bill in 18 states to remove your ammo

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
"We all need to look to Vermont, the state with the lowest crime rate in the nation. They also have the LEAST restrictive gun laws in the nation. You do not even need to have a CC permit to legally carry concealed. It's also a state that is notoriously on the left (they even have a senate rep from the American Socialist Party) but it proves that politics can be removed from 2nd Amendment arguments and common sense can prevail."

Vermont is a simple case of people not doing stupid things with guns and not selling to people who will do stupid things with guns, so people don't need no stinking gun laws. As mentioned early on at one time people in the US could mail order machine guns, no questions asked, but that's obviously not the case anymore.


Wow, this is confusing... How is it simple that people are not doing stupid things with guns? Somehow this is impossible in most other states, and so there have to be laws, sometimes very restrictive ones... Is it some aspect of the demographics? Lack of city people? Higher intelligence? Too cold?

If it was "simple" then everyone would be able to do it.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
"We all need to look to Vermont, the state with the lowest crime rate in the nation. They also have the LEAST restrictive gun laws in the nation. You do not even need to have a CC permit to legally carry concealed. It's also a state that is notoriously on the left (they even have a senate rep from the American Socialist Party) but it proves that politics can be removed from 2nd Amendment arguments and common sense can prevail."

Vermont is a simple case of people not doing stupid things with guns and not selling to people who will do stupid things with guns, so people don't need no stinking gun laws. As mentioned early on at one time people in the US could mail order machine guns, no questions asked, but that's obviously not the case anymore.


Wow, this is confusing... How is it simple that people are not doing stupid things with guns? Somehow this is impossible in most other states, and so there have to be laws, sometimes very restrictive ones... Is it some aspect of the demographics? Lack of city people? Higher intelligence? Too cold?

If it was "simple" then everyone would be able to do it.



Well he had 1 point that is clear to me and 100% accurate -- more gun laws=more crime. Just goto DC, Maryland, New York, California, etc. Than look to Texas, Florida, Vermont. It baffles my mind why lawmakers and much of the public cannot understand the simple fact that CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW! Therefore, the laws do not work.

Just gonna get worse January...

 

[1sttruck]

"Obvious you don't have any replies to actual postings and just want to continue with your machine gun posts. (which have nothing to do with any problems in today's world)"

I initially mentioned NFA weapons as it's a classic example of laws being enacted in reaction to misuse of firearms. A number of subsequent posts have been replies to obviously wrong statements about the law, but the NFA is also important as it's one of the first major gun control laws in the country, we have about seven decades of experience with the law, and it seems to demonstrate the level of controls needed in order to produce such low levels of illegal use, at least at a national level. I also like to use the law as a kind of litmus test of who does and doesn't support 'gun control', as when faced with real life choices almost everyone supports some form of gun control.

So, if you have no sense of history of gun laws in the US, no understanding of why some of the major gun laws came into being, no apparent understanding of cause and effect regarding a society's reaction to misuse of firearms, then I guess you can just enjoy each wonderful day in the neighborhood.

 

[1sttruck]

"CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW! Therefore, the laws do not work."

The statement is made from a perspective of the country being populated by criminals and law abiding people, but if one can step back and look at a bigger picture that has been forming you might see a trend towards including gun ownership, so one ends up with four groups; criminals with guns, law abiding people with guns, criminals without guns, law abiding people without guns. This perspective is due to two things; the number of gun owning households being below a majority, and the polarization of support for gun ownership as traditional use like hunting and target shooting decreases. I've seen this in most gun shops over the last couple of decades, where instead of looking at the shotgun for goose hunting or a deer rifle, most people are fawning over the semi-auto pistols or racks of paramilitary rifles and stacks of military ammo. The result is that people now recognize that it's handguns that used in most crimes, and that they're becoming impatient with so many guns originating from 'law abiding' sources ending up in criminals hands. See below for a recent report.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/trace_report_final.pdf

http://www.columbian.com/article/20081206/APA/812060554

Report: South a big exporter of guns used in crime
Friday, December 5 | 11:00 p.m.

By SEANNA ADCOX Associated Press Writer
Ten states are responsible for the bulk of illegal guns that are shipped across state lines for use in crimes, according to a report released Friday by a national coalition of mayors.

About 30 percent of guns traced by federal agents in 2006 and 2007 during crime investigations were bought in a state other than where the crime occurred, said the report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which largely blamed the transport of illegal guns on states with lax gun laws.

For 2007, the top sources for guns used in crimes elsewhere were Georgia, Florida, Texas, Virginia, California, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Alabama.

However, the report's authors placed greater emphasis on per-capita exports of guns, saying that data is a better indicator of lax gun laws. The gun-friendly South accounted for a disproportionate amount of the problem when population size was factored in, according to the report.

