HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Gun Laws Work, So Why Don...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:26 AM

Gun Laws Work, So Why Don't We Have More Of Them?

An average of 83 Americans die every day from firearms in the United States. And the U.S. has the highest firearm homicide rates in the developed world.

Despite these numbers and the recent spate of deadly gun violence incidents, it’s not likely we’ll hear much about gun control from our presidential and congressional candidates. The popular position of most politicians falls somewhere between claiming that current gun laws are adequate and just need to be enforced, to deferring the responsibility to individual states. As a result we have inconsistent and insufficient gun laws.

In 33 states, criminals and terrorists can buy military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips from “private dealers” on the Internet or at gun shows without showing ID or completing a background check. No ID, no background check, no restrictions, no detection. It is perfectly legal for private gun dealers and individuals to sell an unlimited number of firearms to anyone, including domestic criminals and international terrorists, cash and carry.

In addition to neglecting public safety and contributing to the 30,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. each year, current gun laws fly in the face of public opinion. Most citizens, members of law enforcement, gun owners and even a majority of NRA members agree that we need more restrictive laws governing the buying and selling of firearms.

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2012/08/29/gun-laws-rosenthal

32 replies, 3249 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply Gun Laws Work, So Why Don't We Have More Of Them? (Original post)
SecularMotion Sep 2012 OP
safeinOhio Sep 2012 #1
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #2
safeinOhio Sep 2012 #21
PavePusher Sep 2012 #16
rDigital Sep 2012 #17
safeinOhio Sep 2012 #22
PavePusher Sep 2012 #32
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #3
SecularMotion Sep 2012 #4
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #14
DanTex Sep 2012 #5
krispos42 Sep 2012 #11
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #12
friendly_iconoclast Sep 2012 #19
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #15
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #6
rDigital Sep 2012 #18
Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2012 #7
ileus Sep 2012 #8
DWC Sep 2012 #9
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #10
DWC Sep 2012 #13
spin Sep 2012 #28
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #31
spin Sep 2012 #20
safeinOhio Sep 2012 #23
spin Sep 2012 #27
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #25
spin Sep 2012 #26
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #24
rDigital Sep 2012 #29
MotherPetrie Sep 2012 #30

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 08:02 AM

1. Even Massad Ayoob will not allow

anyone to take his class on handgun self defense without a background and CHARACTER check. That should be a standard for purchase of any handgun, private or thru a dealer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 08:23 AM

2. Classes can require any standard the provider chooses

 

Constitutional rights cannot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #2)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:19 PM

21. Lets see...

your newspaper can require lots of stuff from you to post a LTE, no problem, just for starters. Then too, the Second Amendment is the only right in the constitution that includes a prefatory clause. That clause makes the 2nd different than all the others, as they don't include one. If you read the majority decision by Salia in the McDonald vs Chicago, there seems to be lots of the things, even the most conservative judge, thinks can be regulated other than the right to a handgun IN THE HOME.

Good try, I'll give you credit for your effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 02:26 PM

16. "CHARACTER check"? How do you propose to do that, and with what criteria?

 

Oh, and we'll start about three years after applying it to voting. Deal?

As for background check, open NICS to the public (various methods have been proposed) and I'll be overjoyed to use it.

On a side note, I own 6 "military-style assault weapons", none of which was manufactured before 1944, and none for which a clip of over 8 rounds is available.

This is a lesson in vague and poorly understood terminology being used to sell fear, irrationality and ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #16)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 03:17 PM

17. Open NICS to the public? That is a great idea. That would solve so many problems. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #16)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:21 PM

22. Hell if I know, ask

your hero Massad Ayoob how he does it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #22)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 11:27 PM

32. You're the one who proposed it...

 

Even Massad Ayoob will not allow anyone to take his class on handgun self defense without a background and CHARACTER check. That should be a standard for purchase of any handgun, private or thru a dealer.


You explain how to implement and conduct it. That's how this debatestuff works, y'know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 08:28 AM

3. Because voters don't want them.

 

The reason why gun laws continue to become more liberal in the United States is simple - gun control is a career-ender for politicians who try to push it.

