

It's a matter of who is the master and who is the servant.

Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,639
Points:3,176,470
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 11:56:51 AM

>>Obviously, if countries that also have gun ownership rates on par with America have crime rates substantially lower than we have - there must be some other difference other than the availability of guns that explains the different crime rates.<<

Yes, "if". Unfortunately for your argument, that scenario does not exist on this planet. NO ONE has "gun ownership rates on par with America" - the USA is #1 (Hooray! We're number ONE!). Of the two countries you mentioned in your quoting of rumbleseat, Switzerland has a gun ownership rate 1/2 that of the U.S., while Israel's gun ownership rate is 1/12 that of the U.S.

So, while there are other differences in regulation, who's allowed to have guns, etc. you sure can't rule out "a hardware problem". More guns, more deaths.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,266
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 11:21:59 AM

Gocat - by defination a criminal does not obey the laws. This idea to reduce the rights of everyone else and develop a list of all law abiding citizens who own or wish to own guns will have zero effect on criminals.

That fact has been established many times over. Why do you wish to keep on causing harm to those who are law abiding? Especially when it will do nothing to reduce the guns in criminal hands.

I am in favor of not letting criminals obtain guns. There are proven ways to do that. People just dont have the intestional fortitude to do it! Instead they want to attack those who do not break the law. Now that is illogical.

For example we know we have a problem with drunk driving - will you agree with that? We know drunk drivers kill and injure lots of people every year. WE tried to stop people from getting drinks. We know that caused more harm than good. We know that many to most of the drunk drivers have been caught driving drunk more than once yet we allow them to continue doing what is clearly illegal and harmful to others.

How about we dont do the same dumb things with guns.

I also want to stop the illegal use of firearms. But what we have done in the past hasnt worked and what many are proposing for the future wont work. For once - just once lets do what does work......

Lets focus our effort on the actions of people and not on the object.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,072
Points:3,144,085
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 10:56:25 AM

Fly, "being arrested many times", if they are arrested they did not buy a gun to commit a crime. I say make'em lie. But the idea of cash is all you need to buy a gun makes Zero sense. Respectfully I say you like many other cons are too willing to make it easy for any criminal to buy a gun.

Pan, my background check was done around 2005 and I had never bought a gun from a retail store before. "Down here the people are the masters of the govt". Try remembering that the next time you are bellyaching about all things dem.

Black, "I am able to think". Yeah and the 1st battle of the Civil War was Bull Run? I'm very aware of "your", Lol, thinking.

Doing nothing until after a criminal is caught is not a serious plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. One thing a do nothing plan will do is sell more guns to anyone with ready cash which makes a lot of criminals happy.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,228
Points:3,455,295
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 9:52:24 AM

Rumbleseat said of Canada: "Our laws may sound restrictive and cumbersome, but we don't feel the need for everybody to have guns."

--And that's fine. It's not that everyone in America "needs" a gun. However a gun is a tool, like any other tool, and it needs to be used responsibly. But again, "need" isn't the issue here in the States. We have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to own firearms. That right is to us as basic as our right to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom to assemble and gather together (peaceably). To us, that's not negotiable. We have limits on those freedoms, including firearms ownership. No problems there. However, in my never to be humble opinion, there are already plenty of restrictions on firearms ownership and no more are required. If our government would enforce the laws that are already out there, gun crime would be significantly reduced. But our government chooses not to actively enforce the laws, but to passively and selectively enforce the laws once criminals are already nabbed for something else.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,582
Points:3,144,010
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 9:50:49 AM


rumbleseat, "If Switzerland can keep its firearm death rate to 3.84/100,000 with the number of guns, and Israel can keep its firearm death rate to 1.86, how can anybody think the rate in the US is acceptable..."

Obviously, if countries that also have gun ownership rates on par with America have crime rates substantially lower than we have - there must be some other difference other than the availability of guns that explains the different crime rates.

The problem is obviously a people problem rather than a hardware problem.

Our government should be concentrating on dealing with criminals and the criminally insane rather than getting distracted with controlling the guns of the law abiding citizens that have nothing to do with the problem.

Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,582
Points:3,144,010
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 9:43:01 AM


rumbleseat, "IF I NEEDED a gun, I could have one"

But if you NEEDED freedom of speech, could you have it?

Only if you said the right things, apparently.

Down here, the people are the masters of the government, not the subjects of the crown.

Big difference.

Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 8:31:51 AM

gocatgo - "Black, so besides being a historian, Psychologist you are also a criminologist. I suspect you are a legend in your own mind too."

Just because I am able to think is no reason for you to get upset.

You don't need a background check to catch a criminal with a gun. I have already caught a criminal with a gun in a place I have never been to which was over 60 miles away. And to this day, I have not seen his face, nor can I tell you his race. But he was relieved of his gun and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

And all it took was a little thinking. Actually this criminal told me how to find him without realizing it.

It seems your opinion of me stems from jealousy and envy because you don't think you could do the same thing. Actually I have more confidence in you than you do. You just have to learn how to do it.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,342
Points:3,832,775
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 6:35:36 AM

Our laws may sound restrictive and cumbersome, but we don't feel the need for everybody to have guns.
IF I NEEDED a gun, I could have one. I don't need one. I have handled guns, don't want them in my home, but, again, if I NEEDED one, I could have one.
There should be no state where YOU have to get checked to buy a gun, but the person you sell it to doesn't. That just doesn't make sense, and a growing number of gun owners believe that.

And yeah, fly, you may be glad you broke away, but the risk of gun-related death in the US is greater than that in Canada, that is a simple fact.
Maybe closing a few loopholes in your laws shouldn't be considered by some as such a personal assault.

2012 firearm death rate in the US, 10.2/100,000 population.
2012 firearm death rate in Canada, 2.13/100,000 population.
If Switzerland can keep its firearm death rate to 3.84/100,000 with the number of guns, and Israel can keep its firearm death rate to 1.86, how can anybody think the rate in the US is acceptable, or that nothing can be done, or that people who are trying to find ways to reduce it are simply gunophobes "coming to get your guns"?
Does anybody not think that perhaps the criminals that don't obey the laws might have fewer guns to purchase if background checks were required for every single private sale or gun show sale in the country, and if those checks covered all the diverse records in all states than right now aren't all linked?
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,582
Points:3,144,010
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 11:29:05 PM


gocatgo, "My background check took about a month in the meantime I could not buy a gun"

How long ago was that?

Mine didn't take 5 minutes; the records are all computerized these days.

Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,228
Points:3,455,295
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 11:17:41 PM

Rumbleseat - I do think on a nation-wide basis, your firearms laws sound a whole lot more restrictive and cumbersome than ours. In Illinois they have some of what you speak. IL residents must have a firearms owners ID (FOID) card to buy guns or any ammo. Again, as I was saying, laws vary tremendously from state to state. Here in the Land of Fruits and Nuts, a mag-fed semi-auto such as AR-15 or MAK-90 are illegal. SKS is legal, as long as it is the one that uses the non-detachable SKS mags, the one with the AK mags is highly illegal here.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,665
Points:332,370
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 9:47:37 PM

"If you want to own a handgun, (or other "restricted" firearms such as AR-15 rifles) in Canada you need to to pass a second course called the CRFSC (the R is for Restricted,) and pay a bit more on the application to get a PAL which allows you to buy restricted firearms".

Sounds like the NFA branch of the ATF.
Our restricted weapons are full auto machine guns, sawed off shot guns, shot barrelled rifles, large bore (greater than 0.5 inches) destructive devices (grenade launcher), explosive DD (grenades), portable firearm sound suppressors and the catch all AOW "any other weapon".
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,266
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 4:42:16 PM

Hey Rumble do the criminals in Canada obey all of those laws?

Sure am glad we decided to break away from the legal system that allows those kind of things.



[Edited by: flyboyUT at 1/30/2013 4:43:29 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,266
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 4:41:13 PM

Hey gocat we can find some agreement - its a good day...

Its more than just arresting them. Many to most of them have been arrested many times and have no fear of being arrested again. What we need is speedy trials adn swift and sure punishment. We need to make the punishment sufficient that the gains to a felon getting a gun is more than offest by the punishment to the point that they will choose not to get a gun.

Gocat a background check only denies a firearm to a criminal that is too dumb to not learn how to lie on the form or to get whatever they want off the street from another criminal.

If we really are serious about keeping the guns away from criminals the only way is to have them choose not to touch a gun. We know how to do that but I cant think of too many people who are willing to do what it takes.