.......The report analyzed five gun laws, noting that weapons purchased at gun shows - where background checks on buyers aren't required - could be bought for criminal purposes. Only nine states and Washington, D.C., require some form of check for handgun sales at gun shows.

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy


Well he had 1 point that is clear to me and 100% accurate -- more gun laws=more crime. Just goto DC, Maryland, New York, California, etc. Than look to Texas, Florida, Vermont. It baffles my mind why lawmakers and much of the public cannot understand the simple fact that CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW! Therefore, the laws do not work.

Just gonna get worse January...


Glad to see someone who is thinking.

Thank you for the TRUTH and posting facts.

Your last sentence says it all.

 

[tom slick]

One of the problems is in our convoluted legal system someone will eventually seperate ammunition from "the right to bear arms" as a technicality.

I like the gun law that forbids bayonets, when is the last time someone was murdered with a bayonet? and if they were why is that different then being murdered with a kitchen knife? oops, I better not give legislators any new ideas...

 

[Bill in Utah]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
"CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW! Therefore, the laws do not work."

More Blah blah blah


This is really becoming a joke trying to inject any type of facts with a discussion.

Lets see. The one state with all the Gun grabber laws? Kalifornia.. And yet according to your article above
Quote:
For 2007, the top sources for guns used in crimes elsewhere were Georgia, Florida, Texas, Virginia, California, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Alabama.
it is one of those states. So much for LAWS. If the LAWS are going to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys, how did Kalifornia get in the list?

Another FACT. And GET THIS CORRECT. (another LIE that all gun grabbers LIE about)

ALL GUN SHOWS REQUIRE dealers to have a FBI BACKGROUND CHECK for EACH and EVERY firearm sold. (and that includes RIFLES too)

If the sale is between 2 private parties, then in most states a back ground check is NOT needed (and SHOULD NOT).

99% of all guns sold in a GUN SHOW are from dealers.

So I guess we need another law even though there ALREADY is one.

(nice that you copy copyrighted material word for word. That is against the law too)

Quote:
All materials appearing in The Columbian are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of The Columbian Publishing Company or the party credited as the provider of the content. cYou may not copy, reproduce, distribute, publish, display, perform, modify, create derivative works, transmit, or in any way exploit any such content, nor may you distribute any part of this content over any network, including a local area network, sell or offer it for sale, or use such content to construct any kind of database. However you may download from columbian.com such content for your own personal, noncommercial use but only if you make only one machine readable copy and/or one print copy. You may not alter or remove any copyright or other notice from copies of the content. Copying or storing any content except as provided above is expressly prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder identified in the individual content's copyright notice.


Also, why did you not quote the WHOLE story? (that would be MODIFY) Nice that you quoted parts without the others.

(like the worst state (top exporter, per capita, of illegal guns) is West VA with 41 guns PER 100,000 sold! A statement that is worth posting. Or the average is 11 guns per 100,000 sold. Pretty amazing.)

(or the comment " Unfortunately, criminals are always going to find a way to circumvent the process." oh a comment that we certain want to leave out)


You have a future in Media! They are really good at making the clueless believe what the agenda needs to be.

Nice job.

 

[1sttruck]

"Lets see. The one state with all the Gun grabber laws? Kalifornia.. And yet according to your article above
Quote:
For 2007, the top sources for guns used in crimes elsewhere were Georgia, Florida, Texas, Virginia, California, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Alabama.
it is one of those states. So much for LAWS. If the LAWS are going to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys, how did Kalifornia get in the list?"

California has 'all the 'gun grabber laws' ? What kind of pablum is that ?

Apparently you didn't read the article, as the authors explain that using rates per capita made more sense. California is a big state with over 11 million households, and about 25% own firearms. California also still has large numbers of dealers, so lots of firearm sales take place. Also discussed were different types of laws applied in different states, some appearing to be more effective than others.

It helps to read something before replying, as otherwise you may end up tilting at windmills.

 

[1sttruck]

"Also, why did you not quote the WHOLE story? (that would be MODIFY) Nice that you quoted parts without the others.

like the worst state (top exporter, per capita, of illegal guns) is West VA with 41 guns PER 100,000 sold! A statement that is worth posting. Or the average is 11 guns per 100,000 sold. Pretty amazing.)"

Gee, a linked article so that people can read it if they wish. I guess it's too hard for some to click on the link and read it.

The saddest aspect your comment is that you seem to suggest that it's ok that over 42 thousand firearms that were used in crimes. I guess you think anyone with a gun is a good buddy.


http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/trace_report_final.pdf

ATF trace data shows that 42,450 guns crossed state lines before being recovered in crimes in 2007. For 34,127 of these guns, ATF identified the state where the guns were originally purchased. Just ten states accounted for the majority of these guns – 57% (19,616 guns).

