|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 26 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:
And where in that verbiage is the recommendation for a felony charge?
18 USC § 924 - Penalties
(a) (1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, subsection (b), (c), (f), or (p) of this section, or in section 929, whoever—
(A) knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of this chapter;
(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), or (q) ofsection 922;
(C) knowingly imports or brings into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition in violation of section 922 (l); or
(D) willfully violates any other provision of this chapter,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
|
On April 26 2013 02:45 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 01:58 Jormundr wrote:On April 26 2013 01:29 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2013 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 01:17 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as 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. It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide. The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you. I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you. The same argument could be used for all other laws. Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc... Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them. I didn't say it was pointless, I just am warning you not to get your hopes up. Don't get me wrong--I agree it won't solve the problem with gun distribution. Just showing how its a bad argument to say that laws not preventing criminals from being criminals is a bad stance to take argumentatively speaking. Saying law X won't work because criminals won't follow it means no law works. It doesn't matter which law it is. Thats not the point of laws though. Every proposal that obama and the rest of the democrats have been proposing with gun control recently would only effect law abiding citizens and would do nothing at all to change the situation as it is. There are tons of factors that go into literally every single statistic that gun control advocates use but the only one they ever put any effort into is to go after guns themselves. If people knew gun control wouldn't work in the cities when the country didn't have gun control then there isn't a reason to have gun control in the cities. This simple logic doesn't change the cities cracking down further and further into crime and violence with more and more gun control being issued. The reason why people should be allowed to own and carry arms is because the people who are owning and carrying arms are not being negatively affected by their ability to own and carry arms. This simple statement is why the NRA keeps winning. Your paragraph expressions confusion over why political posturing happens. To put it simply, we have these things called elections, and most politicians who are up for re-election in the next cycle are willing to put on all sorts of dramatic shows that SOUND good to the least educated majority. Most of the gun laws passed since 84 meet three requirements: 1. They vaguely address a public outcry for gun control, but fall far short of any real change in legislation 2. They must not have a detrimental effect on gun sales 3. They generate media attention for both the politician and the NRA If you see most gun laws as trying to fit into this framework, they make more sense. Your last statement doesn't really follow any... reason... The reason why men should be able to beat and rape women is because men who beat and rape women are not being negatively affected by their ability to rape and beat women. Just because the group in question isn't negatively affected by their actions (which you have yet to prove or substantiate) doesn't mean that other groups aren't negatively affected. P.S. nobody has a right to own a firearm. You aren't handed a firearm at birth and asked whether you want it or not. You have the right to potentially own a firearm, which is why there is a gun control movement. Making an action less desirable does not take away or infringe upon that right. For instance having a one month wait period doesn't infringe upon your right. You still have just as much potential to own a firearm. It's just never going to happen because that's awful for gun sales, and the NRA (which stands for Gun Marketers of America) would push every bribe it has to make sure that doesn't happen because its in their own economic interest. REALLY? I was pretty sure you did have the right, considering its in the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of Privileges. Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 02:16 sc4k wrote:
It's so shocking that a bill with 90% approval rating was not passed in the Senate. Is everyone else as shocked as I am about that? I mean, that means your political system is not working very well. We're not a democracy. If public opinion matters so much, why not get rid of the Senate entirely? They must just be needless middlemen right?
Now you're just getting into semantics. Calling something a right doesn't make it a right. For it to be a right, it must first be an ability. If you're not able to live, then you don't have a right to life or to bear arms because you're dead. Similarly, if you don't have the ability to own a gun, you aren't given the right to bear one.
|
On April 26 2013 02:21 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 02:16 sc4k wrote:
It's so shocking that a bill with 90% approval rating was not passed in the Senate. Is everyone else as shocked as I am about that? I mean, that means your political system is not working very well. I haven't been following closely but was the poll the same as the bill? Do they have the same basic wording? You may be comparing apples and oranges.
I am also curious as to the wording of questions of said poll. You could word such a questions to get the results you wanted.
Do you support Universal Background Checks?
A. Yes, UBC will make it harder for criminals to get access to firearms and prevent criminals from killing children as young as 3 years old. Some say it will also prevent reduce the risk of cancer.
B.No I could care less about dead babies.
It is irrelevant if this part is true ( UBC will make it harder for criminals to get access to firearms and prevent criminals from killing children as young as 3 years old. Some say it will also prevent reduce the risk of cancer.)
