2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: eyeeatingfish on September 12, 2019, 10:06:48 PM
-
Came across this study with some interesting takeaways.
The study found states with "universal background checks" had lower homicide rates than states without.
They also found no empirical evidence that banning assault rifles made a significant impact on homicide rates.
"These bans are most often based on characteristics of guns that are not directly tied to their lethality."
http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/
-
While "mass shooter incidents" gain a lot of press and cause a lot of ruckus, disgusting and tragic as it is, the majority of gun crimes and homicides are caused by inner city gangs and drug issues.
The problem has always been the persons responsible for the actual crimes.
And most don't go through background checks not proper channels to acquire their firearms.
-
I'd be in favor of universal background checks with 3-year renewals as long as EVERYBODY has to get one. I mean EVERYONE 16 and older.
Everyone -- gun buyer/owner or not -- must submit to the same privacy-invasive system as gun buyers. Then, each person gets a gov't picture ID that states what the results were which are based on some code -- to protect their privacy while still letting others know their fitness to be trusted.
Next time you want a gun, just show the seller your "I'm a trusted person" card, and there will be no need for another NICS check. Maybe a quick check to see if anything changed since the last issue.renewal. That takes no time at all if they do it right. Set a flag in a database if there's a change. No flag? Approved!
So, if you're a felon, sex offender, wife beater, drug addict, habitual alcohol abuser, medical marijuana card-carrying patient, on the no-fly list, and so on, you are given codes for specific types of uses:
One code for buying guns: Yes or No
Another for being around kids, like working as a teacher or baby sitter: Yes or no
etc.
etc.
The issue is not the implement (guns), but rather it's the tendency of some in society to exhibit certain behaviors -- behaviors that represent a clear and present danger/risk in EVERYTHING they do, not just possessing firearms. Driving, buying large quantities of gasoline in portable containers, ordering their 8th cocktail at Happy Hour, taking pictures of other people's kids in a park, .... We need to know if we can trust people. PERIOD.
When the gov't stops treating all gun owners as potential criminals by treating us ALL that way, then I'll agree to these universal background checks. If it's not for everyone in the country 16 years old and up, then it's not UNIVERSAL.
"Can I help you officer?"
"Yes, we received a report you were watching the kids at the park while apparently there alone. Can we check your ID and Trust Data Card?"
"Sure."
"Great. I see you're not coded to stay away from minors. Sorry to bother you. Have a good evening, sir!" :thumbsup:
-
Came across this study with some interesting takeaways.
The study found states with "universal background checks" had lower homicide rates than states without.
They also found no empirical evidence that banning assault rifles made a significant impact on homicide rates.
"These bans are most often based on characteristics of guns that are not directly tied to their lethality."
http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/
I'm all for background checks. Contact NICS and if they give the green, then all good. That is all that should be needed to purchase a gun. We can spend $7 billion on the Obamacare website, but can't find funds to have a better, faster NICS system. There is a reason for that.
-
I'm all for background checks. Contact NICS and if they give the green, then all good. That is all that should be needed to purchase a gun. We can spend $7 billion on the Obamacare website, but can't find funds to have a better, faster NICS system. There is a reason for that.
The reason is because the gov't knows that no matter how well we screen people, there's going to be no significant improvement in violent crime.
Criminals don't participate in those systems. The system is only as good as the data it can access and the competence of the people responsible for managing and running it day-to-day.
We've had at least half a dozen high profile murders/mass shootings committed by people who passed the NICS background check -- some did even though the system should have denied them.
There are a variety of reasons why each specific shooter was able to get their weapons in spite of being prohibited or a high risk individual. The SC church shooting, the Texas church shooting and the Parkland HS shooting are all examples of how the existing system is a failure. Does the system catch more than it misses? The only way to tell is to find out if a person denied on their BG check went on to find the weapon another way and commit the crime. But then, that would show that the system is a failure even when it works as designed.
-
The reason is because the gov't knows that no matter how well we screen people, there's going to be no significant improvement in violent crime.
Criminals don't participate in those systems. The system is only as good as the data it can access and the competence of the people responsible for managing and running it day-to-day.
We've had at least half a dozen high profile murders/mass shootings committed by people who passed the NICS background check -- some did even though the system should have denied them.
There are a variety of reasons why each specific shooter was able to get their weapons in spite of being prohibited or a high risk individual. The SC church shooting, the Texas church shooting and the Parkland HS shooting are all examples of how the existing system is a failure. Does the system catch more than it misses? The only way to tell is to find out if a person denied on their BG check went on to find the weapon another way and commit the crime. But then, that would show that the system is a failure even when it works as designed.
"The reason is because the gov't knows that no matter how well we screen people, there's going to be no significant improvement in violent crime."
Democrats don't seem to understand that. I bought my first .22 rifle through the mail. I still have that rifle. People like us aren't the problem.
People that can't exercise self control are the problem. They drive cars, trucks, boats, shoot guns, and even fly airplanes
into things like crowds, buildings, oceans, and mountains.
Democrat/Socialists will never deal with sick people as that as it is some weird form of discrimination to them.
The problem is people and Democrat/Socialists inability to call sick people out for what they are and deal with it.
Perhaps because percentage wise, most sick people are Democrats/Socialists.
They don't call our Senator "Crazy Mazie" for lack of reason.
That would be my bet.
-
"The reason is because the gov't knows that no matter how well we screen people, there's going to be no significant improvement in violent crime."
Democrats don't seem to understand that. I bought my first .22 rifle through the mail. I still have that rifle. People like us aren't the problem.
People that can't exercise self control are the problem. They drive cars, trucks, boats, shoot guns, and even fly airplanes
into things like crowds, buildings, oceans, and mountains.
Democrat/Socialists will never deal with sick people as that as it is some weird form of discrimination to them.
The problem is people and Democrat/Socialists inability to call sick people out for what they are and deal with it.
Perhaps because percentage wise, most sick people are Democrats/Socialists.
They don't call our Senator "Crazy Mazie" for lack of reason.
That would be my bet.
I've seen opinions from psychiatrists and have tended to agree more and more over time: that most people who want to ban guns out of fear of what people with them might do are basing that fear on PROJECTION of their own lack of responsibility, mental health and discipline. They think, "If I'm not able to be trusted to own a gun, then nobody other than police should be trusted."
If Liberals like something, it should be paid for by tax payers for everyone.
If Liberals dislike something, it should be banned.
Pretty much their SOP.
-
I'm all for background checks. Contact NICS and if they give the green, then all good. That is all that should be needed to purchase a gun. We can spend $7 billion on the Obamacare website, but can't find funds to have a better, faster NICS system. There is a reason for that.
I think one of the problems with the system is that a lot of jurisdictions don't enter in records from their area. So a background check might be done but it never catches the person because some police department didn't report properly. As I understand it there is no mandatory reporting, only incentivized reporting.
So I agree that we don't need some new system or 50 individual systems, we just need a system that contains the information it should contain. It is hard to justify a failure of the government when two agencies that should be communicating aren't and something bad happens because they didn't talk.
And with modern computers it shouldn't take two weeks, it should take 2 minutes then you walk out with your permit.
-
The reason is because the gov't knows that no matter how well we screen people, there's going to be no significant improvement in violent crime.
Where is the evidence of that?
-
Where is the evidence of that?
Common sense freedoms.
All the laws and all the cops and your "men", can't keep the murder rates in
Chicago, Baltimore, Texas,
Florida, Colorado, et al, DOWN!
With all due respect, your and I emphasize your,
gun laws don't do squat to solve the problem.
They merely enslave a law abiding people, that
would never commit the crimes you are trying to prevent.
People are the problem, not a stupid tool.
-
Where is the evidence of that?
CDC and other more independent studies looking into the impact of a 10-year "Assault Weapons" Ban found NO IMPACT on crime. TEN ....... YEARS ..... But, we hear calls for a renewed AWB/Buy-Back daily.
The fact that some places have significantly more violent crime than others, even though many high crime states & cities have extremely strict gun laws, while states and cities with almost no gun laws outside the Constitution and the ATF rules have almost no violent crimes -- particularly gun crime. It only takes one contrasting example to disprove the hypothesis, in this case that guns are the primary cause of violence, and that stricter gun laws stop gun violence.
The fact that any laws enacted will have to grandfathered in for existing owners' guns and accessories (as opposed to outright confiscation), which does nothing about the existence of guns already in the hands of private owners.
The fact that guns are not the last resort for murder. Boston brags about their tough gun laws and low gun crime rates, but couldn't figure out how to stop actual terrorists from using pressure cookers as bombs even though they were already identified and placed on a watch list. Maybe need a red flag law for OTHER THAN GUN threats?
