America's Gun Violence

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.

Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not.

Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?

Yeah, no thanks.

No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of.
It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.

Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.

Got it. Thanks.

Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.

Yet I could still sell them one without anybody being the wiser, and face no consequences.

You would have committed a federal crime and could end up in prison. It would just take being fingered by the purchaser or by a witness, just like any other crime. You would have your day in court in front of a jury of your peers.

Yeah, that's not very likely, and not much of a deterrent.
Here in Ohio I can sell a gun to anybody without a background check. I also don't have to collect their personal information, so all I would have to do is claim ignorance, or better yet, be ignorant. Now the criminal has a gun that was legally sold but not legally purchased, and there are ZERO consequences for me if they use the gun in a crime.

This baloney about there being enough gun laws and they only need enforced is just that, baloney.
Ohio isn't the only free-for-all gun state, and the state laws are what create the market for guns in violent areas.

The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.

Children aged 5 to 14 in the United States are 11 times more likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound than children in other developed countries.

Children in the U.S. get murdered with guns at a rate that is 13 times higher than that of other developed nations. For our young people aged 15 to 24, the rate is 43 times higher.

“There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home,” Hemenway concludes. “For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.”

“However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit,” he adds. “There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise.”

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.

Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not.

Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?

Yeah, no thanks.

No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of.
It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.

Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.

Got it. Thanks.

Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.

Yet I could still sell them one without anybody being the wiser, and face no consequences.

You would have committed a federal crime and could end up in prison. It would just take being fingered by the purchaser or by a witness, just like any other crime. You would have your day in court in front of a jury of your peers.

Yeah, that's not very likely, and not much of a deterrent.
Here in Ohio I can sell a gun to anybody without a background check. I also don't have to collect their personal information, so all I would have to do is claim ignorance, or better yet, be ignorant. Now the criminal has a gun that was legally sold but not legally purchased, and there are ZERO consequences for me if they use the gun in a crime.

This baloney about there being enough gun laws and they only need enforced is just that, baloney.
Ohio isn't the only free-for-all gun state, and the state laws are what create the market for guns in violent areas.

I'm quoting myself because this is very important it shatters half the myths the gunners perpetuate, thirty bills just shattered the other half.

Not that it matters, lol
It's all been shattered and then repeated a dozen times

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.

Children aged 5 to 14 in the United States are 11 times more likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound than children in other developed countries.

Children in the U.S. get murdered with guns at a rate that is 13 times higher than that of other developed nations. For our young people aged 15 to 24, the rate is 43 times higher.

“There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home,” Hemenway concludes. “For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.”

“However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit,” he adds. “There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise.”

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

Those statistics are damning.

I'm sure someone will bring up the usual "cars kill people too" strawman to counter.

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.

Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not.

Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?

Yeah, no thanks.

No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of.
It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.

Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.

Got it. Thanks.

Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.

Yet I could still sell them one without anybody being the wiser, and face no consequences.

You would have committed a federal crime and could end up in prison. It would just take being fingered by the purchaser or by a witness, just like any other crime. You would have your day in court in front of a jury of your peers.

Yeah, that's not very likely, and not much of a deterrent.
Here in Ohio I can sell a gun to anybody without a background check. I also don't have to collect their personal information, so all I would have to do is claim ignorance, or better yet, be ignorant. Now the criminal has a gun that was legally sold but not legally purchased, and there are ZERO consequences for me if they use the gun in a crime.

This baloney about there being enough gun laws and they only need enforced is just that, baloney.
Ohio isn't the only free-for-all gun state, and the state laws are what create the market for guns in violent areas.

That begs the question: "Why pass new laws if the ones already on the books aren't being enforced?"

What's the likelihood that any new legislation will fare better than what we have now?

Because the current laws are ineffective. They are toothless and given the variance from state to state (with unguarded state lines)... they are rendered useless.

Look to other countries that have implemented gun legislation, see the benefits they have achieved, and then reconsider your question.

Any legislation cannot hope to reverse the status quo short term, but in time... meaningful legislation can make significant changes that your country could feel good about. Of course, profiteers would have to forfeit profits for this change effort to have a chance- they'll resist as much as possible. And.. hobbyists (enthusiasts) would have to concede hobbies- they'll resist too.

Fortunately, there are more selfish people than selfless and gun lovers do not need to fear any legislation any time soon. You'll always have your guns. If Sandy Hook could not serve as the mechanism for a nation wide change effort... nothing can.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I would speculate that the amount of home invaders- which are very, very few- that are deterred from a gun are not as numerous as the amount of loved ones accidentally shot because someone thought they were a home invader.

http://radio.foxnews.com/2016/04/29/80-year-old-woman-in-washington-shoots-and-kills-intruder/

It happens all the time. Sometimes no shots are fired, sometimes people use guns to protect their kids from vicious dogs.

They don't typically report "Good Guy With Gun Saves The Day" stories on Huffington Post or elsewhere in the mainstream media.

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.

Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not.

Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?

Yeah, no thanks.

No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of.
It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.

Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.

Got it. Thanks.

Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.

Yet I could still sell them one without anybody being the wiser, and face no consequences.

You would have committed a federal crime and could end up in prison. It would just take being fingered by the purchaser or by a witness, just like any other crime. You would have your day in court in front of a jury of your peers.

Yeah, that's not very likely, and not much of a deterrent.
Here in Ohio I can sell a gun to anybody without a background check. I also don't have to collect their personal information, so all I would have to do is claim ignorance, or better yet, be ignorant. Now the criminal has a gun that was legally sold but not legally purchased, and there are ZERO consequences for me if they use the gun in a crime.

This baloney about there being enough gun laws and they only need enforced is just that, baloney.
Ohio isn't the only free-for-all gun state, and the state laws are what create the market for guns in violent areas.

I'm quoting myself because this is very important it shatters half the myths the gunners perpetuate, thirty bills just shattered the other half.

Not that it matters, lol
It's all been shattered and then repeated a dozen times

Federal law supersedes state law last I heard. It is against Federal law to sell guns to felons.

You didn't shatter shit and neither did Thirty.

Do you honestly think new "common sense" gun laws will reduce the types of gun deaths you are referencing in your posts?

I agree that a lot of people that have access to guns shouldn't and that we, as a society, can do much to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and kids. However, where we differ is that I think the changes we need to make begin with the individual, family and community, not the federal government.

Our national gun violence is a reflection of the failure of the institutions. Family, school, media and community. Everyone is too concerned about their individual wants, needs and desires to effectively care what is happening around them.

That needs to change.

While some of the things you say are part in parcel... your denial of the very simple, easy to understand part of the equation (more guns equals more deaths) is telling.

You like shooting shit. We get it.

Like I said... don't worry. You'll always be able to shoot shit with a fancy gun. The majority of people simply do not have the capacity to understand or appreciate the situation in a way that would allow them the ability to see the problem for what it really is.

dudeman said:

mickeyrat said:

I would be good with amending laws already on the books to remove the semi truck size holes in them first.

The current laws shouldn't need to be amended, just enforced. If someone sells a gun to someone not legally allowed to own one, they have committed a federal crime. The problem is a lack of investigation.

I read somewhere that out of every ten-thousand or so NICS checks that determine that someone is ineligible to own guns, less than 70 even result in an inquiry. That needed to be addressed like, 10 years ago.

speak the the disbursers of our tax dollars. having adequate funding for personnel to further research or follow up on rhe red flags would help , no?

for the record. ohio has the least restrictive laws on the books. I can buy as many as I want. THEN sell to whomever I want. NO ONE but me and the purchaser would know. I dont need to register said weapons. Simply be able to pass the required checks and go on my merry way. After that sale, who gives a shit where they end up right? after all I followed the law.

mcgruff10 said:

mickeyrat said:

dudeman said:

mickeyrat said:

I would be good with amending laws already on the books to remove the semi truck size holes in them first.

The current laws shouldn't need to be amended, just enforced. If someone sells a gun to someone not legally allowed to own one, they have committed a federal crime. The problem is a lack of investigation.

I read somewhere that out of every ten-thousand or so NICS checks that determine that someone is ineligible to own guns, less than 70 even result in an inquiry. That needed to be addressed like, 10 years ago.

speak the the disbursers of our tax dollars. having adequate funding for personnel to further research or follow up on rhe red flags would help , no?

for the record. ohio has the least restrictive laws on the books. I can buy as many as I want. THEN sell to whomever I want. NO ONE but me and the purchaser would know. I dont need to register said weapons. Simply be able to pass the required checks and go on my merry way. After that sale, who gives a shit where they end up right? after all I followed the law.

so if you want to feel good about yourself move out of ohio and go to new jersey. we have the 2nd strongest gun laws in the nation. I'm now on a 3 month waiting list to get my new firearms id card because I changed addresses within the same town (you need a firearms id card to purchase handgun ammo, shotguns and rifles. only 1 handgun a month in nj). fucking retarted state but because of our gun laws towns like camden and newark are some of the safest cities in the united states.

good for jersey and its citizens. common sense laws at work.