Also, 18 years ago in 1994, when we had the last major gun control law (the so-called Assault Weapons Ban), there was basically no internet. Today, there is. And people are aware and connected and able to instantly mobilize to protect their interests. And gun enthusiasts do.

This enables us to shine a massive spotlight on any attempts to create gun control legislation that punishes innocent people while doing nothing to actual criminals.

It allows us to instantly counter ridiculous suggestions, like banning assault rifles, by pointing out that there are only about 300 homicides every year committed with all rifles, let alone assault rifles, and that this is half the number killed by hands and feet every year. Imagine if that information had been readily available and easily spread back in 1994.

The Brady Bunch can drum up whatever so-called statistics they like. The proof of the pudding is at the ballot box.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 08:31 AM

4. Do you consider yourself a gun lobbyist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 01:17 PM

14. I consider myself a member of a gun lobbyist organization.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 08:32 AM

5. Actually, it's politicians and special interests that don't want them.

Tighter gun laws are like higher taxes on the 1% in that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 10:53 AM

11. Well, no, not really.

Point one: gun owners are willing to be politically active to protect their right to purchase, own, and use guns. Non-gun-owners, because nobody is forcing them to NOT own guns, don't generally give much of a shit about it.

Point two: many non-gun owners don't have the information they need to understand and opine on the issues they're being polled on. The information in the OP is a classic example.



In 33 states, criminals and terrorists can buy military-style assault weapons...


In the other 17 states, semi-automatic firearms that are mechanically identical to "military-style assault weapons" can be sold, as long as they lack certain combinations of cosmetic features. As a non-gun-nut what an assault weapon is, and you'll be lucky if they know that much. People for "assault weapon bans" are trying to draw a line (that can't be drawn) between legitimate sporting semi-autos and evil black semi-autos designed only for mass shootings.



...and high-capacity ammunition clips...


I believe you can buy 11+ magazines in all 50 states, but in some of them they have to be old. Not new-manufacture.



.. from “private dealers” on the Internet or at gun shows...


No, there are no "private dealers". There are private sellers, who can, in most states, sell to other private buyers who reside in their state. The internet is used to arrange a geographical location for the sale, which, as long as it's in the seller's state of residence to another resident of that state, is legal. This geographical location may or may not be a gun show, McDonald's parking lot, or empty field.



... without showing ID or completing a background check. No ID, no background check, no restrictions, no detection.


Private sellers can't access NICS. If you want there to be a background check between every intra-state private firearms transfer, then the state legislature has to do this; it's beyond federal purview. Congress can't do it.



It is perfectly legal for private gun dealers and individuals to sell an unlimited number of firearms to anyone, including domestic criminals and international terrorists, cash and carry.


Well, no, not really. It's illegal to sell guns to convicted criminals, for example, and I would suspect foreigners as well. Of course, the private seller can't access NICS to confirm or deny any of this. This is most likely a subtle jab at the terrorist watch list, which of course requires no conviction or due process to get on, and it riddled with mistakes and errors. If you really think that once the government puts on a secret list ON A WHIM you can just have Constitutional rights stripped away, well, Alberto Gonzales would like to be your bestest friend ever.





And of course, there's still the often-disproved canard about 30,000 gun-related deaths a year, despite 60% of these being suicides and our suicide rate being fairly low, and the other 40% being murders despite a 50% reduction in total murder rate from 1990 to 2000.



Much ado is being make about the statistically-rare mass shooting, while ignoring that 99% of murders have either 1 or two victims. Also ignoring drug laws and mental health care. Because it's apparently it's just fine to have insane drug laws, 2 million people in jail, and shitty treatment for PTSD-affected vets and other people with mental health issues... just as long as they can't have 11+ magazines and semi-auto rifles with pistol grips.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 12:08 PM

12. +100 :) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 04:26 PM

19. Well said! <golf claps>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 01:17 PM

15. Special interests made up of over 4 million individuals collectively fighting for their rights.

 

The NRA is like Unions that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 09:05 AM

6. So other types of murder or OK with you?

Russia has a much higher murder rate than we do. Mexico has a high murder rate too. And Japan's suicide rate is higher than ours. All of them have strict gun control. But since those aren't done with guns then they must be OK with you.