I could go on. All of this is evidence that proves you can keep passing laws, but the ones intent on violence won't care and won't be deterred. Violence is a part of life. Guns are the best defense against violence. Expecting less violence by having fewer guns, rather than allowing more people to be prepared by having a gun if they choose is illogical. Mathematically, more DGU than gun crimes occur every year. You are proposing reducing the "good" gun numbers in favor of only trying to reduce "bad" gun numbers. The side effect will always be the disarming of law abiding people to some degree, which disproportionally affects those in areas that most need that protection.
Terrorists, radical political extremists wanting power, white nationalists, ANTIFA or just the average nut case is more than capable of causing violence.
We already had two attacks on ICE facilities with Molotov cocktails. When you're the target of violence,
I doubt you'll be lying in a puddle off your own blood missing a limb while saying with relief, "I'm glad I wasn't shot!"
-
I think one of the problems with the system is that a lot of jurisdictions don't enter in records from their area. So a background check might be done but it never catches the person because some police department didn't report properly. As I understand it there is no mandatory reporting, only incentivized reporting.
So I agree that we don't need some new system or 50 individual systems, we just need a system that contains the information it should contain. It is hard to justify a failure of the government when two agencies that should be communicating aren't and something bad happens because they didn't talk.
And with modern computers it shouldn't take two weeks, it should take 2 minutes then you walk out with your permit.
You obviously know nothing about computers, databases, and privacy.
"Should" is not part of the design process. Either you can, or you can't -- technically or according to law, policy or resource availability. Sitting around saying "should" doesn't solve any real problems.
The Dept of Education SHOULD be able to match a student loan applicant's name and the Social Security Number they listed as the bare minimum level of security against identity theft.
Government laws require they only keep information on file for a few years before deleting (no access to previous records to do a confirmation match), and they are not allowed to ask the Social Security Administration to give a thumbs up or down as to whether the name matches the number provided.
The simplest thing that could stop identity theft and save tax payers millions in fraudulent student loans, not to mention years of headaches for their victims, is prevented by the bureaucracy in the name of privacy.
So, before making a layman's statement such as "we should be able to do this," do some research into all the different constraints that make what you just said 100% wrong.
-
CDC and other more independent studies looking into the impact of a 10-year "Assault Weapons" Ban found NO IMPACT on crime. TEN ....... YEARS ..... But, we hear calls for a renewed AWB/Buy-Back daily.
The fact that some places have significantly more violent crime than others, even though many high crime states & cities have extremely strict gun laws, while states and cities with almost no gun laws outside the Constitution and the ATF rules have almost no violent crimes -- particularly gun crime. It only takes one contrasting example to disprove the hypothesis, in this case that guns are the primary cause of violence, and that stricter gun laws stop gun violence.
The fact that any laws enacted will have to grandfathered in for existing owners' guns and accessories (as opposed to outright confiscation), which does nothing about the existence of guns already in the hands of private owners.
The fact that guns are not the last resort for murder. Boston brags about their tough gun laws and low gun crime rates, but couldn't figure out how to stop actual terrorists from using pressure cookers as bombs even though they were already identified and placed on a watch list. Maybe need a red flag law for OTHER THAN GUN threats?
I could go on. All of this is evidence that proves you can keep passing laws, but the ones intent on violence won't care and won't be deterred. Violence is a part of life. Guns are the best defense against violence. Expecting less violence by having fewer guns, rather than allowing more people to be prepared by having a gun if they choose is illogical. Mathematically, more DGU than gun crimes occur every year. You are proposing reducing the "good" gun numbers in favor of only trying to reduce "bad" gun numbers. The side effect will always be the disarming of law abiding people to some degree, which disproportionally affects those in areas that most need that protection.
Terrorists, radical political extremists wanting power, white nationalists, ANTIFA or just the average nut case is more than capable of causing violence.
We already had two attacks on ICE facilities with Molotov cocktails. When you're the target of violence,
I doubt you'll be lying in a puddle off your own blood missing a limb while saying with relief, "I'm glad I wasn't shot!"
The assault weapon ban didn't have anything to do with screening people though.
Yes, some cities have very strict gun laws but very high gun crime. Obviously though when all you have to do is drive across a state line, a state law restricting guns is going to be of limited effectiveness in some ways. When you look at states as a whole though, states with more restrictive gun laws have lower gun death rates. Is that merely a coincidence? So while the numbers swing in our favor in one direction when we look at certain cities, they kind of swing away from out favor when looking at most states.
Since you are against universal background checks, why not just do away with all checks, even ones from firearms dealers? The same arguments apply either way so if we aren't going to have universal checks then there isn't an argument to have gun dealer background checks. And the opposite remains true.
-
You obviously know nothing about computers, databases, and privacy.
"Should" is not part of the design process. Either you can, or you can't -- technically or according to law, policy or resource availability. Sitting around saying "should" doesn't solve any real problems.
The Dept of Education SHOULD be able to match a student loan applicant's name and the Social Security Number they listed as the bare minimum level of security against identity theft.
Government laws require they only keep information on file for a few years before deleting (no access to previous records to do a confirmation match), and they are not allowed to ask the Social Security Administration to give a thumbs up or down as to whether the name matches the number provided.
The simplest thing that could stop identity theft and save tax payers millions in fraudulent student loans, not to mention years of headaches for their victims, is prevented by the bureaucracy in the name of privacy.
So, before making a layman's statement such as "we should be able to do this," do some research into all the different constraints that make what you just said 100% wrong.
Are you going to tell me that if the CIA knew of a terror attack but didn't tell the FBI, or local police then we just shrug and say "our computers can't do that" and act as if that is acceptable?
I have used enough databases to know that what I am suggesting is not that difficult. It already exists in the NCIC system which many agencies can access but is hampered but he fact some agencies don't bother to report.
"Should" is part of the design process, it is the end goal, what drives what the system should be capable of. Law enforcement should be able to access necessary information, you start with that and design a system to achieve that goal. And when I say should here I am not speaking of some future technology, like we should be able to cure cancer. I am talking about things that are already within our abilities. So when I say should I mean it is something we can do and don't have a good excuse not to. Like I should excercise more. Can you see the difference or does your condescention cloud your view?
-
The assault weapon ban didn't have anything to do with screening people though.
Yes, some cities have very strict gun laws but very high gun crime. Obviously though when all you have to do is drive across a state line, a state law restricting guns is going to be of limited effectiveness in some ways. When you look at states as a whole though, states with more restrictive gun laws have lower gun death rates. Is that merely a coincidence? So while the numbers swing in our favor in one direction when we look at certain cities, they kind of swing away from out favor when looking at most states.
Since you are against universal background checks, why not just do away with all checks, even ones from firearms dealers? The same arguments apply either way so if we aren't going to have universal checks then there isn't an argument to have gun dealer background checks. And the opposite remains true.
:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
-
Are you going to tell me that if the CIA knew of a terror attack but didn't tell the FBI, or local police then we just shrug and say "our computers can't do that" and act as if that is acceptable?
More like involved...#falseflag #operationmockingbird
-
Are you going to tell me that if the CIA knew of a terror attack but didn't tell the FBI, or local police then we just shrug and say "our computers can't do that" and act as if that is acceptable?
I have used enough databases to know that what I am suggesting is not that difficult. It already exists in the NCIC system which many agencies can access but is hampered but he fact some agencies don't bother to report.
"Should" is part of the design process, it is the end goal, what drives what the system should be capable of. Law enforcement should be able to access necessary information, you start with that and design a system to achieve that goal. And when I say should here I am not speaking of some future technology, like we should be able to cure cancer. I am talking about things that are already within our abilities. So when I say should I mean it is something we can do and don't have a good excuse not to. Like I should excercise more. Can you see the difference or does your condescention cloud your view?
I'm an IT professional. "Should" is what the arrogant, uneducated, inexperienced idiots say when they don't understand the reality of what's possible in the context of existing technology, state and federal statutes and resources required.
I'm of the mindset that we can do anything with computers given enough time, money and resources. That's not what happens with government programs. They put out an RFP, accept proposals for a length of time, award the project to the district of whichever Congressman heads up the committee making the decision, budget the funds they were told the proposal needed, and eventually take delivery of something that meets the stated RFP's requirements -- requirements that are never written by anyone capable of designing that system. So, we wind up with a broken system, over budget, and well beyond the projected deadline.
You have but to look at H-3, the Rail, and the Obamacare website launch to understand that is the norm. Many more examples other than those 3.
You expect a computer to do the job when people can't do the job themselves even if given unlimited time. The privacy and funding issues alone prevent it.
-
:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
So you don't have an answer to the question or you don't want to admit the logic you use against universal background checks also apply to FFL dealer background checks?
-
I'm an IT professional. "Should" is what the arrogant, uneducated, inexperienced idiots say when they don't understand the reality of what's possible in the context of existing technology, state and federal statutes and resources required.
