Stop spread of illegal guns from states with weak laws

[DRob]

"Illegal guns"

............ it's a completely BS description.

Amen Brother SirRealism!

I believe the phrase "illegal guns" is used to avoid the truth and we all know Bloomberg, and his ilk, don't allow themselves to be overly burdened by the truth. The truth is that either the gun was obtained illegally (theft, straw purchase, whatever) or it was used in a crime. "Illegal guns" just fits better with the guns-are-evil mentality. The same line of thought excuses the criminal and criminalizes the tool he happens to use. They can't bear the thought that dealing harshly with those who use firearms in the commission of a crime might resolve most of the issue.

I'm not illegal. Neither are my guns. I've taught them better!

 

[88E30M50]

That report is BS. You can slice data to pretty much say anything you want. Before you can give that report any credibility at all, you need to find the details of how they filtered the data. Also, as has been pointed out, it is a single theory that is being used to paint an entire picture.

It suggests that if you are a felon, you can simply have your buddy buy a gun for you and if he is caught doing so, there is nothing they can do about it. - BS.

Require a background check for all gun show sales? Sure, if it's a dealer doing the selling, but you cannot control private party sales. It's wrong to even try to control it.

What does requiring a purchase permit accomplish? What is the criteria for denial? Is the criteria for denial any different than it is for the background check? If so, does that mean there is someone somewhere that would determine the number of 1911s I can have?

If you go down the list, those laws have little to do with illegal gun trafficing. How does allowing each jurisdiction the ability to roll their own gun law stop a stolen gun from crossing the border. I'll never understand the wrong headed thinking that the anti-gun crowd wallows in. If you want a good example of the end result of restricting gun ownership, just look at Mexico. That kind of thinking has resulted in an unarmed population caught between corrupt officials and ruthless drug gangs. Is that really what the anti-gun crowd wants to bring to us? I guess as long as they are the corrupt officials in that world, they are Ok with the idea.

 

[88E30M50]

Oh, and to provide a counter point, if you were one of the politicians that completely screwed your citizens, wouldn't you want them disarmed? I mean what politician in his/her right mind would fleece the working folks and then have to face that same group of armed folks after they learned of how you just cheated them out of your, your kids, grandkids and their grandkids money.

 

[antsi]

This report was discussed in an earlier thread. If you track down and read the actual study they used a technique called adjusting for population to manipulate the data. Essentially they move California out of the top ten by showing guns per capita instead just the number of guns that come from out of state. without that little adjustment the relationship between gun laws and exportation of firearms dissappears.

Yes.

Plus, "crime guns" is a bogus stat in the first place because it doesn't distinguish what kind of "crime" they're talking about. For example, in Chicago it has long been a crime simply to own a handgun. So, Joe Chicago gets pulled over for speeding, and the Chi-Po-Po find a gun in his car that originated in Indiana. Presto! Crime gun!

You'll notice that all the "bad states" are right next door to a state or city with a lot of bogus gun laws and bans. They're manufacturing their own "crime wave" by declaring the peacable use/ownership of firearms to be criminal.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Oh, and to provide a counter point, if you were one of the politicians that completely screwed your citizens, wouldn't you want them disarmed? I mean what politician in his/her right mind would fleece the working folks and then have to face that same group of armed folks after they learned of how you just cheated them out of your, your kids, grandkids and their grandkids money.

That's exactly the type of reasoning that allows Chicago Aldermen (City Council members) to carry handguns (in defiance of state law) when ordinary citizens aren't allowed to do so.

 

[Bill of Rights]

That's exactly the type of reasoning that allows Chicago Aldermen (City Council members) to carry handguns (in defiance of state law) when ordinary citizens aren't allowed to do so.

I thought they were made "special deputies" or some such "honorary LEOs" so they could carry legally?

 

[Praetorian13]

I hate reading articles where their only comeback is that guns kill 12,000 people a year. What about Cars, drunk drivers, trains, knives, dogs, cats, trampolines etc etc. We had better crack down on all of those too Washington.

 

[Bill of Rights]

In a country of 300,000,000+, we lose 1,000 a month on average to acts committed with guns. The birth rate exceeds that, I'm sure, and that number includes suicides (who will not suddenly not want to die because there's not a gun around- they'll use some other method.) We can, therefore, ignore that number as being gun-related-it is not.
So now we're down to about 620 a month, if I recall the CDC numbers correctly. Let's ballpark and say 20 of those are "legal intervention", meaning that police have shot and killed them, probably in the course of either a firefight or some other attempt to arrest. Now we're down to 600. How many of these are gang-bangers and drug deals gone bad and the like, eliminating only criminals and thus, making us a more lawful society? Half again? So now we're down to 300 or so deaths per month from presumably "accidental" (read: negligent) causes. We are now discussing a presumably-preventable death rate involving firearms of less than one in a million per month. Now let's add education into the mix. Eddie Eagle, the Four Rules, not to mention marksmanship training. Let's be generous to the antis and say that we only reach 50% of the population with those efforts, though the data seem to say we reach far more. The preventable deaths now number 1,800 per year, or less than three a day.

According to Gary Kleck's study, Americans have approximately 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year. 2,500,000 / 365 = 6,849.
That means that almost 7,000 crimes a day are prevented by the presence and use of a firearm in lawful hands.

