GUN This dude's in lala land...Your guns are safe v.Heller

FusionZ06

/\__/\__/\__0>
Apr 10, 2004
86,645
Sunshine State
The U.S. Supreme Court's Second Amendment decision last term, with its historic affirmation of an individual right to keep and bear arms, is being read as a harbinger of doom by gun-control advocates, and as cause for celebration by the National Rifle Association and its allies. In fact, it could play out exactly the other way around. District of Columbia v. Heller may finally open the door to sensible gun policy in the United States, and it could be the beginning of the end for the NRA, at least as we know it today.

Let's face facts. Even before the Court's decision, with something like 40 percent of U.S. households owning some 200 million firearms, nearly three-quarters of Americans believing the Constitution guarantees the right to own a gun, and -- like it or not -- a strong historical gun culture, America's guns were not going away. The strongest gun-control agenda -- get rid of them -- has always, as a political matter, been a fantasy. That has not stopped what is in fact a minority political element from militating for outright bans. And that, in turn, let what is in fact a fringe element of the pro-gun community paint even the most moderate and common-sense gun-control steps as fights to the death in the U.S. culture war over firearms. Waiting periods? Trigger locks? All just a prelude to granola-eating pacifists seizing your grandfather's deer hunting rifle ... while the fundraising machinery spun ever faster.
Well, that's over now. For the first time in history, America's guns are officially safe. And while I've no position on Justice Antonin Scalia's historical scholarship or jurisprudence, I'm confident that his opinion is a work of genius as a political compromise. Gun grabbing, by order of the U.S. Supreme Court, is now officially off the table. Little, if anything, else is.

And guess what? Gun owners turn out to be pretty reasonable people. In a recent poll conducted for the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition, 59 percent of gun owners said reducing gun violence was "very important"; 83 percent of gun owners favored background checks of all buyers at gun shows; and 88 percent of gun owners favored mandatory reporting of stolen guns. Crucially, even NRA supporters have said they do not support the NRA's extremist positions.

This is not exactly a lunatic fringe.
Ordinary people with guns have never been the problem in the United States: In this, the NRA and other gun advocates have always been right. Recent findings produced as part of the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence by my colleague Robin Engle at the University of Cincinnati, illustrate what is an overwhelming consensus in the research literature: On balance, people involved in gun crime are far from ordinary. In Cincinnati, about 60 violent groups -- gangs, drug crews and the like -- with around 1,100 total members, or less than 0.3 percent of the city's population, are associated with about three-quarters of the homicides in the city. Virtually none of them acquired and possessed their guns legally. Existing laws forbidding selling guns to, and gun possession by, felons, juveniles, addicts, the mentally ill and those convicted of domestic violence actually do a pretty good job of covering core violence issues.

COMMON-SENSE STEPS TO TAKE
What we've needed, for a long time, is common-sense steps to prevent the illegal trafficking and diversion of guns to people everybody agrees shouldn't have them. Here's where the fringe gun-grabbing arguments -- on both sides -- have made common sense impossible. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is forbidden by law from computerizing its firearms records, on the argument that they could become a de facto registration system, which could then be used to inform gun confiscation. The famed "gun show loophole" is a myth. The reality is far worse: Federal gun law only applies to "dealers," who become dealers by voluntarily announcing themselves to ATF. Everybody else can legally sell guns without any of the federal requirements, at gun shows or anywhere else. Amendments filed by Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., with NRA backing, forbade ATF from publishing reports on crime-gun traces that indicated local and national patterns of trafficking and diversion, and prevented police departments from sharing this information. Jersey City, N.J., was refused data from crime guns it had submitted itself to ATF for tracing. (No, I'm not making this up.)

It would be very simple to make a huge difference here. Let ATF do its job. Eliminate the unregulated "secondary" market. Mandate that stolen guns be reported to the police. Register handguns, the most important component of gun violence. Mandate criminal background checks for gun-store employees. Reinstitute the national crime-gun tracing program the Bush administration shut down. Make penalties for trafficking guns commensurate with, at least, those for trafficking drugs. These are simple, common-ground steps that would really matter. We've been distracted from such common-sense moves by the far more dramatic culture war over guns. But that, as of last term, is over and done with.
Thank you, Antonin. Thank you.
David M. Kennedy is director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control and professor of anthropology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York.

http://www.law.com/jsp/scm/PubArticleSCM.jsp?id=1202424712957

Guess this dude doesn't keep up with the Presidential candidates.
 

kellyclan

She only loves you when she's drunk.
May 16, 2001
18,817
Being that John Jay is the most respected CJ college in the country, having professors that push for any infringements doesn't bode well for the upper crust of law enforcement over the next few decades. What the hell is the point of a national tracing system? On an individual basis, most hot guns are sold through the grassroots movement. The larger, organized dealers have cases against them in other ways.

Not to say that half of the political lacky chiefs these days take a stand about anything anyway.
 

vwpilot

New Member
Jan 9, 2005
1,580
Actually, I wouldnt mind these things as a gun owner:

Eliminate the unregulated "secondary" market. Mandate that stolen guns be reported to the police. Register handguns, the most important component of gun violence. Mandate criminal background checks for gun-store employees. Make penalties for trafficking guns commensurate with, at least, those for trafficking drugs.

I think those are all smart and would work. I think that penalties for gun violence need to be much harsher to help try to curb the problem.