I'm of the mindset that we can do anything with computers given enough time, money and resources. That's not what happens with government programs. They put out an RFP, accept proposals for a length of time, award the project to the district of whichever Congressman heads up the committee making the decision, budget the funds they were told the proposal needed, and eventually take delivery of something that meets the stated RFP's requirements -- requirements that are never written by anyone capable of designing that system. So, we wind up with a broken system, over budget, and well beyond the projected deadline.
You have but to look at H-3, the Rail, and the Obamacare website launch to understand that is the norm. Many more examples other than those 3.
You expect a computer to do the job when people can't do the job themselves even if given unlimited time. The privacy and funding issues alone prevent it.
And should is also what people who know what can be done also say. Should is not exclusive to the ignorant.
We already have the NCIC system so its not like I am asking them to design some new system or one that cannot exist.
One of the big holes is that some agencies don't report information to the NCIC database. That is a participation issue not some unrealistic request of IT workers.
It is like casting a net with a bunch of big holes in it.
-
And should is also what people who know what can be done also say. Should is not exclusive to the ignorant.
We already have the NCIC system so its not like I am asking them to design some new system or one that cannot exist.
One of the big holes is that some agencies don't report information to the NCIC database. That is a participation issue not some unrealistic request of IT workers.
It is like casting a net with a bunch of big holes in it.
Arrogant and ignorant.
You ask of people you don't know to do something that you can't do nor explain how it needs to be done.
This is the problem. People like you believe they can have an opinion based on "should", but have no clue about "is".
You're no different on this issue than a college kid holding a rally to "Ban Weapons of War from US Streets."
You don't understand the actual problem, so any solution you call for will be up to someone else to create -- even though your solution solves nothing and costs us more than any benefit it may provide.
-
Nevada anti-gun (Common Sense Gun Control) people pushed for Universal Background Checks. Bloomberg and Moms Demand spent millions campaigning to have the measure pass.
Voters barely passed it by a slim margin. One of the key components of the new law is that it would cost the tax payers nothing.
The arrogant, ignorant law makers and anti-gun groups concluded that, since the FFLs and FBI already have a working background check system, they SHOULD have no problem piggybacking on that system for all gun transfers -- private sales, gifts, inheritances, etc.
Everybody who believed Universal background Checks would somehow save lives were literally stunned when the FBI refused to run the checks. They had no legal authority to do background checks outside of requests from FFLs and law enforcement pursuant to retail sales through the FFL system. Additionally, the FBI had no funding or resources allocated to accommodate the massive influx of background checks they would be expected to perform.
So, the arrogant, ignorant officials in Nevada said, "We SHOULD have no problem just raising the extra funding for the state to perform the background checks, since the voters had decided this new law was something they want."
The voters took the state to court, and the court ruled that what the state was doing was a "bait and switch." The measure was presented on the ballot as one which would not raise taxes, and here they are raising taxes because they were too arrogant and ignorant to RESEARCH just a little bit -- enough to learn that their assumptions about what they SHOULD be able to do were just plain WRONG!.
The NRA was also in Nevada before the election educating the people that the measure would be Dead On Arrival if they passed it, but a majority of voters chose to believe the gun control and Universal Background Check proponents. More arrogance and ignorance on the part of the voters.
This is a perfect example of why people who think like you -- pushing solutions they haven't bothered to examine below the very surface -- are arrogant and ignorant. You're advocating for changes, but you have no idea of how any of the details will impact that solution. Nor do you have any evidence that that solution will have any impact on violence or gun crimes. And what you do know you ignore -- that these laws will serve to create even more legal landmines than are already on the books so law abiding gun buyers and owners will be at greater risk of being convicted of a felony for the bad acts of someone else. I should not go to jail and lose my civil rights because I unwittingly sold a gun to a person who committed a violent act with it.
Will the court take into consideration that the buyer would have passed a mandated background check anyway had I requested one, since he was not deemed "prohibited to own guns" under current law?
They should.
-
Arrogant and ignorant.
You ask of people you don't know to do something that you can't do nor explain how it needs to be done.
This is the problem. People like you believe they can have an opinion based on "should", but have no clue about "is".
You're no different on this issue than a college kid holding a rally to "Ban Weapons of War from US Streets."
You don't understand the actual problem, so any solution you call for will be up to someone else to create -- even though your solution solves nothing and costs us more than any benefit it may provide.
You really can't come up with a good excuse can you, so instead you make ad hom attacks and suggest that because I used the word "should" that this clearly indicates something.
I think the government should protect our 2nd amendment rights but by your logic that's ignorant and arrogant blah blah blah.
A system is in place to do exactly this. I didn't suggest the NCIC take on a new task yet you keep replying as if I want some new system. I only said we should make sure that agencies who are supposed to enter data actually do. How is that so complicated? You want to find some IT excuse that isn't even relevant. Are you disagreeing just to argue?
You can't even answer why we should have any background checks for gun purchases at all.
-
You really can't come up with a good excuse can you, so instead you make ad hom attacks and suggest that because I used the word "should" that this clearly indicates something.
I think the government should protect our 2nd amendment rights but by your logic that's ignorant and arrogant blah blah blah.
A system is in place to do exactly this. I didn't suggest the NCIC take on a new task yet you keep replying as if I want some new system. I only said we should make sure that agencies who are supposed to enter data actually do. How is that so complicated? You want to find some IT excuse that isn't even relevant. Are you disagreeing just to argue?
You can't even answer why we should have any background checks for gun purchases at all.
I understand it sounds like the same old same old, but it does hold true...
A) Everyone is presumed innocent under the law. Period. Doing otherwise is prejudiced
B) Everyone has the right to regardless (unless proven through conviction of a crime or mental incompetence. Seeing a therapist for whatever reason is not a conviction) of personal opinion
C) Rights do not have preclusions. Preclusions turn them into privileges
D) If you argue in favor of placing a restriction on firearm ownership (a right), then all other rights are subject to the same. I.e.: Competency to vote (Should mentally unstable be allowed to vote?), permits to use social media (should the mentally unstable or radical violent types be able to use social media to promote their agendas)
If you think I want to have criminals or mentally unfit persons with firearms, you're wrong. But I also think the system is broken and only targets those who follow the law. Criminals don't give a sh!t. Ask the people in Chicago how well their system works. Or Baltimore, Or Atlanta, or should I go on?
I think every person who gets a firearm should be trained, but there are no training requirements on rights. They're just there. Don't say drivers license. Driving is a privilege and thus subject to restrictions. If there should be training requirements, they need to be on voting and social etiquette, but sadly they took those out of the classroom and replaced them with social justice and telling kids that they can be whatever gender or sexual identity they want to be. When they're 8.... And you wonder why we have a generation of screwed up people.
At the end of the day, you either believe in the sanctity of rights or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
-
https://youtu.be/VTdLjtno6mc
-
I understand it sounds like the same old same old, but it does hold true...
A) Everyone is presumed innocent under the law. Period. Doing otherwise is prejudiced
B) Everyone has the right to regardless (unless proven through conviction of a crime or mental incompetence. Seeing a therapist for whatever reason is not a conviction) of personal opinion
C) Rights do not have preclusions. Preclusions turn them into privileges
D) If you argue in favor of placing a restriction on firearm ownership (a right), then all other rights are subject to the same. I.e.: Competency to vote (Should mentally unstable be allowed to vote?), permits to use social media (should the mentally unstable or radical violent types be able to use social media to promote their agendas)
If you think I want to have criminals or mentally unfit persons with firearms, you're wrong. But I also think the system is broken and only targets those who follow the law. Criminals don't give a sh!t. Ask the people in Chicago how well their system works. Or Baltimore, Or Atlanta, or should I go on?
I think every person who gets a firearm should be trained, but there are no training requirements on rights. They're just there. Don't say drivers license. Driving is a privilege and thus subject to restrictions. If there should be training requirements, they need to be on voting and social etiquette, but sadly they took those out of the classroom and replaced them with social justice and telling kids that they can be whatever gender or sexual identity they want to be. When they're 8.... And you wonder why we have a generation of screwed up people.
At the end of the day, you either believe in the sanctity of rights or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
You bolded the last line in my post but I didn't really see a direct answer. From what you wrote I am inferring that you don't think any firearm purchases, private or through a gun store, should require a background check. Is this correct?
You make valid points though I would nitpick a few. The problem with using Chicago as an example is that we aren't talking about a closed system. In an open system the effect of Chicago's laws is going to be blunted by the fact someone can drive to a neighboring state to circumvent the laws. If Chicago were a closed system then more solid conclusions could be derived about the effectiveness of their gun control laws. Note that I am not saying they are or are not effective but that since it isn't a closed system it is impossible to tell.
And there are some restrictions on other rights so it isn't completely unfounded to have some level of restriction. The issue, as I see it, is finding the right balance between protection of constitutional rights and a need to limit certain actions. In a number of ways, the right to own a firearm is unique from the other rights and it presents unique issues so it is a little difficult to compare them 1 for 1 with the other rights.