|
On April 26 2013 02:51 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 02:45 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 01:58 Jormundr wrote:On April 26 2013 01:29 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2013 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 01:17 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as 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. It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide. The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you. I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you. The same argument could be used for all other laws. Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc... Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them. I didn't say it was pointless, I just am warning you not to get your hopes up. Don't get me wrong--I agree it won't solve the problem with gun distribution. Just showing how its a bad argument to say that laws not preventing criminals from being criminals is a bad stance to take argumentatively speaking. Saying law X won't work because criminals won't follow it means no law works. It doesn't matter which law it is. Thats not the point of laws though. Every proposal that obama and the rest of the democrats have been proposing with gun control recently would only effect law abiding citizens and would do nothing at all to change the situation as it is. There are tons of factors that go into literally every single statistic that gun control advocates use but the only one they ever put any effort into is to go after guns themselves. If people knew gun control wouldn't work in the cities when the country didn't have gun control then there isn't a reason to have gun control in the cities. This simple logic doesn't change the cities cracking down further and further into crime and violence with more and more gun control being issued. The reason why people should be allowed to own and carry arms is because the people who are owning and carrying arms are not being negatively affected by their ability to own and carry arms. This simple statement is why the NRA keeps winning. Your paragraph expressions confusion over why political posturing happens. To put it simply, we have these things called elections, and most politicians who are up for re-election in the next cycle are willing to put on all sorts of dramatic shows that SOUND good to the least educated majority. Most of the gun laws passed since 84 meet three requirements: 1. They vaguely address a public outcry for gun control, but fall far short of any real change in legislation 2. They must not have a detrimental effect on gun sales 3. They generate media attention for both the politician and the NRA If you see most gun laws as trying to fit into this framework, they make more sense. Your last statement doesn't really follow any... reason... The reason why men should be able to beat and rape women is because men who beat and rape women are not being negatively affected by their ability to rape and beat women. Just because the group in question isn't negatively affected by their actions (which you have yet to prove or substantiate) doesn't mean that other groups aren't negatively affected. P.S. nobody has a right to own a firearm. You aren't handed a firearm at birth and asked whether you want it or not. You have the right to potentially own a firearm, which is why there is a gun control movement. Making an action less desirable does not take away or infringe upon that right. For instance having a one month wait period doesn't infringe upon your right. You still have just as much potential to own a firearm. It's just never going to happen because that's awful for gun sales, and the NRA (which stands for Gun Marketers of America) would push every bribe it has to make sure that doesn't happen because its in their own economic interest. REALLY? I was pretty sure you did have the right, considering its in the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of Privileges. On April 26 2013 02:16 sc4k wrote:
It's so shocking that a bill with 90% approval rating was not passed in the Senate. Is everyone else as shocked as I am about that? I mean, that means your political system is not working very well. We're not a democracy. If public opinion matters so much, why not get rid of the Senate entirely? They must just be needless middlemen right? Now you're just getting into semantics. Calling something a right doesn't make it a right. For it to be a right, it must first be an ability. If you're not able to live, then you don't have a right to life or to bear arms because you're dead. Similarly, if you don't have the ability to own a gun, you aren't given the right to bear one.
Do you have the right to a trial, or do you first have to prove you're able to have a trial? Do you have the right to free speech, or do you first have to prove you're able to have free speech?
|
On April 26 2013 02:51 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 02:45 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 01:58 Jormundr wrote:On April 26 2013 01:29 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2013 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 01:17 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as 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. It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide. The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you. I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you. The same argument could be used for all other laws. Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc... Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them. I didn't say it was pointless, I just am warning you not to get your hopes up. Don't get me wrong--I agree it won't solve the problem with gun distribution. Just showing how its a bad argument to say that laws not preventing criminals from being criminals is a bad stance to take argumentatively speaking. Saying law X won't work because criminals won't follow it means no law works. It doesn't matter which law it is. Thats not the point of laws though. Every proposal that obama and the rest of the democrats have been proposing with gun control recently would only effect law abiding citizens and would do nothing at all to change the situation as it is. There are tons of factors that go into literally every single statistic that gun control advocates use but the only one they ever put any effort into is to go after guns themselves. If people knew gun control wouldn't work in the cities when the country didn't have gun control then there isn't a reason to have gun control in the cities. This simple logic doesn't change the cities cracking down further and further into crime and violence with more and more gun control being issued. The reason why people should be allowed to own and carry arms is because the people who are owning and carrying arms are not being negatively affected by their ability to own and carry arms. This simple statement is why the NRA keeps winning. Your paragraph expressions confusion over why political posturing happens. To put it simply, we have these things called elections, and most politicians who are up for re-election in the next cycle are willing to put on all sorts of dramatic shows that SOUND good to the least educated majority. Most of the gun laws passed since 84 meet three requirements: 1. They vaguely address a public outcry for gun control, but fall far short of any real change in legislation 2. They must not have a detrimental effect on gun sales 3. They generate media attention for both the politician and the NRA If you see most gun laws as trying to fit into this framework, they make more sense. Your last statement doesn't really follow any... reason... The reason why men should be able to beat and rape women is because men who beat and rape women are not being negatively affected by their ability to rape and beat women. Just because the group in question isn't negatively affected by their actions (which you have yet to prove or substantiate) doesn't mean that other groups aren't negatively affected. P.S. nobody has a right to own a firearm. You aren't handed a firearm at birth and asked whether you want it or not. You have the right to potentially own a firearm, which is why there is a gun control movement. Making an action less desirable does not take away or infringe upon that right. For instance having a one month wait period doesn't infringe upon your right. You still have just as much potential to own a firearm. It's just never going to happen because that's awful for gun sales, and the NRA (which stands for Gun Marketers of America) would push every bribe it has to make sure that doesn't happen because its in their own economic interest. REALLY? I was pretty sure you did have the right, considering its in the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of Privileges. On April 26 2013 02:16 sc4k wrote:
It's so shocking that a bill with 90% approval rating was not passed in the Senate. Is everyone else as shocked as I am about that? I mean, that means your political system is not working very well. We're not a democracy. If public opinion matters so much, why not get rid of the Senate entirely? They must just be needless middlemen right? Now you're just getting into semantics. Calling something a right doesn't make it a right. For it to be a right, it must first be an ability. If you're not able to live, then you don't have a right to life or to bear arms because you're dead. Similarly, if you don't have the ability to own a gun, you aren't given the right to bear one.