It is impossible to prevent all 1800 of those deaths, that's why they call them accidents (though many can and are prevented by education, which is why WE call them negligent instead)

If we accept that there will be tragedies in life and some of these things will happen no matter how careful we are, losing three people a day in exchange for stopping over 6,800 criminal acts (some without firing a shot) is not a bad ratio. I hate the idea of any innocents dying, but that is not preventable, and in those 6,849, there are likely more than those three saved by the presence of a firearm in the hands of someone ready, willing, and able to use it effectively.

I don't like reducing it to a numbers game, but I didn't go there first, just as a response to the antis. Do note that the numbers quoted are based VERY loosely on my memory of the CDC stats from whenever I last saw them and are at best, estimates on my part.I tried to "guess low" to give as much leeway to the other side as I could, and still, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of more relaxed gun laws, as long as you're being intellectually honest.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ddenny5]

What I do not like is when I was at Dunham's in Richmond a man from Columbus Ohio purchased a firearm there. This is just plain BS because I wanted to purchase a left handed bolt action rifle at Gander Mountain in Springfield Oh. He told me he could not sell it to me because I lived in Indiana. If I cannot buy a firearm in Ohio then those Buckeyes should not be buying them here.

 

[garlic_b]

Someone asked above. What makes a gun turn bad? Homelife, wrong crowd, bad friends? Can they be rehabilitated?

Yes they can be rehabilitated. Send your young troubled guns to me and I'll make them all better!

 

[Bill of Rights]

What I do not like is when I was at Dunham's in Richmond a man from Columbus Ohio purchased a firearm there. This is just plain BS because I wanted to purchase a left handed bolt action rifle at Gander Mountain in Springfield Oh. He told me he could not sell it to me because I lived in Indiana. If I cannot buy a firearm in Ohio then those Buckeyes should not be buying them here.

Forgive the way I'm going to say this, but this sounds suspiciously like "sour grapes" to me. "Well, I'm being inconvenienced, so I can't be happy that I live in a place with laws that are so minimally restrictive, I think everyone should be inconvenienced the same way I am!" I don't know you that well on here, but are you really advocating increasing Indiana's "gun control" because of what another state (any other state) does? If we continue along that line of thinking, soon we'll have a nationwide ban on such things as CC, OC, "assault weapons", and for that matter, private ownership of firearms, since all of those things are restricted in some places.

I look at it differently. I say we should be advocating our laws being made less restrictive or even repealed and at the same time, contacting legislators, either directly or indirectly, to change the laws elsewhere. Ex: You were in Springfield, OH. I'm going to guess that you were there visiting friends or family. You can contact OH legislators and point to the situation you found yourself in and show them how inequitable it is, but there's a small likelihood they'd listen, since you're not their constituent. Your friends and/or family are, however, and they also can write or at least forward your thoughts as their own.

Do be aware, however, that while the laws ARE more restrictive there, the sale of long guns in adjoining states is legal to those who can lawfully possess those long guns in both states, which is to say that if you're not federally barred from purchasing that rifle, not prevented by OH law from owning it, and not (obviously you're not, but....) prevented from owning it in IN, you can buy it there.

(Indiana's law: )
IC 35-47-5-6
Purchasing or obtaining a rifle or shotgun
Sec. 6. (a) Any resident of Indiana:
(1) who is eighteen (18) years of age or older; and
(2) who is not prohibited by law from obtaining, possessing, or using a firearm;
may purchase or obtain a rifle or shotgun in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, or Illinois.
(b) Any resident of Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, or Illinois:
(1) who is eighteen (18) years of age or older; and (2) who is not prohibited by the laws of Indiana, his domicile, or the United States from obtaining, possessing, or using a firearm;
may purchase or obtain a rifle, shotgun, or ammunition for a rifle or a shotgun in Indiana.
(c) Any transaction under this section is subject to the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1213, 18 U.S.C. 0.922(B)(3)).
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

(Ohio's law: )
2923.22 Interstate transactions in firearms.

(A) Any resident of Ohio age eighteen or over, and not prohibited by section 2923.13 or 2923.15 of the Revised Code or any applicable law of another state or the United States from acquiring or using firearms, may purchase or obtain a rifle, shotgun, or ammunition therefor in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or West Virginia.

(B) Any resident of Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or West Virginia, age eighteen or over, and not prohibited by section 2923.13 or 2923.15 of the Revised Code or the laws of his domicile or the United States from acquiring or using firearms, may purchase or obtain a rifle, shotgun, or ammunition therefor in Ohio.

(C) Any purchase and sale pursuant to this section shall be for such purposes and under such circumstances and upon such conditions as are prescribed by the “Gun Control Act of 1968,” 82 Stat. 1213, 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3), and any amendments or additions thereto or reenactments thereof.

Effective Date: 01-01-1974

The salesman would have been correct if you'd been talking about handguns, but he could have volunteered to deliver it to a FFL in Indiana just as easily. Bad salesmen only lose sales, fortunately, they do not write laws.

Hope that helps!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[RoyalTenenbaum]

Instead of making life more difficult for those who have proven that abiding by the law is possible, perhaps Mssrs. Bloomberg et. al. should put ankle monitors on their criminals and forbid them to leave the state.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Instead of making life more difficult for those who have proven that abiding by the law is possible, perhaps Mssrs. Bloomberg et. al. should put ankle monitors on their criminals and forbid them to leave the state.

Ankle monitors? I like Richard Bachmann (aka Stephen King)'s idea more:

(prison break scene from The Running Man)

So you want to run guns and commit crimes in other states, eh? Nothing worth losing your head over, though. </Mick Fleetwood>

(Truth be told, one of those collars on Bloomberg would be a better idea.)

Blessings,
Bill