-
You bolded the last line in my post but I didn't really see a direct answer. From what you wrote I am inferring that you don't think any firearm purchases, private or through a gun store, should require a background check. Is this correct?
You make valid points though I would nitpick a few. The problem with using Chicago as an example is that we aren't talking about a closed system. In an open system the effect of Chicago's laws is going to be blunted by the fact someone can drive to a neighboring state to circumvent the laws. If Chicago were a closed system then more solid conclusions could be derived about the effectiveness of their gun control laws. Note that I am not saying they are or are not effective but that since it isn't a closed system it is impossible to tell.
And there are some restrictions on other rights so it isn't completely unfounded to have some level of restriction. The issue, as I see it, is finding the right balance between protection of constitutional rights and a need to limit certain actions. In a number of ways, the right to own a firearm is unique from the other rights and it presents unique issues so it is a little difficult to compare them 1 for 1 with the other rights.
Recent FBI study done showed that 60% (IIRC) of stolen guns recovered in Chiraq were from Maryland. Which is pretty far away and has strict gun laws as well.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Recent FBI study done showed that 60% (IIRC) of stolen guns recovered in Chiraq were from Maryland. Which is pretty far away and has strict gun laws as well.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Organized crime will find a market for whatever they sell (drugs, prostitution, guns, etc.) no matter what laws exist. There are some cities that make it easier via corruption in government. Chicago and Baltimore, MD, are two big strongholds of organized crime.
The problem isn't Joe Shmoe sitting on his couch playing video games. We don't have gang violence because that guy said, "Hey, my rent's due this week. I better go sell my guns to anyone I can to raise the cash. I heard Chicago is a good place to go."
The problem is there are LARGE GANGS in many cities. If Chicago can't find guns and Baltimore can, they trade the guns for drugs or cash. It's an underground economy with no IRS reporting or taxation.
EEF saying Chicago can't be blamed because it's not a "closed system" is intellectually lazy. Name one place in the US that IS a closed system, yet most have virtually NO gun violence while also having almost no anti-gun laws.
Ridiculous argument.
-
The "closed system" argument doesn't even remotely hold water.
Hawaii defeats that whole argument entirely.
We have strict gun laws. Yet we see illegal guns, even fully automatic guns.
We have a ban on drugs, yet we see all kinds of drugs a junky's heart should desire.
We have a ban on fireworks, especially aerial fireworks.... holy shit you didn't take a look outside on New Years?
SMFH
-
The "closed system" argument doesn't even remotely hold water.
Hawaii defeats that whole argument entirely.
We have strict gun laws. Yet we see illegal guns, even fully automatic guns.
We have a ban on drugs, yet we see all kinds of drugs a junky's heart should desire.
We have a ban on fireworks, especially aerial fireworks.... holy shit you didn't take a look outside on New Years?
SMFH
You’re talking like a logical and rational person. Gotta cut that out :P
:rofl:
-
You bolded the last line in my post but I didn't really see a direct answer. From what you wrote I am inferring that you don't think any firearm purchases, private or through a gun store, should require a background check. Is this correct? That is correct. Before the 1993 GCA amendment with the Brady Bill, there were no background checks. That happened because the President was shot.
You make valid points though I would nitpick a few. The problem with using Chicago as an example is that we aren't talking about a closed system. In an open system the effect of Chicago's laws is going to be blunted by the fact someone can drive to a neighboring state to circumvent the laws. If Chicago were a closed system then more solid conclusions could be derived about the effectiveness of their gun control laws. Note that I am not saying they are or are not effective but that since it isn't a closed system it is impossible to tell. Using this logic, communism should work the next time because it wasn't implemented correctly and making it a "closed system"
And there are some restrictions on other rights so it isn't completely unfounded to have some level of restriction. The issue, as I see it, is finding the right balance between protection of constitutional rights and a need to limit certain actions. In a number of ways, the right to own a firearm is unique from the other rights and it presents unique issues so it is a little difficult to compare them 1 for 1 with the other rights. What makes it unique? And yes there are restrictions but they're after the fact. You can't yell FIRE in a theater without repercussions. What else has restrictions? 4th Amendment? 5th Amendment? Ok I'll give on Section 1 of the 14th because it's not enforced, but taken by government. I will agree that we do need to find some sort of compromise and balance, but the protection of rights should always come first and that should be the test of whether the restriction should be in place. As for limiting certain actions, they already have. You can't carry in a Fed or State or Local Gov building or a school as well as other places as noted through local ordinances. It's already a crime to own a gun if you're a felon, or dishonorably discharged from the military or the other items on the 4473. But I will ask, how many criminals go through background checks? How many of the people arrested for gun crimes in the last year here in Hawaii obtained their firearms legally?
We can argue all day about should or shouldn't have restrictions. I can point to Idaho, a permitless carry state and how little gun related crime they have per capita. The same for Vermont (Socialist) or New Hampshire. You want to use California, Illinois, Washington DC as models? They call for more control because the criminals don't follow the law...?! Who's right or who's wrong? I will always go to the Constitution and choosing dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery
(Man step away for this whole job thing and look what happens...)
I did bold the last sentence. And I did answer directly (see bold below). And no, I don't think there should be background checks. While I do not think criminals or the truly mentally ill should get them, background checks preclude the right because you prevent someone from exercising it by imposing a restriction on it. Do you make someone pass a competency test before voting? Which, is much more important in my book. Hell for that point, they should move the age back to 21 or better yet 25. How many 18 year olds can go to the bathroom without raising their hand; but we let them vote. We let 18 year olds sign valid binding contracts, but can't buy/own a firearm in Hawaii now because "they can't make adult decisions"...
I understand it sounds like the same old same old, but it does hold true...
A) Everyone is presumed innocent under the law. Period. Doing otherwise is prejudiced
B) Everyone has the right to own and carry (that would be the keep and bear part) regardless of personal opinion (unless proven through conviction of a crime or mental incompetence. Seeing a therapist for whatever reason is not a conviction)
C) Rights do not have preclusions. Preclusions turn them into privileges
D) If you argue in favor of placing a restriction on firearm ownership (a right), then all other rights are subject to the same. I.e.: Competency to vote (Should mentally unstable be allowed to vote?), permits to use social media (should the mentally unstable or radical violent types be able to use social media to promote their agendas)
If you think I want to have criminals or mentally unfit persons with firearms, you're wrong. But I also think the system is broken and only targets those who follow the law. Criminals don't give a sh!t. Ask the people in Chicago how well their system works. Or Baltimore, Or Atlanta, or should I go on?
I think every person who gets a firearm should be trained, but there are no training requirements on rights. They're just there. Don't say drivers license. Driving is a privilege and thus subject to restrictions. If there should be training requirements, they need to be on voting and social etiquette, but sadly they took those out of the classroom and replaced them with social justice and telling kids that they can be whatever gender or sexual identity they want to be. When they're 8.... And you wonder why we have a generation of screwed up people.
At the end of the day, you either believe in the sanctity of rights or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
I hope I answered your questions better this time
edit note: I moved some of my statements to make it easier (sic) to read
-
Realistically we live in a society that
quite frankly doesn't care about individual rights.
Democrats estimate they can deny you any right
under color of law and you won't get your
"day in court" till it no longer matters.
Cops will confiscate and sell your property
just because they can.
The guns they confiscate will sit out in a locked cage
open to the Hawaiian weather.
If you think Hawaii is free you are delusional.
We are no more and probably less free than the run of mill
Russian.
ht tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Jt9kLxDIo
( remove the space) This is an extreme example, but
driving into Big Island kine Waimea this AM I wish I still
had my bike. I could have cut 1/2 hour off my sheepish
law compliance.
My point is, the more they squeeze, the less compliance they will
get, they can't watch, or control everyone.
After arbitrarily making me into a criminal, by depriving me of my,
natural rights, don't be surprised if I now act like a criminal.
-
Recent FBI study done showed that 60% (IIRC) of stolen guns recovered in Chiraq were from Maryland. Which is pretty far away and has strict gun laws as well.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Hmmm, now that is interesting if true. Have a source? I am interested in what variable might be at play there.
-
And no, I don't think there should be background checks. While I do not think criminals or the truly mentally ill should get them, background checks preclude the right because you prevent someone from exercising it by imposing a restriction on it. Do you make someone pass a competency test before voting? Which, is much more important in my book. Hell for that point, they should move the age back to 21 or better yet 25. How many 18 year olds can go to the bathroom without raising their hand; but we let them vote. We let 18 year olds sign valid binding contracts, but can't buy/own a firearm in Hawaii now because "they can't make adult decisions"...
You say you do not think criminals or truly mentally ill should get them but if not for background checks, how do you think we could enforce that?