Americans have the Right to Bear Arms. Technically, guns are the main talking point--but I guess knives, bombs, and boubonic plague also fits as a weapon as well.
|
On April 26 2013 02:47 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:
And where in that verbiage is the recommendation for a felony charge? Show nested quote +
18 USC § 924 - Penalties
(a) (1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, subsection (b), (c), (f), or (p) of this section, or in section 929, whoever—
(A) knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of this chapter;
(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), or (q) ofsection 922;
(C) knowingly imports or brings into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition in violation of section 922 (l); or
(D) willfully violates any other provision of this chapter,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
lol, what a tragedy that you aren't even quoting the law correctly.
(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection,
subsection (b), (c), (f), or (p) of this section, or in section
929, whoever -
(A) knowingly makes any false statement or representation with
respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in
the records of a person licensed under this chapter or in
applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability
under the provisions of this chapter;
(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), or (q) of
section 922;
(C) knowingly imports or brings into the United States or any
possession thereof any firearm or ammunition in violation of
section 922(l); or
(D) willfully violates any other provision of this chapter,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.
(2) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h),
(i), (j), or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this
title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 924 : US Code - Section 924: Penalties
Why does it say or? Because it accounts for discretion in penalty, that's why.
In the United States, where the felony/misdemeanor distinction is still widely applied, the federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year.
So, since it is conceivable within the language of this law that someone can be found in violation and only charged a fine, claiming that it labels everyone a felon is, for lack of better words, absolutely wrong, and to fear monger as to the "openness" of the laws language is to ignore the formulation of pretty much every law in the books.
|
On April 24 2013 09:01 Rhino85 wrote:
DeepElemBlues, your username doesn't come from the area Deep Ellum in Dallas by chance does it?
Pretty sure it's based on the Grateful Dead song.
Also, hilarious post above me. The lengths people go to lie is genuinely baffling. How does someone have the conviction to argue an issue here, and yet is able to willfully twist, edit and manipulate facts in order to make their argument? Sometimes people have their facts mistaken, but when you are editing out information like that, you are being willfully and knowingly dishonest. I just don't understand that. If you know you're wrong, and are having to edit out facts to misrepresent reality, why do you care at all? Why post about it? You know you're wrong.
|
On April 26 2013 03:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 02:47 RCMDVA wrote:On April 26 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:
And where in that verbiage is the recommendation for a felony charge?
18 USC § 924 - Penalties
(a) (1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, subsection (b), (c), (f), or (p) of this section, or in section 929, whoever—
(A) knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of this chapter;
(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), or (q) ofsection 922;
(C) knowingly imports or brings into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition in violation of section 922 (l); or
(D) willfully violates any other provision of this chapter,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
lol, what a tragedy that you aren't even quoting the law correctly. Show nested quote +(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection,
subsection (b), (c), (f), or (p) of this section, or in section
929, whoever -
(A) knowingly makes any false statement or representation with
respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in
the records of a person licensed under this chapter or in
applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability
under the provisions of this chapter;
(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), or (q) of
section 922;
(C) knowingly imports or brings into the United States or any
possession thereof any firearm or ammunition in violation of
section 922(l); or
(D) willfully violates any other provision of this chapter,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.
(2) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h),
(i), (j), or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this
title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 924 : US Code - Section 924: PenaltiesWhy does it say or? Because it accounts for discretion in penalty, that's why. Show nested quote +In the United States, where the felony/misdemeanor distinction is still widely applied, the federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. So, since it is conceivable within the language of this law that someone can be found in violation and only charged a fine, claiming that it labels everyone a felon is, for lack of better words, absolutely wrong, and to fear monger as to the "openness" of the laws language is to ignore the formulation of pretty much every law in the books.
What did I not quote that you did? We quote the exact same section that Harry Reids bill would modify. You just added section (2), Harrys bill only applies to (1) I think. So what's tragic about that again? Seriously.
And I said potential felon....not labels everyone a felon. Up To 5 years, or both... I bolded that.
Say you (or anyone) got charged with this...just what would you do? Walk into **federal** court WITHOUT an attorney? What is an attorney going to charge you to defend you on this? $10,000 minimum for defense? That a good ballpark number? I know a top attorney defending you on a DUI charge will cost in that neighborhood. And the penalties for a 1st time DUI are pretty cut and dried. You basically pay that money to hopefully guarantee the minimums. Or would somebody just think..."It's just a federal charge...Up to 5 years, but I hear he'll just give me a $500 fine"?
And that is separate from the fact that for 24 hours you are a victim of crime (your gun was stolen) then at the 25th hour now you are a criminal as well.
There's a whole host of other impacts that little section has... There are scenarios where, if I was the CEO of UPS or FedEx or any other carrier I would absolutely stop all gun transfers. A package goes missing for 25+ hours... then what? Can somebody get charged? The FFL sender, the FFL receiver or UPS/FedEx? Airlines...no more guns in checked baggage. A suitcase goes missing for 25+ hours...then what?
|
On April 26 2013 03:36 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 09:01 Rhino85 wrote:
DeepElemBlues, your username doesn't come from the area Deep Ellum in Dallas by chance does it? Pretty sure it's based on the Grateful Dead song. Also, hilarious post above me. The lengths people go to lie is genuinely baffling. How does someone have the conviction to argue an issue here, and yet is able to willfully twist, edit and manipulate facts in order to make their argument? Sometimes people have their facts mistaken, but when you are editing out information like that, you are being willfully and knowingly dishonest. I just don't understand that. If you know you're wrong, and are having to edit out facts to misrepresent reality, why do you care at all? Why post about it? You know you're wrong.
So I'm a liar for not extending b-slash-b four more words to the left? When I don't actually say anything.. I quote and copy/paste?
I so desperately want to turn this into a gun porn thread.
|
On April 26 2013 00:39 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as 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. It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide. The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you. I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you. The same argument could be used for all other laws. Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc... Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them. I would implore you to look into one of my (recently) previous posts in this thread where I made the distinction between Prescriptive and Descriptive classifications for crimes. Prescriptive definitions are legitimate, but to classify a person prescriptively as "criminal" irrespective of their actions is ridiculous and is nothing more than a poorly constructed argument for thought-crime.
I'm curious to see this, but there are 500 hundred pages. Can you direct me?
|
On April 26 2013 01:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 01:17 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as 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. It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide. The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you. I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you. The same argument could be used for all other laws. Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc... Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them. I didn't say it was pointless, I just am warning you not to get your hopes up. Don't get me wrong--I agree it won't solve the problem with gun distribution. Just showing how its a bad argument to say that laws not preventing criminals from being criminals is a bad stance to take argumentatively speaking. Saying law X won't work because criminals won't follow it means no law works. It doesn't matter which law it is. Thats not the point of laws though. Every proposal that obama and the rest of the democrats have been proposing with gun control recently would only effect law abiding citizens and would do nothing at all to change the situation as it is. There are tons of factors that go into literally every single statistic that gun control advocates use but the only one they ever put any effort into is to go after guns themselves. If people knew gun control wouldn't work in the cities when the country didn't have gun control then there isn't a reason to have gun control in the cities. This simple logic doesn't change the cities cracking down further and further into crime and violence with more and more gun control being issued. The reason why people should be allowed to own and carry arms is because the people who are owning and carrying arms are not being negatively affected by their ability to own and carry arms. This simple statement is why the NRA keeps winning. And to respond to recent "thought crime" that people have been talking about. Its not actually that far fetched to think that you can identify whos going to commit crimes. by using statistical profiling though using the same algorithms that wall mart use's to predict what people will buy you can with a great amount of certainty predict who and where a crime will take place. The fact that its not about targeting people but targeting crimes is the important part
Let's look at increased background checks. According to the fbi site...
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics
"Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials."
700,000 denials in 10 years. While I'm sure some of those people simply bought a used gun (legally), I'm also sure that at least some of those people didn't end up with weapons. Of those, some acts of violence were prevented.
I don't follow the argument that extending background checks to internet sales and gun shows only infringes on law abiding citizens rights. By definition, it ONLY affects felons and those with certain mental illness. The only negative I can possibly see for a law abiding citizen is the inconvenience of having to slightly delay buying your gun. This drawback is outweighed by making it harder for the unfit to buy guns, IMO.
|
On April 26 2013 04:28 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 03:36 Leporello wrote:On April 24 2013 09:01 Rhino85 wrote:
DeepElemBlues, your username doesn't come from the area Deep Ellum in Dallas by chance does it? Pretty sure it's based on the Grateful Dead song. Also, hilarious post above me. The lengths people go to lie is genuinely baffling. How does someone have the conviction to argue an issue here, and yet is able to willfully twist, edit and manipulate facts in order to make their argument? Sometimes people have their facts mistaken, but when you are editing out information like that, you are being willfully and knowingly dishonest. I just don't understand that. If you know you're wrong, and are having to edit out facts to misrepresent reality, why do you care at all? Why post about it? You know you're wrong. So I'm a liar for not extending b-slash-b four more words to the left? When I don't actually say anything.. I quote and copy/paste? I so desperately want to turn this into a gun porn thread.
You selectively quote, selectively copy, selectively paste.
And isn't it convenient that what you accidentally leave out, that little bit of context, can completely change the application of the bill?
Post what you want. And I do believe there is a thread for people to post their guns, or "gun porn" as you call it. Or is the only point of that to flaunt your weapons at people who actually disapprove of weaponry? Or are you desperately wanting to simply end this discussion in an obnoxious sort of way?
|
On April 26 2013 04:23 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 03:11 farvacola wrote:On April 26 2013 02:47 RCMDVA wrote:On April 26 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:
And where in that verbiage is the recommendation for a felony charge?
18 USC § 924 - Penalties
(a) (1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, subsection (b), (c), (f), or (p) of this section, or in section 929, whoever—
(A) knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of this chapter;
(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), or (q) ofsection 922;
(C) knowingly imports or brings into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition in violation of section 922 (l); or
(D) willfully violates any other provision of this chapter,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
lol, what a tragedy that you aren't even quoting the law correctly. (a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection,
subsection (b), (c), (f), or (p) of this section, or in section
929, whoever -
(A) knowingly makes any false statement or representation with
respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in
the records of a person licensed under this chapter or in
applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability
under the provisions of this chapter;
(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), or (q) of
section 922;
(C) knowingly imports or brings into the United States or any
possession thereof any firearm or ammunition in violation of
section 922(l); or
(D) willfully violates any other provision of this chapter,
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.
(2) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h),
(i), (j), or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this
title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 924 : US Code - Section 924: PenaltiesWhy does it say or? Because it accounts for discretion in penalty, that's why. In the United States, where the felony/misdemeanor distinction is still widely applied, the federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. So, since it is conceivable within the language of this law that someone can be found in violation and only charged a fine, claiming that it labels everyone a felon is, for lack of better words, absolutely wrong, and to fear monger as to the "openness" of the laws language is to ignore the formulation of pretty much every law in the books. What did I not quote that you did? We quote the exact same section that Harry Reids bill would modify. You just added section (2), Harrys bill only applies to (1) I think. So what's tragic about that again? Seriously. And I said potential felon....not labels everyone a felon. Up To 5 years, or both... I bolded that. Say you (or anyone) got charged with this...just what would you do? Walk into **federal** court WITHOUT an attorney? What is an attorney going to charge you to defend you on this? $10,000 minimum for defense? That a good ballpark number? I know a top attorney defending you on a DUI charge will cost in that neighborhood. And the penalties for a 1st time DUI are pretty cut and dried. You basically pay that money to hopefully guarantee the minimums. Or would somebody just think..."It's just a federal charge...Up to 5 years, but I hear he'll just give me a $500 fine"? And that is separate from the fact that for 24 hours you are a victim of crime (your gun was stolen) then at the 25th hour now you are a criminal as well. There's a whole host of other impacts that little section has... There are scenarios where, if I was the CEO of UPS or FedEx or any other carrier I would absolutely stop all gun transfers. A package goes missing for 25+ hours... then what? Can somebody get charged? The FFL sender, the FFL receiver or UPS/FedEx? Airlines...no more guns in checked baggage. A suitcase goes missing for 25+ hours...then what?
UPS and FedEx handle packages with criminal mishandling penalties all the time, and your scenarios still all hinge on a fear of the law's language that can only be borne through an ignorance of how these sorts of things are worded versus enforced. The penalizing of an ignorance of the loss of a firearm ends up being a "soft disincentive"; the law hinges upon an understanding that firearms in the public sphere need to be kept track of, and that to tell no one that your gun is missing amounts to an act of negligence. The use of the words "willful" and "knowingly" are also of immense importance here, as they basically rule out the penalizing of unwitting non-reporting or loss of firearm within reason. Furthermore, the reality of the US attorney system, this being a federal law, is such that the idea that joe schmo and billy bob are going to get charged with federal crimes for misplacing their gun is not very realistic. (how are authorities even going to come into this knowledge? Unless the firearm is used in a crime or comes up in some sort of seizure, the owner of the weapon is pretty much the one holding the keys.)
|
On April 26 2013 02:54 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 02:51 Jormundr wrote:On April 26 2013 02:45 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 01:58 Jormundr wrote:On April 26 2013 01:29 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2013 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 01:17 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue.[quote] It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide. The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you. I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you. The same argument could be used for all other laws. Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc... Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them. I didn't say it was pointless, I just am warning you not to get your hopes up. Don't get me wrong--I agree it won't solve the problem with gun distribution. Just showing how its a bad argument to say that laws not preventing criminals from being criminals is a bad stance to take argumentatively speaking. Saying law X won't work because criminals won't follow it means no law works. It doesn't matter which law it is. Thats not the point of laws though. Every proposal that obama and the rest of the democrats have been proposing with gun control recently would only effect law abiding citizens and would do nothing at all to change the situation as it is. There are tons of factors that go into literally every single statistic that gun control advocates use but the only one they ever put any effort into is to go after guns themselves. If people knew gun control wouldn't work in the cities when the country didn't have gun control then there isn't a reason to have gun control in the cities. This simple logic doesn't change the cities cracking down further and further into crime and violence with more and more gun control being issued. The reason why people should be allowed to own and carry arms is because the people who are owning and carrying arms are not being negatively affected by their ability to own and carry arms. This simple statement is why the NRA keeps winning. Your paragraph expressions confusion over why political posturing happens. To put it simply, we have these things called elections, and most politicians who are up for re-election in the next cycle are willing to put on all sorts of dramatic shows that SOUND good to the least educated majority. Most of the gun laws passed since 84 meet three requirements: 1. They vaguely address a public outcry for gun control, but fall far short of any real change in legislation 2. They must not have a detrimental effect on gun sales 3. They generate media attention for both the politician and the NRA If you see most gun laws as trying to fit into this framework, they make more sense. Your last statement doesn't really follow any... reason... The reason why men should be able to beat and rape women is because men who beat and rape women are not being negatively affected by their ability to rape and beat women. Just because the group in question isn't negatively affected by their actions (which you have yet to prove or substantiate) doesn't mean that other groups aren't negatively affected. P.S. nobody has a right to own a firearm. You aren't handed a firearm at birth and asked whether you want it or not. You have the right to potentially own a firearm, which is why there is a gun control movement. Making an action less desirable does not take away or infringe upon that right. For instance having a one month wait period doesn't infringe upon your right. You still have just as much potential to own a firearm. It's just never going to happen because that's awful for gun sales, and the NRA (which stands for Gun Marketers of America) would push every bribe it has to make sure that doesn't happen because its in their own economic interest. REALLY? I was pretty sure you did have the right, considering its in the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of Privileges. On April 26 2013 02:16 sc4k wrote:
It's so shocking that a bill with 90% approval rating was not passed in the Senate. Is everyone else as shocked as I am about that? I mean, that means your political system is not working very well. We're not a democracy. If public opinion matters so much, why not get rid of the Senate entirely? They must just be needless middlemen right? Now you're just getting into semantics. Calling something a right doesn't make it a right. For it to be a right, it must first be an ability. If you're not able to live, then you don't have a right to life or to bear arms because you're dead. Similarly, if you don't have the ability to own a gun, you aren't given the right to bear one. Do you have the right to a trial, or do you first have to prove you're able to have a trial? Do you have the right to free speech, or do you first have to prove you're able to have free speech?
Do you? I'm pretty sure that some people are considered unfit to stand trial. There's also this clever method of coercion called the plea bargain. Sure you have the right to stand trial, but how do you face the prisoner's dilemma? Do you have the right to free speech? I'm pretty sure that 'right' doesn't stand if someone in power deems that it constitutes public endangerment or disturbing the peace.
So, cute jab, but both of those 'rights' are conditional. Which has nothing to do with what I said, because I wasn't talking about rights in general, even though the point could be extended to other so called 'rights'. I was talking about the right to bear arms, which only ~1/3 people can exercise (most liberal estimate I could find). This is in contrast to the right to life which everyone can exercise.
|
There's been a lot of discussions on the term "willful" (in other places) and this case. I'm scared to bold or highlight anything or Leoprello will call me a liar again. So if I'm selectively cutting and pasting again well I'm sorry.
What it comes down to is "Trust Eric Holder".
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/96-8422
Bryan v. U.S. in 1994
The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) added 18 U. S. C. §924(a)(1)(D) to the Criminal Code to prohibit anyone from “willfully” violating, inter alia, §922(a)(1)(A), which forbids dealing in firearms without a federal license. The evidence at petitioner’s unlicensed dealing trial was adequate to prove that he was dealing in firearms and that he knew his conduct was unlawful, but there was no evidence that he was aware of the federal licensing requirement. The trial judge refused to instruct the jury that he could be convicted only if he knew of the federal licensing requirement, instructing, instead, that a person acts “willfully” if he acts with the bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law, but that he need not be aware of the specific law that his conduct may be violating. The jury found petitioner guilty. The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that the instructions were proper and that the Government had elicited “ample proof” that petitioner had acted willfully.
Held:<unicode value="8194"> The term “willfully” in §924(a)(1)(D) requires proof only that the defendant knew his conduct was unlawful, not that he also knew of the federal licensing requirement. Pp. 6–11.
Another summary I found of it
No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the term "willfully" in section 924(a)(1)(D) requires proof only that the defendant knew his conduct was unlawful, not that he also knew of the federal licensing requirement. Justice Stevens wrote for that court that "the willfulness requirement of [section 924(a)(1)(D)] does not carve out an exception to the traditional rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse; knowledge that the conduct is unlawful is all that is required." In a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that ambiguously worded criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of the defendant.
|
On April 26 2013 04:43 zergzergzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 01:29 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2013 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 01:17 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:On April 25 2013 12:19 rod409 wrote:This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration. This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as 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. It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide. The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you. I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you. The same argument could be used for all other laws. Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc... Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them. I didn't say it was pointless, I just am warning you not to get your hopes up. Don't get me wrong--I agree it won't solve the problem with gun distribution. Just showing how its a bad argument to say that laws not preventing criminals from being criminals is a bad stance to take argumentatively speaking. Saying law X won't work because criminals won't follow it means no law works. It doesn't matter which law it is. Thats not the point of laws though. Every proposal that obama and the rest of the democrats have been proposing with gun control recently would only effect law abiding citizens and would do nothing at all to change the situation as it is. There are tons of factors that go into literally every single statistic that gun control advocates use but the only one they ever put any effort into is to go after guns themselves. If people knew gun control wouldn't work in the cities when the country didn't have gun control then there isn't a reason to have gun control in the cities. This simple logic doesn't change the cities cracking down further and further into crime and violence with more and more gun control being issued. The reason why people should be allowed to own and carry arms is because the people who are owning and carrying arms are not being negatively affected by their ability to own and carry arms. This simple statement is why the NRA keeps winning. And to respond to recent "thought crime" that people have been talking about. Its not actually that far fetched to think that you can identify whos going to commit crimes. by using statistical profiling though using the same algorithms that wall mart use's to predict what people will buy you can with a great amount of certainty predict who and where a crime will take place. The fact that its not about targeting people but targeting crimes is the important part Let's look at increased background checks. According to the fbi site... http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics"Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials." 700,000 denials in 10 years. While I'm sure some of those people simply bought a used gun (legally), I'm also sure that at least some of those people didn't end up with weapons. Of those, some acts of violence were prevented. I don't follow the argument that extending background checks to internet sales and gun shows only infringes on law abiding citizens rights. By definition, it ONLY affects felons and those with certain mental illness. The only negative I can possibly see for a law abiding citizen is the inconvenience of having to slightly delay buying your gun. This drawback is outweighed by making it harder for the unfit to buy guns, IMO.