Puerto Rico has guns laws that Bloomberg can only dream of (Annual limit on ammo purchases - 500 rounds) yet they have a murder rate higher than DC. Since PR is an island they don't have the problem of someone driving across state lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 03:21 PM

18. Russia and Mexico don't count because there isn't a Starbucks on every corner. ; ) nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 09:24 AM

7. Since they are working, we don't need any more of them. OR

If they are working Why do we need anymore?

How many laws does this country, county, state, city need? Why are we paying people to write more laws just so we can find more ways to wag our fingers at people and say "you're doing it wrong!"

I thought we were supposed to Help People NOT belittle them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 09:30 AM

8. If they work we don't need more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 10:02 AM

9. The OP states

 

"...current gun laws fly in the face of public opinion. Most citizens, members of law enforcement, gun owners and even a majority of NRA members agree that we need more restrictive laws governing the buying and selling of firearms."


This statement puts new meaning to the old term "Load of Bull S**t".

Semper Fi,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 10:50 AM

10. The individual states...


...do indeed need to do some work to help make the NICS checks more meaningful. Intrastate standards on private sales between private citizens are the way they are because the voters in the individual states want them that way. Do you perhaps think that the NRA has obtained Harry Potter's wand?



Here's another statistic for you:
99% of the people who use the term "clip" in the current internet age of information, especially those who work for the media, really don't know very much about guns. Which is why folks like Mr. Rosenthal don't sway anyone's thinking.



Here's a high-capacity "clip" for you.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 12:19 PM

13. Touche' n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:48 PM

28. The term "clip" aggravates me but ...

I have heard it used by many very experienced shooters.

That probably shows the impact of our media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #28)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 10:42 PM

31. I know.

Well it's not so much of a problem as an annoyance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:14 PM

20. I agree that we can better enforce and improve existing firearm laws. ...

I see little or no value in many of the ideas that those who oppose gun ownership often present.

There is a lot of truth in the theory that some wish to gradually impose new restrictions on gun ownership with the final object of disarming all citizens in our nation. This idea is politically impossible to accomplish in our current political environment. It's basically a total waste of time.

I suggest both sides of the gun control issue work together to find compromise. Unfortunately compromise is a lost art in our nation.

For example the article you linked to states:


In 33 states, criminals and terrorists can buy military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips from “private dealers” on the Internet or at gun shows without showing ID or completing a background check. No ID, no background check, no restrictions, no detection. It is perfectly legal for private gun dealers and individuals to sell an unlimited number of firearms to anyone, including domestic criminals and international terrorists, cash and carry.


I favor extending the requirement for the NICS background check to all sales of firearms as long as the cost of doing so was reasonable. I personally refuse to sell any of my firearms to a person who I don't know well and that person has to have a valid concealed weapons permit. No exceptions!

Would my idea eliminate all gun violence in our nation? No, but it might help.

Of course the NRA opposes this idea and those who wish strong gun control will wish that all firearm sales require the serial numbers of the weapons involved to be registered with the federal government for future use. Consequently my idea has little or no chance of becoming reality.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #20)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:27 PM

23. I still like your idea,

anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #23)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:46 PM

27. Thanks for your support. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #20)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:39 PM

25. IMHO...

The quickest way to have either party adopt a particular position is to have the opposing party adopt a contradictory one. It's not about leadership nor does it mean progress, it's simply politics.

This IS one of the reasons I believe that President Obama is a leader and, right now, we need more leaders and fewer politicians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #25)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:45 PM

26. I totally agree. Romney is the stereotype politician. ...

I honestly have no idea who he is or what he stands for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 07:32 PM

24. re: "Gun Laws Work..."

If by "work" you mean cause or create something useful, you're mistaken. The AWB didn't lower assault rates. It did eliminate bayonet lugs, folding and telescoping stocks, flash suppressors....

Certain things became more expensive between 1994 and 2004 but crime didn't change.

Which laws are you referring to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 09:16 PM

29. Gun Laws "work" about as much as our Drug Laws "work". nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2012, 09:37 PM

30. the NRA, brainwashing, paranoia, and fantasy

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread