I know its a Huff article but for once it has some valid points about guns and gun control

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-r-miller/the-freakonomics-of-gun-c_b_10673182.html

I know its a Huff article but for once it has some valid points about guns and gun control

Really? What points would those be? Certainly not the author's primary conclusions and recommendations that the solution to "gun violence" is 1. a national gun registry wherein every firearm transfer must be recorded by the government (using the tired, erroneous, and ignorant or deliberately misleading "expansion of background checks to include gun shows and Internet sales" terminology) and 2. holding the "owner of record" responsible for any crime committed with a firearm they (once) owned, even if it's been stolen from a secure location.

Or are you referring to the author's suggestion of an Australia-like "gun buyback" which he claims "would siphon many of these off the streets, reducing supply and driving up the price of illegal guns." Seriously?! I'm sure the criminals will be the first in line to turn in the tools of their trade for a pittance of cash. Absurd.

He claims "Many, if not most, guns used to kill people in America are acquired through straw purchases" but provides no link (as he does for over a half dozen other stats) nor does he even name a source for such statistic. And I know why. Because there IS no sound study that will claim anything of the kind. Not even close. He made it up.

And here's another good one: "Making gun owners accountable for their guns instantly freezes the supply of fresh arms into criminal hands." Sure. Right. Not a single gun gets into criminal hands via illegal importation or other means, such as ATF programs like "Fast and Furious" (gun supplied by them used to kill U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry) or other corrupt law enforcement officers and agencies who "lose" their personal guns or guns held in evidence by them. And waddaya wanna bet that any law that held citizens liable for any criminal act committed by their formerly owned firearm would include an "exemption" for law enforcement "only ones"? I'm guessing the probability of that is approximately 100%). Countries where all such guns are not even registered because they are totally illegal to possess by anyone in the first place are shining examples of this policy efficacy, right? You know, like Paris, France; Brussels, Belgium, etc. etc. etc.

I could go on, but many in the comments sections eviscerate the absurd arguments further. The whole article is blathering crap from my point of view.

Good on them for some actual statistics.

The logic behind his solution of holding the gun owners responsible if someone steals there gun is questionable. I want to see if he would be willing to be put in jail if someone stole his car and used it in a crime.

So when do we start the war on lighting violence? What does that even mean, electrocutions?

Good on them for some actual statistics.

Not really. The author's whole point in using the statistics about the infrequency of "assault rifle" and "muslim perpetrator mass killing homicides" (what informed person doesn't already know that!) is to demonstrate the need for the end of any (private party) transfers outside the background check system which will then include a mandatory national firearms registry database. As part of the plan he also advocates an Australian "buyback" which is more accurately a "mandatory compensated confiscation" with severe criminal penalties for those who elect not to participate in the "buyback". The statistics he includes are only included to bolster that argument, which is that "assault weapons bans" and "muslim bans" would be ineffective in the bigger picture of all "gun violence", thus he prescribes are far more draconian solution. One that wouldn't work, by the way.

Not really. The author's whole point in using the statistics about the infrequency of "assault rifle" and "muslim perpetrator mass killing homicides" (what informed person doesn't already know that!) is to demonstrate the need for the end of any (private party) transfers outside the background check system which will then include a mandatory national firearms registry database. As part of the plan he also advocates an Australian "buyback" which is more accurately a "mandatory compensated confiscation" with severe criminal penalties for those who elect not to participate in the "buyback". The statistics he includes are only included to bolster that argument, which is that "assault weapons bans" and "muslim bans" would be ineffective in the bigger picture of all "gun violence", thus he prescribes are far more draconian solution. One that wouldn't work, by the way.

But it does at least put numbers in the face of all those who think assault rifles are such a big problem. Can't say I like the rest of his article, as I pointed out.

I do have an idea on how we could address the concerns of private sales and make it less complicated than going to HPD 3 times, but I don't know if I could sell it here.

I do have an idea on how we could address the concerns of private sales and make it less complicated than going to HPD 3 times, but I don't know if I could sell it here.

If by "here" you mean the Hawaii state legislature, executive branch, judicial branch and the police departments, I know: you can't.

If they won't mail the annual long gun permit (they won't in Hilo, even with a stamped self-addressed registered mail envelope), but make you go to the station to pick it up (despite the feds mailing your passport and social security card, the state mailing your state ID, and private corporations mailing your credit cards, etc., etc.), they are not going to make anything easier just because it's logical, rational, and reasonable. Those are not considerations for them. Get a big dog.

Given that Hawaii is out lawing guns;  here is a thought,

RPG7
$200 USD tube Open Market unit price 2012
$100 USD per rocket

Democrats are making a new American market.
Don't break the law, this is just educational.