The issue is that the background checks called for had to go through an FFL, which caused considerable additional fees. If the new checks really were just a phone call to the FBI, and being put on hold for 20 minutes while they check the database, I wouldn't mind.
On April 26 2013 05:04 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 02:54 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 02:51 Jormundr wrote:On April 26 2013 02:45 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 01:58 Jormundr wrote:On April 26 2013 01:29 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2013 01:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 01:17 Millitron wrote:On April 26 2013 00:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 26 2013 00:15 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
The problem with safes is that you can't really use the gun for self-defense. If someone breaks into your house, a gun in a safe does no good, it's got to be in your hands to help you.
I don't know how you crack down on straw purchases and corrupt dealers. Stricter punishments might help some, but it likely won't do much. Criminals generally operate under the assumption that they won't get caught. If you are sure you won't get caught, it doesn't matter if the punishment is a 5$ fine or death, neither will deter you. The same argument could be used for all other laws. Rape, murder, war crimes, theft, etc... Since the perpetrators of these crimes assumes they won't be caught, no punishment will deter them and hence its pointless to have laws against them. I didn't say it was pointless, I just am warning you not to get your hopes up. Don't get me wrong--I agree it won't solve the problem with gun distribution. Just showing how its a bad argument to say that laws not preventing criminals from being criminals is a bad stance to take argumentatively speaking. Saying law X won't work because criminals won't follow it means no law works. It doesn't matter which law it is. Thats not the point of laws though. Every proposal that obama and the rest of the democrats have been proposing with gun control recently would only effect law abiding citizens and would do nothing at all to change the situation as it is. There are tons of factors that go into literally every single statistic that gun control advocates use but the only one they ever put any effort into is to go after guns themselves. If people knew gun control wouldn't work in the cities when the country didn't have gun control then there isn't a reason to have gun control in the cities. This simple logic doesn't change the cities cracking down further and further into crime and violence with more and more gun control being issued. The reason why people should be allowed to own and carry arms is because the people who are owning and carrying arms are not being negatively affected by their ability to own and carry arms. This simple statement is why the NRA keeps winning. Your paragraph expressions confusion over why political posturing happens. To put it simply, we have these things called elections, and most politicians who are up for re-election in the next cycle are willing to put on all sorts of dramatic shows that SOUND good to the least educated majority. Most of the gun laws passed since 84 meet three requirements: 1. They vaguely address a public outcry for gun control, but fall far short of any real change in legislation 2. They must not have a detrimental effect on gun sales 3. They generate media attention for both the politician and the NRA If you see most gun laws as trying to fit into this framework, they make more sense. Your last statement doesn't really follow any... reason... The reason why men should be able to beat and rape women is because men who beat and rape women are not being negatively affected by their ability to rape and beat women. Just because the group in question isn't negatively affected by their actions (which you have yet to prove or substantiate) doesn't mean that other groups aren't negatively affected. P.S. nobody has a right to own a firearm. You aren't handed a firearm at birth and asked whether you want it or not. You have the right to potentially own a firearm, which is why there is a gun control movement. Making an action less desirable does not take away or infringe upon that right. For instance having a one month wait period doesn't infringe upon your right. You still have just as much potential to own a firearm. It's just never going to happen because that's awful for gun sales, and the NRA (which stands for Gun Marketers of America) would push every bribe it has to make sure that doesn't happen because its in their own economic interest. REALLY? I was pretty sure you did have the right, considering its in the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of Privileges. On April 26 2013 02:16 sc4k wrote:
It's so shocking that a bill with 90% approval rating was not passed in the Senate. Is everyone else as shocked as I am about that? I mean, that means your political system is not working very well. We're not a democracy. If public opinion matters so much, why not get rid of the Senate entirely? They must just be needless middlemen right? Now you're just getting into semantics. Calling something a right doesn't make it a right. For it to be a right, it must first be an ability. If you're not able to live, then you don't have a right to life or to bear arms because you're dead. Similarly, if you don't have the ability to own a gun, you aren't given the right to bear one. Do you have the right to a trial, or do you first have to prove you're able to have a trial? Do you have the right to free speech, or do you first have to prove you're able to have free speech? Do you? I'm pretty sure that some people are considered unfit to stand trial. There's also this clever method of coercion called the plea bargain. Sure you have the right to stand trial, but how do you face the prisoner's dilemma? Do you have the right to free speech? I'm pretty sure that 'right' doesn't stand if someone in power deems that it constitutes public endangerment or disturbing the peace. So, cute jab, but both of those 'rights' are conditional. Which has nothing to do with what I said, because I wasn't talking about rights in general, even though the point could be extended to other so called 'rights'. I was talking about the right to bear arms, which only ~1/3 people can exercise (most liberal estimate I could find). This is in contrast to the right to life which everyone can exercise.