But they are more than willing to do what we know doesnt work and then they want to do more of it because it didnt work before. What is that phrase about doing the same thing over and over and wanting different results?
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,072
Points:3,144,085
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 4:27:38 PM

Fly, "yet just 44 were prosecuted". I've seen that too and it is part of the problem. "A background check does not deny guns to criminals", I agree if the gun seller is breaking the law too. My background check took about a month in the meantime I could not buy a gun. "Holding felons accountable" means arresting them on the spot when they are shown to be a criminal.

Selling guns to anyone with ready cash is self defeating and stupid.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,342
Points:3,832,775
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 9:17:34 AM

To buy a gun in Canada, you FIRST have to pass a safety course. Once you pass that, you can apply for a licence.
The course is called the CFSC, that's short for the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, and the license is called a PAL (Possession and Acquisition License).
The PAL is a pink card with your picture on it, much like a driver licence.

Handguns, contrary to popular belief, ARE legal in Canada. If you want to own a handgun, (or other "restricted" firearms such as AR-15 rifles) in Canada you need to to pass a second course called the CRFSC (the R is for Restricted,) and pay a bit more on the application to get a PAL which allows you to buy restricted firearms.
It is NOT a concealed carry permit, does not allow you to CARRY a handgun. You get authorization to carry a handgun if you have a job that requires it, such as police officer, or armoured car guard/driver.
About 99% of PAL applications are approved, it seems those that would be denied don't tend to apply, or check with the RCMP before sending the application in.
It costs about $150 for the PAL, and about $245 for the Restricted PAL.

All restricted firearms must be registered. Licensing and registration are not the same thing. Handguns, and even some kinds of long guns must still be registered.
Registration is a process that amounts to letting the RCMP CFP know who owns particular firearms and where they keep them. It happens automatically when you purchase an applicable firearm at a store.
With a private sales the buyer and seller MUST call the RCMP CFP and initiate the transfer themselves.

To carry the restricted weapons to a firing range, one must possess an ATT (Authorization to Transport), naming the location, which may be a range, a gunsmith, or a location where it is being sold. In transport, the gun must be unloaded, have a trigger lock, and be in a lock-box or locked carry case.

There are 3 classes of firearms in Canada, non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. The easiest is to see the examples on this site.

The Three Legal Classes of Firearms in Canada
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,228
Points:3,455,295
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 8:39:33 AM

Rumbleseat - tell me, and I honestly don't know, what does it take to buy a shotgun, a semi-auto pistol, a bolt action rifle and a semi-auto mag-fed rifle in Canada? I'm guessing that each or some of these have somewhat different rules as they do here in the Lower 48. Here, the rules also can vary tremendously from state to state.
Profile Pic
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:10,700
Points:2,051,180
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 6:59:06 AM

RAB2010 said: "How do we keep alcohol out of the hands of alcoholics?"

jdhelm said: "how do we keep cars out of the hands of drunks who drive and kill?

how do we keep cell phones out of the hand of people who drive and text and kill?"

Those are intriguing questions, however we still don't have the answers to 2 perplexing questions posed over 40 years ago...

"How do you solve a problem like Maria?"

and

"How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?"
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,342
Points:3,832,775
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 4:19:03 AM

gocatgo, "I can't be the only one that believes many criminals can be stopped from buying a gun with a background check by the police depts of America. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals should be the concern of every law abiding citizen."

nst: "Now substitute the word gun for cocaine or meth. How is that working out?"

So tell me, how many police departments are doing background checks before people are allowed to buy cocaine, or meth?
Not exactly a fair comparison.
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:30,582
Points:3,144,010
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 1:45:58 AM


"How Do We Keep Guns Out Of The Hands Of Criminals?"

Allow guns to be kept in society but keep the criminals out of it and in jail where they belong.

Punish the criminal, not the law abiding.

Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,228
Points:3,455,295
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 9:59:56 PM

Topic: How Do We Keep Guns Out Of The Hands Of Criminals?

--Start be vigorously enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Here, now. I can remember in 1994 when they instituted the semi-auto weapons ban and that crime bill. At the following State of the Union address, "Slick Willie" made the statement that 100,000 guns were kept out of the hands of criminals through the background checks. That's great! Then why weren't these 100,000 folks who lied on the Federal forms thrown in jail or otherwise sanctioned somehow?