If instituting some things like the above would mean they stop trying to limit guns altogether I'm very for them.

But there would need to be provisions that would make it end there. The problem lies when they institute these things, then proceed to try to restrict guns as well. If we put stuff like this into effect them have something in stone that would limit the ability to reintroduce a new AWB or similar, its ok with me.
 

Soybomb

New Member
Aug 30, 2003
8,749
Illinois
Actually, I wouldnt mind these things as a gun owner:



I think those are all smart and would work. I think that penalties for gun violence need to be much harsher to help try to curb the problem.

If instituting some things like the above would mean they stop trying to limit guns altogether I'm very for them.

But there would need to be provisions that would make it end there. The problem lies when they institute these things, then proceed to try to restrict guns as well. If we put stuff like this into effect them have something in stone that would limit the ability to reintroduce a new AWB or similar, its ok with me.
Ultimately you're setting yourself up for failure if you think that accepting a little gun control will effect criminal behavior with guns. Criminals break the law, even gun control laws. More ground will be taken in an effort to do the impossible.

Besides do you really think that banning the private sale of guns or registering handguns is going to do anything to the crime rate?
 

vwpilot

New Member
Jan 9, 2005
1,580
I realize that criminals dont follow the law, hence the reason their criminals. But I do think that private party sales and the gun show "loophole" are a little silly and opens up the sale of guns to criminals that do NOT have to circumvent the law.

Do you know anyone at gun shops? Do you know how many sales are currently stopped from the background checks? A lot. The fact that some mentally unstable guy can go to a gunshow or private sale and get something doesnt sit easy with me.

I dont think that is an unreasonable law to have in effect. Its, of course, not going to stop the black market or some criminals, but it will help and may help to silence some of the antis at the same time.

The bottom line is I think that punishments for many gun crimes are far too light and it doesnt discourage such crime.

I guess I'm ok with some basic restrictions in place as long as there is some give by the other side to then lay off as well.

But you're right, us being resaonble will always be a losing situation when the other side fails to ever let reason get in the way of their views.
 

Soybomb

New Member
Aug 30, 2003
8,749
Illinois
I realize that criminals dont follow the law, hence the reason their criminals. But I do think that private party sales and the gun show "loophole" are a little silly and opens up the sale of guns to criminals that do NOT have to circumvent the law.

Do you know anyone at gun shops? Do you know how many sales are currently stopped from the background checks? A lot. The fact that some mentally unstable guy can go to a gunshow or private sale and get something doesnt sit easy with me.

I dont think that is an unreasonable law to have in effect. Its, of course, not going to stop the black market or some criminals, but it will help and may help to silence some of the antis at the same time.

The bottom line is I think that punishments for many gun crimes are far too light and it doesnt discourage such crime.

I guess I'm ok with some basic restrictions in place as long as there is some give by the other side to then lay off as well.

But you're right, us being resaonble will always be a losing situation when the other side fails to ever let reason get in the way of their views.
I guess I fall off the wagon on the logic you're using here. I'm a bad guy with a record, I want a guy to stick in someones face to either just rob them or actually kill them. I can't buy a gun at the store or private party so instead of say just stealing one I go home and call to see if meals on wheels needs volunteers. Yay gun control worked?

The whole idea that making it illegal to get a gun will stop people that plan to use guns to break far more serious laws than gun control laws just seems...well there is no polite word for it.
 

HisXLNC

๑۩۞۩๑ Hot ๑۩۞۩๑
Oct 26, 2000
136,224
Island of Electronicus
I guess I fall off the wagon on the logic you're using here. I'm a bad guy with a record, I want a guy to stick in someones face to either just rob them or actually kill them. I can't buy a gun at the store or private party so instead of say just stealing one I go home and call to see if meals on wheels needs volunteers. Yay gun control worked?

The whole idea that making it illegal to get a gun will stop people that plan to use guns to break far more serious laws than gun control laws just seems...well there is no polite word for it.

Backwards is the word.
 

Drunken Karnie Midget

In Yeo We Trust, All Others Pay Cash
OT Supporter
Jun 3, 2004
39,058
Dirty Canada
The solution isn't less guns, or even regulation, but more guns; and the training in their use. If every citizen was armed, and trained on how and when to shoot, that'd reduce the crime rate substantially. Someone with criminal intent would be far more reluctant to walk into a bank, or convenience store to rob the place, if they knew every adult inside was packing, and likely to draw on them.
 

HisXLNC

๑۩۞۩๑ Hot ๑۩۞۩๑
Oct 26, 2000
136,224
Island of Electronicus
The solution isn't less guns, or even regulation, but more guns; and the training in their use. If every citizen was armed, and trained on how and when to shoot, that'd reduce the crime rate substantially. Someone with criminal intent would be far more reluctant to walk into a bank, or convenience store to rob the place, if they knew every adult inside was packing, and likely to draw on them.

Israel is a perfect example of that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

About Us

  • Please do not post anything that violates any Local, State, Federal or International Laws. Your privacy is protected. You have the right to be forgotten. Site funded by advertising, link monetization and member support.
OT v15.8.1 Copyright © 2000-2022 Offtopic.com
Served by fu.offtopic.com

Online statistics

Members online
182
Guests online
26
Total visitors
208

Forum statistics

Threads
369,495
Messages
16,889,568
Members
86,873
Latest member
vitalesan