"Criminals don't care about gun laws" this is one of the more lame and illogical reasons we hear from folks who oppose more gun control, be it universal background checks, limiting handgun purchases to one-per-month, magazine limits, assault-weapon bans, etc.. by that logic, we should make murder, rape, robbery...legal, since criminals don't care that these acts are illegal. it doesn't matter if criminals don't care about the law or new laws. all that matters is that law-abiding and patriotic Americans DO follow the law of the land, and this alone will make the lives of criminals who use guns for their crimes, much more difficult. let me repeat that: it does NOT matter if criminals don't follow the Law. They aren't expected to. All that matters is that the VAST majority of Americans who do are not criminals, do follow the law. When that happens, criminals will be very unhappy.
And this logic you learned from exactly where? Ron, where I live they actually hung horse thieves. Do you know why? BTW all the cowboys here are real.
Which of the other mountain of gun laws has slowed or stopped criminals from having access to guns, ammo, large capacity magazines? I mean, can you provide examples of criminals who are having difficulty getting their hands on guns in places like Chicago, New York, LA, etc.? Surely there has to be some major inconvenience already from all these gun laws that is making it harder for them to get them, right? After all, that's the point of all those gun laws and the rest of us just have to comply. So please provide some evidence regarding the difficulty gang members and others are having getting their hands on weapons so we can understand the positive impact of existing gun laws that were meant to reduce access to firearms by criminals.
That's not evidence. That's you making an assumption. I'm looking for evidence of how much impact the current laws are having so we can just button up the gaps to cut off the rest of weapons from making their way to criminals. Surely that evidence exists so we can finish the job and eliminate all guns from the hands of criminals with just one or two more laws. Right?? A couple more laws and the job is done?
sure it is. add that to our mandatory 5 year sentence for illegal possession of a handgun, and that explains our low murder rate.
So you don't have evidence? You have assumptions based on opinion without factual basis? I'll stand by for the real discussion about where we were with regard to guns in the hands of criminals before the mountains of gun laws, how far we've come to rid them as a result of all the gun laws, and how far we have left to go to close remaining gaps. The rest is just your opinion that you post over and over again without substance. Seriously...if gun laws work, let's see evidence of how well because we get presented pretty regularly with new laws and suggestions that they actually work. So let's have it....how well have they worked so far (with statistics confirmed to be the result of gun laws), what's left to eradicate all guns from criminals, and what's the plan to do just that. That's the purpose of gun laws so either you have done the homework and we can discuss facts, or you post opinion once again and it's just "yes it is" versus "no it isn't".
I wrote a long response and just deleted it. If you still think 10 round magazines and folding stocks do anything to prevent crime this isn't even worth responding to at length.
last time I checked, that is illegal too. you see, if I live in NY its against NY and Federal law for me to buy a pistol in Pennsylvania or Vermont or CT, etc. so it looks like NY laws are a major failure on that end of the transaction so no that is not evidence of anything in favor of your silly points
It's ok we'll just take his idea of combining both straw purchase and interstate sales into one law, people will obey the law, and criminals will be unhappy. /facepalm You can't make this stuff up folks.
That is why I constantly say that crime control has nothing to do with stopping criminals. The suggestions the gun banners make fly in the face of all common sense and for those of us who have been involved in law enforcement, it appears that these gun banners suggestions are completely divorced from all reality. its against the law to buy a pistol in a state other than the one you live in. You cannot legally buy it through a dealer unless that dealer ships it to a dealer licensed in your state. same with a private citizen. THE ONLY TIME you can buy a gun across state lines is a long arm from an adjacent state if our own state allows it
let me get this straight.... I follow the law, the criminal does NOT follow the law and obtains a gun illegally... and that makes me safer?? Please send me some of what you are smoking. Must be primo stuff!!
Sounds like all talk and no action. What are you ideas on making criminals obey the dozens of gun control laws you are so in love with?
you have to understand that crime control or public safety are not really what motivates the calls for more laws directed at honest people like you. Of course if the gun banners came out and said that they want to punish people like us for not supporting far left socialist pimps in office, even most moderates would turn against them. When they cloak their real motivations with crocodile tears about saving lives, some of the lest mentally nimble voters actually believe that laws preventing honest people from having guns or more than 10 rounds in their pistols is going to stop someone like Loughner from committing multiple counts of mass murder
Evidence of what? The only thing this tells me is that CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT GUN LAWS. Duh. It's a crime to bring in guns from other States for the purpose of committing crimes. Crimes that begin with selling those guns to criminals. Turtledude has your number. You put this silly garbage out there, trying to make it look like your stance is well reasoned. It appears that way only to the mentally inept.
His basic premise is that the more you squeeze people who follow the laws anyway, the criminal will suffer. It is the most laughable stance I have ever seen on the subject. Here's a hint Ron: criminals like tougher gun laws, it makes their illegal guns more valuable and means more honest people don't have guns to defend themselves with.