And again, you and others seem wont to take away a right from 99.99++% of law abiding folks, in order to punish the <0.01% of scofflaws. That hardly seems fair nor right. But I realize that there are some anti-gun kooks out there that sincerely believe: "But, but.. if we just pass this ONE MORE LAW, everything will come out peachy!" And the do so without thinking about the consequences - ALL THE CONSEQUENCES - to our society.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,665
Points:332,370
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 9:27:50 PM

"72,142 were denied ... 44 were prosecuted"

Ok so its not zero prosecuted, just effectively zero prosecuted and there for effectively zero risk to the criminal buyer. Its safer for them to try and lie to get a gun then go into the ghetto and buy one.
They don't fear this system at all.

Doesn't this go back to "enforcing the laws we already have on the books", something we have been saying all along?
It should be something we all can agree on.

[Edited by: oilpan4 at 1/29/2013 9:30:02 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,266
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 7:35:41 PM

Gocat the system is a waste of time..
.
>>>Nevertheless, NICS performs millions of checks every year, and usually in under two minutes. In 2010, the agency reviewed more than 6 million 4473 forms. Just 72,142 were denied the right to buy a gun.

Among those denials, 47 percent were rejected because of a felony indictment or conviction. Yet, just 44 were prosecuted, and 13 convicted of lying on their 4473 form, according to a report prepared for the DOJ by the Regional Justice Information Service in 2012. That represents just .0002 percent of all denials, and an even smaller percentage of the total number of background checks.

While the background check does deny guns to criminals, very few are punished for trying. And while a majority of lawmakers appear to support the system, there are lingering questions over to what extent it prevents crime. According to a 2000 report published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers found rates of homicide and suicide were not significantly different in states that had implemented the checks versus states that had not.<<<

Gocat they are not using the law to punish the felons who break the law. The law is being ignored by those who we want it to affect. Those statistics are just for he ones who used the system. The majority of fleons who obtain a firearm do not even bother to attempt to follow the law. They buy guns from illegal sources or steal them.

We would be better off 'convincing' felons to not obtain a gun from any source or by any means.

That we can do - if we are willing to actually hold felons accountable for what they do and raise the penalties to the point the risk is more than the reward.
Profile Pic
regulate_now
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:6,626
Points:1,009,050
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 4:17:30 PM

What are WE (including me) doing to ACTIVELY "make it easy" for criminals to put their "hands" on guns? Hec, dabble in the passive too, I gotta hear this...
Profile Pic
Edger
Champion Author Pittsburgh

Posts:41,909
Points:2,705,235
Joined:Apr 2005
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 4:06:00 PM

"A firing squad will keep that gun out of the criminals hands forever."

I'm partial to a public hanging.
Invite friends and associates. They might get the idea of not using a firearm while committing a crime.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,072
Points:3,144,085
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 3:41:56 PM

Fly, I'm not worried about "presently legal people". If you can't run a background check on everyone you can't stop the criminal. "You can't convince criminals not to use guns" but you don't have to make as easy as paying cash and walking away with a gun either. Doing nothing accomplishes nothing. How easy is it for a criminal to steal a gun from legal gun owners? If it is easy then that is a "real problem".

Black, so besides being a historian, Psychologist you are also a criminologist. I suspect you are a legend in your own mind too.

Nstrd, the topic is not on "cocaine and meth". Maybe you prefer to wait until after the crime to do a background check on a suspect. You may get some support from your fellow cons on that point.

Wes, "incarceration" after the crime is what we do now and it ain't working.

regulate, "anyone hell bent on getting a gun will" but why should we make it easy?

The Nra is the best friend a criminal has for easy access to weapons and more fire power. Don't believe me? Just listen to their members make excuses for 10+ round magazines or arguing against background checks.
Profile Pic
regulate_now
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:6,626
Points:1,009,050
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 12:20:12 PM

As Rab put nicely, I will put in other words... YOU CANT... Anyone hellbent on getting a gun- WILL... No matter where, what country, what laws, etc...
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,495
Points:830,410
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 12:19:37 PM

Don't think you can retrofit 500 million guns with "James Bond-type" palm scanners so they can only be used by the owner or designee.
Profile Pic
RAB2010
All-Star Author Kalamazoo

Posts:656
Points:78,050
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 12:10:01 PM

Isn't that an absurd question? Think about it: it is not possible to keep weapons away from people. Is it possible to keep alcoholics from obtaining alcohol? Can drug addicts be prevented from obtaining illicit drugs? Can intoxicated drivers be prevented from driving? Did prohibition work?

Of course not; why would this make sense? So why is this an issue? Criminals will always have weapons. Good people prepare for the possibility and are ready to respond if / when they encounter the criminal.