What makes it unique? And yes there are restrictions but they're after the fact. You can't yell FIRE in a theater without repercussions. What else has restrictions? 4th Amendment? 5th Amendment? Ok I'll give on Section 1 of the 14th because it's not enforced, but taken by government. I will agree that we do need to find some sort of compromise and balance, but the protection of rights should always come first and that should be the test of whether the restriction should be in place. As for limiting certain actions, they already have. You can't carry in a Fed or State or Local Gov building or a school as well as other places as noted through local ordinances. It's already a crime to own a gun if you're a felon, or dishonorably discharged from the military or the other items on the 4473. But I will ask, how many criminals go through background checks? How many of the people arrested for gun crimes in the last year here in Hawaii obtained their firearms legally?
We can argue all day about should or shouldn't have restrictions. I can point to Idaho, a permitless carry state and how little gun related crime they have per capita. The same for Vermont (Socialist) or New Hampshire. You want to use California, Illinois, Washington DC as models? They call for more control because the criminals don't follow the law...?! Who's right or who's wrong? I will always go to the Constitution and choosing dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery
The 5th amendment has some restrictions but the 4th amendment, I would say, has a much longer and storied list of exceptions, with a lot of it stemming from law enforcement. So while no one gets a background check for their 4th amendment there are numerous instances where a 4th amendment protection is denied. Not saying I necessarily agree with all of them but there is a historical precedence for restricted rights.
According to this article which quotes the ATF, in 2017 112,000 background check applicants were denied, of which 12,000 were referred for further investigation. Also in the article it says the FBI found that about 181,000 or 1% of firearm related background checks were denied because the person was prohibited from owning a firearm. It doesn't give a breakdown of why the applications were denied. And on top of that you have various states which have their own checks so there are going to be some amount of additional people who applied when they were prohibited. Percentage wise the number is not huge however that still does mean nearly 200,000 people who couldn't own firearms were going through background checks.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/06/gun-laws-report-finds-few-rejected-during-background-checks-charged/1213216002/
As for your question locally I don't know if that data is released to the public. Have to do some digging to see if it is available somewhere.
I don't think it makes sense to calling Chicago not a closed system to somehow justifying communism. A closed or open system is a scientific concept used in a number of different science disciplines from sociology to physics. If something is not a closed system it just makes it harder to determine the effect of a single variable because other variables are effecting it. So if Chicago were its own country with a secure border and the same strict gun laws but still high levels of gun crime then we could look at it and make stronger conclusions about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the gun laws. But since people can drive in and out of Chicago from other states with other laws it becomes much harder to prove what effect the strict gun laws in Chicago have on gun crime there. Even Hawaii is not a closed system though it is more closed than Chicago. But we do have lower rates of gun crime here too so the argument can cut both ways.
-
Realistically we live in a society that
quite frankly doesn't care about individual rights.
Democrats estimate they can deny you any right
under color of law and you won't get your
"day in court" till it no longer matters.
Cops will confiscate and sell your property
just because they can.
The guns they confiscate will sit out in a locked cage
open to the Hawaiian weather.
If you think Hawaii is free you are delusional.
We are no more and probably less free than the run of mill
Russian.
ht tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Jt9kLxDIo
( remove the space) This is an extreme example, but
driving into Big Island kine Waimea this AM I wish I still
had my bike. I could have cut 1/2 hour off my sheepish
law compliance.
My point is, the more they squeeze, the less compliance they will
get, they can't watch, or control everyone.
After arbitrarily making me into a criminal, by depriving me of my,
natural rights, don't be surprised if I now act like a criminal.
Even the Republicans have some history of doing that, including increased firearm restrictions.
-
Hmmm, now that is interesting if true. Have a source? I am interested in what variable might be at play there.
It was done by the FBI. Its prob on their website somewhere.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Even the Republicans have some history of doing that, including increased firearm restrictions.
Other than the Bush racist EO shutting down importation of some foreign semi auto's I can't really find
many examples of what you state.
Perhaps you can enlighten me?
I looked.
I'm not a Republican. I vote for Republicans
because I despise the Democrat party.
I'm not an Independent, whatever that is.
I'm an American.
-
Reagan signed serious gun control as governor of California, the Mulford Act in 1967, banning open carry (mostly in response to black people legally open carrying).
He also supported (post presidency) the Brady Bill in 1993 and the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 nonsense.
-
You say you do not think criminals or truly mentally ill should get them but if not for background checks, how do you think we could enforce that? You can't. Do the criminals go down to HPD and say "hey I need a background check so I can go steal a gun or pick one up from a guy I know for dirt cheap cause it's hot"? And the mentally ill are a whole other ball of wax that we as a society are ignoring at our peril for multitudes of reasons. Too many are ignored or thrown away. Most of the time when the mentally ill commit a crime it's our fault as today nobody wants to intervene for fear of legal repercussions. The Red Flag laws are too little too late and do nothing to truly help people. It just strips people of their rights without any true evidence, just the word of another under a secret court order. Think FISA for the people. If the gov't wants to help then pick them up and give them a 72 hour psyc hold. Oh, but you can't because it infringes on their civil rights and due process. But it's ok to strip them of their rights to own a firearm without due process.
The 5th amendment has some restrictions but the 4th amendment, I would say, has a much longer and storied list of exceptions, with a lot of it stemming from law enforcement. So while no one gets a background check for their 4th amendment there are numerous instances where a 4th amendment protection is denied. Not saying I necessarily agree with all of them but there is a historical precedence for restricted rights. But even 4th amendment violations make their way through a legal system and the "victim" is at least accused of a crime, not a "pre-crime". People aren't pulled over for going the speed limit, but the officer says they MIGHT be in the future.
According to this article which quotes the ATF, in 2017 112,000 background check applicants were denied, of which 12,000 were referred for further investigation. Also in the article it says the FBI found that about 181,000 or 1% of firearm related background checks were denied because the person was prohibited from owning a firearm. It doesn't give a breakdown of why the applications were denied. And on top of that you have various states which have their own checks so there are going to be some amount of additional people who applied when they were prohibited. Percentage wise the number is not huge however that still does mean nearly 200,000 people who couldn't own firearms were going through background checks.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/06/gun-laws-report-finds-few-rejected-during-background-checks-charged/1213216002/ If LEO is not going to prosecute, why are we even bothering? What purpose does it serve? Other than to impose a burden on the citizenry.
As for your question locally I don't know if that data is released to the public. Have to do some digging to see if it is available somewhere. please do and share
I don't think it makes sense to calling Chicago not a closed system to somehow justifying communism. (that was sarcasm) A closed or open system is a scientific concept used in a number of different science disciplines from sociology to physics. If something is not a closed system it just makes it harder to determine the effect of a single variable because other variables are effecting it. So if Chicago were its own country with a secure border and the same strict gun laws but still high levels of gun crime then we could look at it and make stronger conclusions about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the gun laws. But since people can drive in and out of Chicago from other states with other laws it becomes much harder to prove what effect the strict gun laws in Chicago have on gun crime there. Even Hawaii is not a closed system though it is more closed than Chicago. But we do have lower rates of gun crime here too so the argument can cut both ways.
What are the effectiveness of gun laws? Ask Brazil which is it's own country with "secure" borders and stricter gun laws.
What about india?
As of present day, the gun laws in India are one of the most stringent in the world. Any ordinary citizen in India cannot just go to a shop and buy a gun. The strict draconian laws in India on arms control have made it nearly impossible for an ordinary citizen to own a gun. Nevertheless, the procedure for acquiring a gun is laid down clearly by the Arms Act, 1959 under Chapter III.
● First and foremost, to own a gun in India, a civilian needs to be minimum 21 years of age. An application form needs to be filled by the applicant which asks about his or her past criminal behaviour. Guns are for only three purposes: crop protection, sport and self defence. For a self- defence license, a civilian has to prove imminent threat to life. Protection can also be from wild animals.
● Other than that, certain documentation is necessarily required of the applicant- identity proof, residence proof, proof of age, proof of education, residence proof, 4 photographs, last three years’ income tax returns, character certificate after verification from eminent members in the locality, health certificates both mental and physical.
● The next step involves the police performing applicant’s strict background check for 2 months. Interviewing the applicant and his family, his neighbours, checking his mental health history, behaviour towards others- suppressive or aggressive , domestic violence etc.
● The recorded interviews are then sent to the Criminal Branch and National Crime Record Bureau for record keeping. It is after this that the licensing authorities interview the applicant and the reason for their approval or declining of license is also documented.
● The applicants whose applications are approved have to observe mandatory arms handling course whereby they learn safe handling, firing and transporting a gun.
● The license granted has to be renewed after every three years. Since owning a gun in India is only a privilege and not a right, the Government reserves the right to confiscate such weapons at any time.
● In case a civilian intends to procure a gun from a factory, more documentation is required- residential proof, the factory must possess a transportation license to transfer a gun, and a mandatory No Objection Certificate for the factory owner and the police. This process requires a month after which it has to be produced for inspection and record keeping.
● It is mandatory for any person carrying a gun to carry it in a holster or a rucksack in case of rifles.
(https://assets.weforum.org/editor/large_KGP9F3HBriqP6BED2Qp-tyxG9YOFMDT0AD4Il_59oq8.png)
In Brazil, all firearms are required to be registered with the minimum age for gun ownership being 25. It is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence, and a special permit granting the right to do so is granted to certain groups, such as law enforcement officers. To legally own a gun, an owner must hold a gun license, which costs R$1000, and pay a fee every three years to register the gun, currently at R$85. It is estimated that there are around 17 million firearms in Brazil, 9 million of which are unregistered.
(https://assets.weforum.org/editor/large_aN-Z_eFelxoJ-pvz4XeufrupZQzScMiodxoyv_ONfq0.png)
The US doesn't even make this list and has the highest gun ownership in the world
referenced from: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/gun-deaths-firearms-americas-homicide/
-
Reagan signed serious gun control as governor of California, the Mulford Act in 1967, banning open carry (mostly in response to black people legally open carrying).
He also supported (post presidency) the Brady Bill in 1993 and the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 nonsense.
Puna,
Thanks.
That was about the time I got my first CA hunting license, I was twelve at the time.
I don't recall that particular law but take your word for it.
The only thing I remember was loaded weapons being a No-No
in vehicles and we had to keep them visible when transporting
eg in a rifle rack or on the dash
Cased, unloaded firearms were OK in the glove box, trunk, in the back of a station wagon,
or in the bed of a pickup.
As to the later anti-gun support, wasn't he suffering Dementia then?
-
Brazil has lots of gun crimes. So many vids with 2 dudes on a moped or motorcycle robbing at gun point.
IIRC, they wanted to repeal their gun laws so any citizen can carry. Idk what ever came about that.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
You can't. Do the criminals go down to HPD and say "hey I need a background check so I can go steal a gun or pick one up from a guy I know for dirt cheap cause it's hot"? And the mentally ill are a whole other ball of wax that we as a society are ignoring at our peril for multitudes of reasons. Too many are ignored or thrown away. Most of the time when the mentally ill commit a crime it's our fault as today nobody wants to intervene for fear of legal repercussions. The Red Flag laws are too little too late and do nothing to truly help people. It just strips people of their rights without any true evidence, just the word of another under a secret court order. Think FISA for the people. If the gov't wants to help then pick them up and give them a 72 hour psyc hold. Oh, but you can't because it infringes on their civil rights and due process. But it's ok to strip them of their rights to own a firearm without due process.
Well evidently some criminals are applying for background checks despite a criminal history precluding them from purchasing a firearm, or they are lying on the forms (a criminal act). I don't think the red flag type laws are too little too late. Take the mental health evaluation law Hawaii has. Cops observe behavior or hear report by witness, they call a psychologist, and the psychologist can authorize the police to take the person into custody against their will and take them to a mental health institution. They are taking away a constitutional right for a period of time. Sometimes it saves a life and sometimes the person is released and hurts themselves or someone else. It isn't a guarantee by any means but I don't think it can be said that it does nothing to help people.
But even 4th amendment violations make their way through a legal system and the "victim" is at least accused of a crime, not a "pre-crime". People aren't pulled over for going the speed limit, but the officer says they MIGHT be in the future.
Conspiracy to commit a crime is in essence a pre-crime yet it is an arrest able offense. Say police find out an individual has a plan to blow up a building and the person has bought all the parts and they have diagrams and photos of the target, etc. Police can say the person was going to commit a crime and arrest them and obtain a conviction. Not in all cases but in some of the active shooter incidents there were a lot of red flags and they were never acted upon.
Imagine this scenario: You have a brother who has serious schizophrenia but has never been officially diagnosed. This brother also shows signs of paranoia and anger issues. This brother just got fired from his job and has been making comments about how life isn't worth living. This brother just went out and bought firearms and large amounts of ammo. He has made comments to you that his pain will soon be over and the people who were mean to him at work will soon feel his pain. In this scenario, this man is clearly exhibiting multiple serious red flags but so far he hasn't made any specific threat to meet a criminal act. Now absent a red flag type law, what avenue would you as a regular citizen have to intervene before something goes wrong? Should anyone intervene at all?
If LEO is not going to prosecute, why are we even bothering? What purpose does it serve? Other than to impose a burden on the citizenry.
Are you asking why not all denials are investigated and prosecuted? If I understand it, not all denials indicate an actual crime. If a convicted crazy person applies for a background check and is denied but told the truth on the form then there is probably no crime to charge them with.
What are the effectiveness of gun laws? Ask Brazil which is it's own country with "secure" borders and stricter gun laws.
What about india?
As of present day, the gun laws in India are one of the most stringent in the world. Any ordinary citizen in India cannot just go to a shop and buy a gun. The strict draconian laws in India on arms control have made it nearly impossible for an ordinary citizen to own a gun. Nevertheless, the procedure for acquiring a gun is laid down clearly by the Arms Act, 1959 under Chapter III.
● First and foremost, to own a gun in India, a civilian needs to be minimum 21 years of age. An application form needs to be filled by the applicant which asks about his or her past criminal behaviour. Guns are for only three purposes: crop protection, sport and self defence. For a self- defence license, a civilian has to prove imminent threat to life. Protection can also be from wild animals.
● Other than that, certain documentation is necessarily required of the applicant- identity proof, residence proof, proof of age, proof of education, residence proof, 4 photographs, last three years’ income tax returns, character certificate after verification from eminent members in the locality, health certificates both mental and physical.
● The next step involves the police performing applicant’s strict background check for 2 months. Interviewing the applicant and his family, his neighbours, checking his mental health history, behaviour towards others- suppressive or aggressive , domestic violence etc.
● The recorded interviews are then sent to the Criminal Branch and National Crime Record Bureau for record keeping. It is after this that the licensing authorities interview the applicant and the reason for their approval or declining of license is also documented.
● The applicants whose applications are approved have to observe mandatory arms handling course whereby they learn safe handling, firing and transporting a gun.
● The license granted has to be renewed after every three years. Since owning a gun in India is only a privilege and not a right, the Government reserves the right to confiscate such weapons at any time.
● In case a civilian intends to procure a gun from a factory, more documentation is required- residential proof, the factory must possess a transportation license to transfer a gun, and a mandatory No Objection Certificate for the factory owner and the police. This process requires a month after which it has to be produced for inspection and record keeping.
● It is mandatory for any person carrying a gun to carry it in a holster or a rucksack in case of rifles.
/quote]
Using other countries does make for stronger arguments about the effectiveness of gun control laws since they are closer to a closed system. There are clear examples of places with strict gun control and very low gun deaths and there are also clear examples of places with struct gun control and very high gun deaths which to me clearly indicates that there are some much more significant factors at play. However, generally speaking, places with stricter gun control laws have lower rates of gun crime than those which don't. That is something in the data and I think we have to acknowledge it even though we can point out the examples that don't fit in line with the data.
-
Well evidently some criminals are applying for background checks despite a criminal history precluding them from purchasing a firearm, or they are lying on the forms (a criminal act)(Nobody said criminals were smart). I don't think the red flag type laws are too little too late. Take the mental health evaluation law Hawaii has (This is not something to say that works well. Case in point: I have a friend whose 11 year old son needed some counseling and the counselor said the whole family should be part of it to help the child. Well, during the background check for his LG permit, the record came up and he received a notice to surrender his firearms. The adult did nothing wrong except try to help his son. It took a couple of thousand dollars and a lawyer to fix the problem. And I'm sure this is not the only time it's happened, but not everyone has the resources to fight it.) . Cops observe behavior or hear report by witness, they call a psychologist, and the psychologist can authorize the police to take the person into custody against their will and take them to a mental health institution (Really? They just send a notice to surrender the firearms or send the HPD to confiscate. I'm yet to hear where they just take the person in and leave the firearms. The State could give a crap about people mental health and personal well-being. Just look at the homeless situation. Also look at the way Red Flag laws can be abused: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/09/democrat-send-police-in-tactical-gear-to-mans-house-over-a-meme/#axzz6184UqJTH with this being the most recent. Don't forget the Maryland man who was killed over a Red Flag incident.). They are taking away a constitutional right for a period of time. Sometimes it saves a life and sometimes the person is released and hurts themselves or someone else. It isn't a guarantee by any means but I don't think it can be said that it does nothing to help people.
