Jump to content
The point would be that guns are proof of manhood. Concern for gun violence is the opposite, and a realm for women, not real men.
Thanks Rhys, for taking exception to the insult. Dan, Tom's post sits well with you? And this?:
Tom's post 8 days back after I mention the parents' scars and pain from gun violence evident at this article's meeting:
"Sorry Steve...I won't drink "that" kool-ade...I have a meeting at the shooting range.
The only scares I see are the tearing up of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. All the rest of it is the "drama" of the human condition on parade. Cheers!"
"Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.
According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity."
Allen, I am definitely out of touch with your reality. Gun runners bringing guns from outside the United States?
"The data show that a majority of guns used by criminals are not stolen or smuggled in to the country. They are bought at federally licensed gun stores, often by “straw purchasers,” people acting on behalf of others who cannot buy a weapon legally because of a criminal record.
The database also shows that most gun shops rarely, if ever, sell a weapon later linked to a crime. But a few shops account for a remarkably large number of these guns.
In a 2000 report, ATF officials said that nearly 40 percent of all weapons traced by the bureau originated from just 332 gun dealers nationwide. That means that less than 1 percent of the nation’s gun stores supply nearly half of all weapons traced in connection with a crime."
"More than half of the firearms traced in crimes come from just 1 percent of the nation's licensed gun stores, but federal agents rarely check to make sure these stores are complying with gun laws, a new study finds.
According to data from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, approximately 1 percent of the nation's gun stores are the source of 57 percent of the firearms traced to crimes. It took the Washington-based lobbyist group Americans for Gun Safety six years and three lawsuits to get the names of the gun stores that sell a disproportionate number of the guns traced to crimes."
I keep repeating because you refuse to hear - its not about making criminals follow laws or become honest, I've agreed that won't happen! What will work is making the system accountable for the guns sold. The current system allows guns made and sold in this country to vanish. That is fundamentally dishonest and supplies guns for crime.
Allen, to a liberal the key word here is Honesty. No one expects the criminals to become honest. Yes that would be dumb. The matter of honesty we care about is this - where are criminals getting the guns from? When gun owners become accountable for their guns the illegal market will shrink dramatically. The only way to have that accountability is registration.
I grew up hunting. May resume as I still own those guns. The right to have guns to hunt and defend family I absolutely support and I know no one who doesn't feel the same way. But let's recognize guns are built for one purpose - to kill. A car must be registered, a lethal weapon should be too.
Jerry, completely agree with you the discussion is larger than mass shootings. Immediate results won't happen but we can turn the tide.
Jerry, I did reply. Apparently the same hour as your post, about 3 days ago.
Registration doesn't yank guns out of the inner city. What it does is reduce the flow of guns going in. Grinding the serial number off is impossible to solve but somewhat offset by knowing Bill Smith keeps "losing" guns that he registered.
I do try to inform myself, Allen. Today its quite easy to find challenges to studies, and challenges to the challenges. Even better to read the study.
Your website makes much of a study by Kleck and Gertz, 1995. Based on Kleck and Gertz, your website claims an 80:1 ratio of greater gun use "to protect a life than to take one."
1) In their study, Kleck and Gertz have this to say: "Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number of lives taken with guns. It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did."
It appears your website intentionally ignored the study's full text.
2) Table 3 of the same study describes THE NATURE OF DEFENSIVE GUN USE INCIDENTS. Item E - Violence Directed at Defender is worth noting: 46.8% of defensive gun uses counted in the study involve "no threat or attack" towards the defensive user.
3) Repeating from above, "as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life" - Kleck and Gertz. The website's link to gun policy.org offers that 1995 saw 21,606 homicides in the U.S. in 1995. Both numbers should have indecent verification but given this 20:1 ratio of defense of homicides to actual homicides, I would love to know how your website came up with its 80:1 factor. Kleck and Gertz in the earlier quote imply this ratio is closer to 10:1.
Trying to pull my head out of the sand here. Can you help me better understand the above?
"So in essence a gun crime is traceable to the original purchaser by law enforcement."
And that's much of the problem. In current system only a crime pulls the data together. Damage already done. With registration the data is brought together before the crime.
Again, Its hard to understand why my gun ownership should be a bigger secret than my mental health.
No, I am not mistaking registration with background checks.
As Ken wrote,"By law the NICS system approves a person for purchase, issues approval #'s for that purchase and within 24 hours deletes the buyer's data. All that remains is a printed record in the gun dealer's record books which must be 100 % accurate and be kept for 20 years. Law enforcement has access to those records upon request. Registration means the government has you on a list as owning a specific gun."
From that description background checks are a one-time and less thorough tool for keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited users. Will Ken know after selling a gun if the buyer is mentally or criminally restricted the next year? No one will be able to connect these prohibited people with gun ownership via prior background checks held in Ken's stored records. Everyone will be able make that connection at any time with registration.
With the need pro-gun and gun registration advocates alike are placing on mental filtering, subsequent-to-purchase mental prohibitions will number in the millions. All useless without gun registration!
Last login: Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.