Perhaps the question that should be addressed is this: why do we insist on keeping criminals around?

[Edited by: RAB2010 at 1/29/2013 12:11:03 PM EST]
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,553
Points:1,528,040
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 10:01:37 AM

A firing squad will keep that gun out of the criminals hands forever.
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,639
Points:3,176,470
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 11:40:25 AM

>>OK, here's a "novel" idea - you know, kinda like some other stupid idea by a gb on some other stupid thread topic -<<

Funny, jd, how you call his idea and thread "stupid", yet his topic was just a response to all of the red herring comments by YOU and others comparing gun deaths to car deaths (perhaps you remember spamming this gun thread with your car nonsense. So, I guess his thread was a response to your "stupid" comments.

YOU hijack gun topics with your car/drunk driving red herrings, but when it's shown that steps have been taken over the years which have drastically reduced vehicle and drunk driving fatalities while NOTHING has been done to reduce firearm fatalities, all of a sudden the gun-car comparison shows guns in a bad light, so you and others run away and hide, and you call his topic "stupid". So sorry that the facts, once again, are not going your way.
Profile Pic
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:7,050
Points:1,784,125
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 8:59:00 AM

Incarceration?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,815
Points:4,594,180
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 8:06:25 AM

gocatgo, "I can't be the only one that believes many criminals can be stopped from buying a gun with a background check by the police depts of America. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals should be the concern of every law abiding citizen."

Now substitute the word gun for cocaine or meth. How is that working out?
Profile Pic
jdhelm
Champion Author Iowa

Posts:16,172
Points:1,801,090
Joined:Dec 2009
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 7:49:22 AM

OK, here's a "novel" idea - you know, kinda like some other stupid idea by a gb on some other stupid thread topic -

-

"Every State Has A Registry Of Car Owners. What Is So Different About Guns?" Let's have a "national" criminal registry. Let's get all the criminals who haven't been caught yet, to register their name, address, phone number, car/vehicle (even the car they haven't yet stolen), their illegal gun(s), their safe house address, etc., with local police departments. The local pd's can then send in all this mandated info to a national registry to: the FBI, CIA, DOD, USBP, . . . you get the picture, right?
Then we can sit back with this "new law" and tell the general public how safe we feel now that we've done something in congress - - -

. . . and all the public will cheer and go out into the streets and sing kumbaya and bho and hillary can go on all the Sunday morning shows and tell the people - see, the majority of the voters wanted this and we listened to the people - and there ya go.

Now will all the right wing conservative buttheads please just shut the h up, - our lord and savior has saved the people - hope and change has prevailed as we change America.

(i feel safe already) - (kinda)

[Edited by: jdhelm at 1/28/2013 7:51:02 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,399
Points:2,965,395
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 7:37:00 AM

Enforce laws against handgun crime. Duh.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,665
Points:332,370
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Jan 27, 2013 2:12:17 PM

"Keep them away from liberals and democrats".

Regular reasonable democrats are fine. Keep them away from the proglibs that like to shoot up their place of employment when ever they don't get their way.
Profile Pic
Snowchoux
Champion Author Missouri

Posts:1,003
Points:145,635
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Jan 27, 2013 12:37:26 PM

Cops will always have guns, you can't.
Profile Pic
RAB2010
All-Star Author Kalamazoo

Posts:656
Points:78,050
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 8:56:58 PM


Keep them away from liberals and democrats.
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,641
Points:2,861,230
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 7:30:09 PM

>>101, "allow the death penalty to be used". After the fact does not cut it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.<<

I guarantee that if the death penalty is carried out that person will never use a gun or commit another crime again.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 7:22:04 PM

gocatgo – “’getting info’” is not something I said nor is it found in this thread. BTW it is you that said, “Watch a few episodes of ‘Cops’, you could learn a lot about catching criminals.” And where would you be “watching real cops do their jobs arresting real criminals” when you do not appear to know anything about catching criminals.

gocatgo – “’Ten years free room and board’ as opposed to what?” As opposed to being sentenced to something else.

gocatgo – “try your Jan 24, 7:13pm post.” I checked that and in fact checked the entire thread for anybody saying that and it is not to be found. It must have come from your imagination.

I know that police have problems in catching criminals. And I have assisted in the catching of criminals when the police were unsuccessful. And the criminals were caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced. As such I suspect I might know a little more about catching criminals than you do.
Post a reply Back to Topics