Conspiracy to commit a crime is in essence a pre-crime yet it is an arrest able offense. Say police find out an individual has a plan to blow up a building and the person has bought all the parts and they have diagrams and photos of the target, etc. Police can say the person was going to commit a crime and arrest them and obtain a conviction. Not in all cases but in some of the active shooter incidents there were a lot of red flags and they were never acted upon. (I agree that conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. But the result should be arrest, not firearm confiscation and leave the person. That's about the same as towing the car but leaving the drunk driver in the road. And yes in some cases, an active shooter had lots of red flags going up and nobody did anything to intervene. Some of that attitude has been helped by government saying only they can fix the problem and by lawsuits from the accused.)
Imagine this scenario: You have a brother who has serious schizophrenia but has never been officially diagnosed. This brother also shows signs of paranoia and anger issues. This brother just got fired from his job and has been making comments about how life isn't worth living. This brother just went out and bought firearms and large amounts of ammo. He has made comments to you that his pain will soon be over and the people who were mean to him at work will soon feel his pain. In this scenario, this man is clearly exhibiting multiple serious red flags but so far he hasn't made any specific threat to meet a criminal act. Now absent a red flag type law, what avenue would you as a regular citizen have to intervene before something goes wrong? Should anyone intervene at all? (Actually this almost exact scenario has happened to me. Just not my brother. My friend was allegedly acting suspiciously, depressed and angry and his girlfriend called LEO because she was worried he would hurt himself. LEO showed up and took him in for a 3-day psych hold. The LEO asked him if he had firearms and he said yes. What happened, LEO contacted me to take possession of the firearms, which I did {a non-prohibited person} and I held them until I was contacted by LEO and mental health to return them.)
Are you asking why not all denials are investigated and prosecuted? If I understand it, not all denials indicate an actual crime. If a convicted crazy person applies for a background check and is denied but told the truth on the form then there is probably no crime to charge them with.
Reviews by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in fiscal 2017 led to 112,000 gun-purchase denials because people were in forbidden categories, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) investigated 12,700 of those cases.
How many of the investigated cases resulted in prosecutions? Twelve. That’s 0.09 percent of the cases ATF investigated.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf
At the state level, officials from 10 of 13 selected states said they did not investigate or prosecute firearm denials, some citing competing resource demands and the lack of statutes with which states prosecute as reasons. The remaining 3 states (Hawaii IS NOT one of them?) investigated a high proportion of firearms denials. One of the 3 states reported about 1,900 referrals for prosecution in 2017 and about 470 convictions
What are the effectiveness of gun laws? Ask Brazil which is it's own country with "secure" borders and stricter gun laws.
What about india?
As of present day, the gun laws in India are one of the most stringent in the world. Any ordinary citizen in India cannot just go to a shop and buy a gun. The strict draconian laws in India on arms control have made it nearly impossible for an ordinary citizen to own a gun. Nevertheless, the procedure for acquiring a gun is laid down clearly by the Arms Act, 1959 under Chapter III.
● First and foremost, to own a gun in India, a civilian needs to be minimum 21 years of age. An application form needs to be filled by the applicant which asks about his or her past criminal behaviour. Guns are for only three purposes: crop protection, sport and self defence. For a self- defence license, a civilian has to prove imminent threat to life. Protection can also be from wild animals.
● Other than that, certain documentation is necessarily required of the applicant- identity proof, residence proof, proof of age, proof of education, residence proof, 4 photographs, last three years’ income tax returns, character certificate after verification from eminent members in the locality, health certificates both mental and physical.
● The next step involves the police performing applicant’s strict background check for 2 months. Interviewing the applicant and his family, his neighbours, checking his mental health history, behaviour towards others- suppressive or aggressive , domestic violence etc.
● The recorded interviews are then sent to the Criminal Branch and National Crime Record Bureau for record keeping. It is after this that the licensing authorities interview the applicant and the reason for their approval or declining of license is also documented.
● The applicants whose applications are approved have to observe mandatory arms handling course whereby they learn safe handling, firing and transporting a gun.
● The license granted has to be renewed after every three years. Since owning a gun in India is only a privilege and not a right, the Government reserves the right to confiscate such weapons at any time.
● In case a civilian intends to procure a gun from a factory, more documentation is required- residential proof, the factory must possess a transportation license to transfer a gun, and a mandatory No Objection Certificate for the factory owner and the police. This process requires a month after which it has to be produced for inspection and record keeping.
● It is mandatory for any person carrying a gun to carry it in a holster or a rucksack in case of rifles.
/quote]
Using other countries does make for stronger arguments about the effectiveness of gun control laws since they are closer to a closed system. There are clear examples of places with strict gun control and very low gun deaths and there are also clear examples of places with struct gun control and very high gun deaths which to me clearly indicates that there are some much more significant factors at play. However, generally speaking, places with stricter gun control laws have lower rates of gun crime than those which don't. That is something in the data and I think we have to acknowledge it even though we can point out the examples that don't fit in line with the data.
-
Interesting firearms statistics just at the 30,000 foot level
Denials were going up about by about 1500 per year but NICS checks were going up by the millions. 200% increase in denial between 2013 & 2017. In 2013 there were roughly 3000 denials to 6,169,832 NICS checks, a 0.048% denial rate. Compare that to 2017 with 9000 denials but had 9,941,684 NICS checks, a 0.09% denial rate. Which is a significant increase. Funny though, 2016 had 11,134,651 NICS checks run (I wonder if the election year had any influence here :-\ ) but only around 7500 denials.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_year_by_state_type.pdf/view
-
Interesting firearms statistics just at the 30,000 foot level
Denials were going up about by about 1500 per year but NICS checks were going up by the millions. 200% increase in denial between 2013 & 2017. In 2013 there were roughly 3000 denials to 6,169,832 NICS checks, a 0.048% denial rate. Compare that to 2017 with 9000 denials but had 9,941,684 NICS checks, a 0.09% denial rate. Which is a significant increase. Funny though, 2016 had 11,134,651 NICS checks run (I wonder if the election year had any influence here :-\ ) but only around 7500 denials.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_year_by_state_type.pdf/view
Yeah, I believe that was the case. When HRC was leading the polls. I for one did some buying ahead of the election that year. I recall some pretty good pricing on magazines just before the election and then it went even lower after Trump won. Yeah, I bought just before the election. :(
I think the low NICS numbers in 2013 was the post Sandy Hook era where pricing on everything went nuts. ARs were selling for 3-4x retail. I had offers in the $2000-3000 range for a NIB 6720. You couldn't find ammo on the shelf for 9 and 45 and it was super expensive when you did. I did some carbine and pistol training classes in that time and the instructors went to reduced round count. The Magpul 500+ rounds a day would've been super expensive. Couldn't even find .22 lr in the LGS.
-
Interesting firearms statistics just at the 30,000 foot level
Denials were going up about by about 1500 per year but NICS checks were going up by the millions. 200% increase in denial between 2013 & 2017. In 2013 there were roughly 3000 denials to 6,169,832 NICS checks, a 0.048% denial rate. Compare that to 2017 with 9000 denials but had 9,941,684 NICS checks, a 0.09% denial rate. Which is a significant increase. Funny though, 2016 had 11,134,651 NICS checks run (I wonder if the election year had any influence here :-\ ) but only around 7500 denials.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_year_by_state_type.pdf/view
Some of those denials were anti-2A activists / reporters / Left-wing Nuts who wanted to write a story or post a video on how unbelievably easy it is to buy a gun from a retail store. Most were either denied based on prohibitive factors or they gave up because the process was too difficult or invasive.
They all tried to prove a point -- then proved the exact opposite. A very few were honest enough to publish their experiences and let the reader conclude that the system works as well as it can be expected to. Others use the experience to paint a false narrative, refusing to admit that more laws won't stop the next bad guy who passes a background check..
Reporter Tries To Buy Gun At Walmart. Leaves Twice Empty-Handed
“Overall, the experience left me with the impression that buying a gun at Walmart is more complicated than I expected,
and that Walmart takes gun sales and security pretty seriously,” Peterson concluded after leaving the store a second
time without a gun.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/reporter-tries-buy-gun-walmart-leaves-twice-empty-handed-76071
One of the dishonest ones:
Columnist fails gun check, blames store owners
A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background
check that uncovered his "admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."
:
Steinberg explained he tried to buy an AR-15 rifle this month following a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla.,
which claimed the lives of 49 victims, so that he could give a firsthand account of how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the
United States.
:
"Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because
he is a journalist. 'Journalist' is not a protected class, [by the way]," the store said in an explanation made available to the
Washington Examiner's media desk.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/columnist-fails-gun-check-blames-store-owners
-
Yeah, I bought just before the election. :(
Still a prudent decision. Filling samdbags and not needing them is far better than the alternative.
-
Still a prudent decision. Filling samdbags and not needing them is far better than the alternative.
Yeah. Better to have and not need than to need an not have.
I was able to get some good deal and got in on some group buys with mainland buddies. Always can use spare mags. I still have boxes from back then that I haven’t touched.