Why are all the law abiding people in New York purchasing these guns. There is no supply where there is no demand. Like I said earlier, when you ban or restrict something, you just make it more valuable and desired by the criminal element. Now you have a bunch of guns being brought to NY by criminals, being bought by criminals, being used on unarmed law abiding citizens by criminals. Congratulations on proving our point.
Alright, help me understand something that does not square with the more guns = more deaths/woundings/mayhem argument. I recently looked at an FBI UCR report from 1994-2013 (the most recent I could find): https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1994-2013.xls And it showed the following…. In 1994 our population was over 260 million people. The report showed a steady increase in population to over 316 million people in 2013. Our population increase was over 55 million people from 1994-2013. Our total number of homicides (not per capita but total), in 1994 was 23,326. In 2013, the total was 14,196—and the decline is not a freak anomaly but a steady yearly decline. So from 1994-2013, that’s a more than a 20% increase in the total number of people, and a more than 40% decrease in the total number of homicides. What’s more, the national per capita homicide rate (# of homicides per 1,000 people) has had a steady and total decline of 50% over this time period, from 9.0 per 1,000 people in 1994 to 4.5 per 1,000 people in 2013. What has caused this? It is not some sudden change in the percentage of non-firearm involved homicides. Why could it be, perhaps, because we have less firearms available for killing folks? Well I tried to check that too. What I have discovered is there is no way of coming up with an exact number of firearms added to circulation. For starters, I have no way of knowing how many firearms were removed from circulation by becoming inoperable. My guess—and that’s all it is—is the pace of new manufacture of firearms far outruns the number that may become inoperable each year. I also have no real idea of the numbers seized and forfeited by law enforcement each year. But from my law enforcement experience this number must be a fraction of the output of new firearms each year. As for the number of new firearms being added to the civilian possessed total, again it is a guess. But at least here we have some numbers to look at. The FBI keeps a record of the total number of firearm background checks. You can see it here: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf The table only covers November 1998 forward (actually into 2015). The table shows that from November of 1998 to the end of 2013 there were 181,567,975 firearm transaction background checks. Every single one of these involves an attempted firearm transaction BUT—not every one of them equals a new firearm entering the civilian pool. Some are undoubtedly trade-in scenarios—where one gun is traded for a new one. And some undoubtedly involve pawn redemptions, where someone goes to get back a gun they pawned and they have to pass the background check. Neither scenario really adds more guns to the civilian pool. Also, many states allow multiple gun purchases at the same time, in which one background check event may involve 2 or more new guns entering the civilian pool. And then there are the number of denials: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/federal_denials.pdf Which from 11/98 to 2015 totaled 1,222,213 checks which resulted in a denial—where no firearm was transferred (by the way, 677,016 were because the individual was flagged as a felon). So the FBI total background check numbers are not going to give us an exact total of new firearms added to the civilian ownership base. Still, the vast majority of these 181,567,975 background check events ended with someone walking out of a FFL dealer’s store with a firearm—and this does not count a single new firearm added from 1994 to October 1998. Now how can this be? How can there be—over a 19 year period—millions of new people capable of shooting each other added to our population, and by any estimate more than enough new guns to put one in each of their hands, and the homicide rate has dropped by 50%? What is wrong with other countries who ban guns altogether and yet can’t match our 50% reduction rate? Now lest you think I am too serious, let me tell you now I am not someone who jumps at what might be a coincidental statistical correlation and claim SEE, CAUSE AND EFFECT! I am NOT saying more guns = less crime. My belief is social and economic factors drive crime rates, not the availability of a particular weapon. However, I do submit that the above correlation of statistics shows that more guns DO NOT = more crime. I welcome everyone’s thoughts on this.
You and Bloomberg sure know how to stretch the truth, eh? The story you are quoting and the story your flawed logic is supporting is (from your article) "The most recent data available show that 90% of all guns used in city crimes in 2011 came from other states, Bloomberg revealed at a news conference in City Hall." When in reality the BATF data shows this, "The 2011 crime gun trace data for New York City shows that 2,186 or 90 percent of 2,433 traceable guns used in crimes in the five boroughs were from out-of-state. In 2010, 86 percent of the 2,319 traceable crime guns were from outside New York State. In 2009, there were 2,290 out-of-state crime guns from the 2,685 traceable guns recovered (85 percent)." So in New York City you had what 500,000 crimes in 2011....maybe 200,000 violent crimes in 2011? How many crimes were committed with non-traceable weapons purchased in New York.....Now That's the rest of the story, eh?
That's 4 year old data. Got anything more recent? Also, i note that the graphic was of guns traced. What is the percentage of guns not traced vs those traced?
The data he has doesn't even represent what he is claiming, that "The most recent data available show that 90% of all guns used in city crimes in 2011 came from other states" Actually it's 90 percent of TRACEABLE guns. The article he cited was about 2186 guns....wow with approximately 500,000 crimes you suppose 2186 is a significant number?