People unfit to stand trial are just not brought up to the bench, the trial still happens. You do have the right to free speech, except things like shouting fire in a crowded theater. I would argue that that is comparable to firing a gun recklessly in the air. Both pose a clear, obvious, unarguable danger. Simply owning a gun, hell even responsibly carrying a gun does not.
|
When Phillip Barker received the official report from the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2008, it said he suffered from homicidal ideations of a passive-aggressive nature. It also said that he had an alcohol dependency. That he experiences anxiety, sleeplessness, hypervigilance and nervous tics as part of his post-traumatic stress disorder, diagnosed in 2007 after his honorable discharge from the Marine Corps. And that he has flashbacks from his deployment to Falluja, Iraq, in 2004.
Mr. Barker also owns a pistol.
“PTSD is different from one person to the next and involves many different types of symptoms,” said Dr. Elbogen, a professor of forensic psychiatry with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who has been studying PTSD for 20 years. “In our research, we found that veterans with PTSD and high irritability were twice as likely to report getting arrested compared to other veterans, whereas veterans with PTSD and low irritability were not at increased odds of getting arrested. So, to generalize that all veterans with PTSD are prone to criminal acts or violence is inaccurate.”
Mr. Hansman said not allowing veterans with PTSD to own firearms would discourage them from seeking mental health care.
“If you make it automatic where troops with PTSD lose their right to bear arms, you’re going to have people who don’t seek help,” he said.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/should-gun-restrictions-be-placed-on-veterans-with-ptsd/
It would be nice for those with PTSD and other mental disorders to receive evaluation on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether they should be allowed to own firearms. It would be unfair to blanket everyone with PTSD or some other disorder as unfit to own a weapon, but it would be irresponsible to require nothing at all.
|
On April 27 2013 10:36 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +When Phillip Barker received the official report from the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2008, it said he suffered from homicidal ideations of a passive-aggressive nature. It also said that he had an alcohol dependency. That he experiences anxiety, sleeplessness, hypervigilance and nervous tics as part of his post-traumatic stress disorder, diagnosed in 2007 after his honorable discharge from the Marine Corps. And that he has flashbacks from his deployment to Falluja, Iraq, in 2004.
Mr. Barker also owns a pistol. Show nested quote +“PTSD is different from one person to the next and involves many different types of symptoms,” said Dr. Elbogen, a professor of forensic psychiatry with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who has been studying PTSD for 20 years. “In our research, we found that veterans with PTSD and high irritability were twice as likely to report getting arrested compared to other veterans, whereas veterans with PTSD and low irritability were not at increased odds of getting arrested. So, to generalize that all veterans with PTSD are prone to criminal acts or violence is inaccurate.” Show nested quote +Mr. Hansman said not allowing veterans with PTSD to own firearms would discourage them from seeking mental health care.
“If you make it automatic where troops with PTSD lose their right to bear arms, you’re going to have people who don’t seek help,” he said. http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/should-gun-restrictions-be-placed-on-veterans-with-ptsd/It would be nice for those with PTSD and other mental disorders to receive evaluation on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether they should be allowed to own firearms. It would be unfair to blanket everyone with PTSD or some other disorder as unfit to own a weapon, but it would be irresponsible to require nothing at all.
edit: just wanted to say this once -- : catch 22 case
|
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d8_1367104934
Relevant police training video for those who are confident that concealed carrying is a strong defense against prepared attackers.
It is interesting to note that you will not be able to stop an attacker with a handgun unless you identify the threat from a relatively long distance and draw your weapon well in advance of the actual attack. If you are a normal person and not a police officer, it is highly unlikely you will be pointing guns at people because you suspect them being up to no good. In reality when people get mugged, knifed, shot, or assaulted in other ways, it seems the events happen at very close range and unfold rapidly.
|
On April 28 2013 12:25 FallDownMarigold wrote:http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d8_1367104934Relevant police training video for those who are confident that concealed carrying is a strong defense against prepared attackers. It is interesting to note that you will not be able to stop an attacker with a handgun unless you identify the threat from a relatively long distance and draw your weapon well in advance of the actual attack. If you are a normal person and not a police officer, it is highly unlikely you will be pointing guns at people because you suspect them being up to no good. In reality when people get mugged, knifed, shot, or assaulted in other ways, it seems the events happen at very close range and unfold rapidly.
That's really interesting and it makes sense too. Officers on cops generally do draw their guns or use lots of force. I think I can understand why now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