-
(Really? They just send a notice to surrender the firearms or send the HPD to confiscate. I'm yet to hear where they just take the person in and leave the firearms. The State could give a crap about people mental health and personal well-being. Just look at the homeless situation. Also look at the way Red Flag laws can be abused: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/09/democrat-send-police-in-tactical-gear-to-mans-house-over-a-meme/#axzz6184UqJTH with this being the most recent. Don't forget the Maryland man who was killed over a Red Flag incident.).
Indeed a red flag law can be abused but so can any law that allows the government to seize someone.
I don't know how exactly a mandatory mental health exam translates into someone losing their firearms though. If I understand it correctly the court does have to intervene.
(I agree that conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. But the result should be arrest, not firearm confiscation and leave the person. That's about the same as towing the car but leaving the drunk driver in the road. And yes in some cases, an active shooter had lots of red flags going up and nobody did anything to intervene. Some of that attitude has been helped by government saying only they can fix the problem and by lawsuits from the accused.)
I agree, if there is enough reason to take away a firearm then why isn't there enough reason to detain them? I did pose this question to a lawyer and I had to admit he had a pretty good response. He told me that seizure of a person is more serious than seizure of an item. So while they both involve constitutional rights, one is more intrusive than the other.
(Actually this almost exact scenario has happened to me. Just not my brother. My friend was allegedly acting suspiciously, depressed and angry and his girlfriend called LEO because she was worried he would hurt himself. LEO showed up and took him in for a 3-day psych hold. The LEO asked him if he had firearms and he said yes. What happened, LEO contacted me to take possession of the firearms, which I did {a non-prohibited person} and I held them until I was contacted by LEO and mental health to return them.)
\
I think a red flag type law (not necessarily the one we currently have) does/can help in these types of situations. Absent a red flag law I think it is harder for a member of the public to take some sort of action to start the ball rolling.
Reviews by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in fiscal 2017 led to 112,000 gun-purchase denials because people were in forbidden categories, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) investigated 12,700 of those cases.
How many of the investigated cases resulted in prosecutions? Twelve. That’s 0.09 percent of the cases ATF investigated.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694290.pdf
At the state level, officials from 10 of 13 selected states said they did not investigate or prosecute firearm denials, some citing competing resource demands and the lack of statutes with which states prosecute as reasons. The remaining 3 states (Hawaii IS NOT one of them?) investigated a high proportion of firearms denials. One of the 3 states reported about 1,900 referrals for prosecution in 2017 and about 470 convictions
Yup, some issues there. But it still does prove that background checks do end up catching criminals and other prohibited peoples and disproves the argument that criminals never apply for background checks.
-
I don't know how exactly a mandatory mental health exam translates into someone losing their firearms though. If I understand it correctly the court does have to intervene.
No different than forcing someone to a mandatory mental health check to vote. It's a presumption of a crime or incompetence prior to exercise of a right. In my example, someone lost their gun rights through the mental health exam requirements... There was no follow up by HPD to determine the reasons behind his seeing a mental health professional. Seeing a marriage counselor can end up with the same results. If you seek professional help, more often than not, people are denied a right. This is not just a Hawaii problem, it's a nationwide problem. Seeking mental health professionals is not done because of the fear of losing ones rights.
Separate discussion but why do we require mental health check to exercise a right but we freely give drivers licenses (privilege) to anyone without any training requirement (except minors). Cars kill more people daily through sheer stupidity and ignorance than all types of gun crime. At least the FAA requires minimum training requirements, physical exams and crazy ass check rides before you can get your pilots license.
I agree, if there is enough reason to take away a firearm then why isn't there enough reason to detain them? I did pose this question to a lawyer and I had to admit he had a pretty good response. He told me that seizure of a person is more serious than seizure of an item. So while they both involve constitutional rights, one is more intrusive than the other.
They actually don't both involve constitutional rights. Only the firearms is a constitutional right.
If someone is picked up and held for observation under the "Red Flag Law", if they are deemed to not have any problems or issues, they are released and there is (other than being mad about it) no problem to fix. When you take away the firearms (in Hawaii), you now have to reapply for a permit for every handgun that was seized, and a LG permit to recover those. Also, if you had any grandfathered firearms, they are now gone forever. And now you can be denied your permits, because your guns have been seized under a "Red Flag"
\
I think a red flag type law (not necessarily the one we currently have) does/can help in these types of situations. Absent a red flag law I think it is harder for a member of the public to take some sort of action to start the ball rolling.
I think the firearm seizure is the wrong way to go about it. It still doesn't solve the problem of someone with a true mental health problem. If someone really want to hurt someone, they will. Ask every woman who's been killed or raped and held up the TRO to say you can't do that.
Yup, some issues there. But it still does prove that background checks do end up catching criminals and other prohibited peoples and disproves the argument that criminals never apply for background checks.
My statement holds true. Nobody said criminals were smart
-
As Florida says "hold my beer"
UPDATED: Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody: Government needs no proof or evidence to prohibit a firearm purchase
This is surrounding the Leonardo Lynch vs. Florida Department of Law Enforcement (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6432523-AG-Moody-Response.html)
1. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) should not be required to produce any evidence or proof that an individual is a prohibited person prior to the denial of a constitutional right.
2. The Court should accept FDLE’s statement that a person is prohibited from purchasing firearms without any evidence to support FDLE’s claim.
3. FDLE can allege that a person is prohibited from purchasing firearms and is not required to offer any evidence that the purchaser is prohibited.
4. FDLE has full discretion as to whether a purchase denial is final, and the courts have no authority to require FDLE to issue a final decision almost a year later.
5. If a purchaser does have a right to the entry of a final decision by FDLE through mandamus the 1st DCA should exercise discretion and refuse to compel a final decision in this case because NY law prevents FDLE from obtaining proof of FDLE’s claims.
6. Compelling FDLE to render a final decision and granting appellate review would force FDLE to give purchasers an approval when FDLE is unable to prove they are a prohibited person.
7. A purchaser prohibited by FDLE cannot require FDLE to render a final decision that would be subject to judicial review.
8. A purchaser FDLE claims is prohibited has no right to appellate judicial review in a Florida court of FDLE’s decision.
9. A purchaser has an obligation to prove they are not a prohibited person even though FDLE has offered no evidence or documentation that the individual is prohibited.
10. A mental health record (that no evidence has been produced even exist) is a criminal history record. Despite a prior AG opinion regarding Florida mental health law that mental health issues should not be treated as criminal cases.
11. FDLE’s statutory authority to create rules for review of criminal history records applies to records that are not criminal history records as defined by Florida law.
12. The specific authority under the Brady Act to bring an action against a denying agency does not apply to a purchaser seeking appellate review of an FDLE denial.
13. FDLE is not subject to the Florida Administrative Procedures Act (APA) when it denies a person the fundamental right to purchase a firearm.
14. A person seeking to purchase a firearm is similar to a criminal seeking to seal or expunge their record.
15. Because the Legislature gave an express right to Concealed Weapon and Firearm License (CWFL) applicants to seek review under the APA but did not give that express right to denied purchasers, the purchaser has no rights under the APA.
https://www.thegunwriter.com/24847/florida-attorney-general-ashley-moody-government-needs-no-proof-or-evidence-to-prohibit-a-firearm-purchase/?fbclid=IwAR13crRWrNbvL9dNfauJSpzQC3qmUo7cnw26f-P-aPJq8flUVBXzA3FOjws
-
They actually don't both involve constitutional rights. Only the firearms is a constitutional right.
If someone is picked up and held for observation under the "Red Flag Law", if they are deemed to not have any problems or issues, they are released and there is (other than being mad about it) no problem to fix. When you take away the firearms (in Hawaii), you now have to reapply for a permit for every handgun that was seized, and a LG permit to recover those. Also, if you had any grandfathered firearms, they are now gone forever. And now you can be denied your permits, because your guns have been seized under a "Red Flag"
Anytime you take away someone's freedom you are involving a revocation of a constitutional right at some level. Even if it is just cops detaining an individual while they investigate a case it is still a constitutional issue.
I think the firearm seizure is the wrong way to go about it. It still doesn't solve the problem of someone with a true mental health problem. If someone really want to hurt someone, they will. Ask every woman who's been killed or raped and held up the TRO to say you can't do that.
Very true, that's why I agree something more than just firearm revocation must be part of dealing with someone who has a lot of "red flags"
We do need to address the issue to minimize people getting help because they are scared they will lose rights. However this is still an issue with or without red flag laws. It can be an issue for employment as well as other instances. Unfortunately it is impossible to avoid because sometimes there are people who are mentally ill to the point that they do need to have firearms and/or other rights taken away and in those cases they will fear getting help.
-
As Florida says "hold my beer"
UPDATED: Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody: Government needs no proof or evidence to prohibit a firearm purchase
That is scary