 

[1sttruck]

"Another FACT. And GET THIS CORRECT. (another LIE that all gun grabbers LIE about)

ALL GUN SHOWS REQUIRE dealers to have a FBI BACKGROUND CHECK for EACH and EVERY firearm sold. (and that includes RIFLES too)

If the sale is between 2 private parties, then in most states a back ground check is NOT needed (and SHOULD NOT)."


Again, apparently you didn't read the article, but the pattern suggests that eitehr you're not capable of doing so orif you did you can't make much sense of it. The article specifically described the state of laws as noted below, and provided data on what laws are employed in which states. Again, lots of tilting at windmills.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/trace_report_final.pdf

(1) Background Checks for All
Handgun Sales at Gun Shows: States that do not require background checks for all handgun sales at gun shows have an average crime gun export rate that is about twice the rate of states that do require such background checks. Under federal law, both federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) and unlicensed private sellers are permitted to sell firearms at gun shows. Licensed dealers are required to run background checks to identify prohibited purchasers and maintain sales records for all firearm transactions, including at gun shows.15 However, persons who maintain that they sell guns only occasionally – private, unlicensed sellers – are currently exempt from these federal background check and sales record retention requirements at all locations, including gun shows.

This so-called “gun show loophole” allows individuals who are prohibited from possessing or purchasing firearms, such as convicted felons and persons with mental illness, to sidestep the background check and obtain guns from unlicensed sellers at gun shows. A 2000 ATF report found gun shows to be involved with the trafficking of approximately 26,000 firearms over a two and a half year period. This figure represents 30% of all guns identified in federal criminal trafficking cases over that period.16

 

[1sttruck]

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

Regarding Vermont... See the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for data by state and region, where New England traditionally has the some of lowest homicide rates in the country. Vermont has a relatively high rate of gun ownership, but guns by themselves don't shoot people (some types of accidental discharges being a rare exception), so one does need to look at the people, the guns, and what they're used for. Parts of the upper midwest are similar in that the crime rates are low while the gun ownership rates are relatively high. Weather keeps some of the riff raff out, there aren't large urban areas with lots of problems, but when I looked at correlation with crime rates it seemed that you really need to be looking at handguns, and New England and the upper midwest tend to have low handgun ownership rates. The handgun ownership rates are highest in the south, and historically they tend to have highest homicide rates.

For contrast compare any number of US rust belt cities with Toronto, where they've been worried about an increase in their homicide rate.

http://torontoist.com/2008/07/metrocide_a_tale_of_sixty_cities.php

 

[Bill in Utah]

blah blah blah. I'm done with you.

You are against the 2nd amendment and I'm not.

Simple. Facts are facts. You ignore them. They have been posted but you have no intelligent replies to those so you quote anti-gun Mayors.

Whatever.

Have a nice day.

 

[1sttruck]

One last post for now, let's see if I can get it submitted before this thread gets locked as I'd like this post to offer some closure on my apparent 'southern bashing'. I don't mean to, but when talking about homicides in the US the south is the elephant in the room that is hard to ignore, and like the blind men trying to describe hard for us to know what it really looks like.

An excellent article that I ran across awhile back in Scientifc American is below, where they propose that a 'culture of honor' is responsible for the high homicide rate in the south. I won't go into the details, but it's been fairly well received. I'll extend the argument a bit by also referring to an article on 'redneck culture' as an explanation on why blacks have done poorly in a lot of areas, where the author proposes that about 90% of blacks have that as a backgorund, and that it's something that they took with them as they migrated to cities outside of the south. I'm suggesting that if they took the 'redneck culture' with them, and that if a component is the 'culture of honor', then it might explain some of the high homicide rates among blacks in cities across the country. I've not seen this proposed elsewhere, but I haven't looked either as I just thunk it up.

Anyway, apologies to anyone offended by my references to the south. Having been in the Marines I have deep respect for the south, and also for the 'culture of honor'.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006608

http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Honor-Psychology-Violence-South/dp/0813319935

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa...F4B-51084AE1ECB

Men, Honor and Murder; Men: The Scientific Truth; Scientific American Presents; by Nisbett, Cohen; 4 Page(s)

Homicide overwhelmingly involves males-as both perpetrators and victims. Evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson estimate that across a wide range of cultures a man is more than 20 times more likely to kill another man than a woman is to kill another woman, a finding they explain by arguing that men are more risk prone than women [see "Darwinism and the Roots of Machismo," on page 8]. Moreover, men are more likely to kill women than the other way around. When a woman does commit homicide, she usually kills a man who has repeatedly physically abused her.

These facts, together with the observation that males are the more aggressive sex in nearly all mammals, have led many people to suppose that men are unavoidably aggressive and that homicide is a natural consequence of male biology. Yet the striking variation in homicide rates among different societies makes it clear that, whatever men's predispositions may be, cultures have a great influence on the likelihood that a man will kill. For example, Colombia's rate is 15 times that of Costa Rica, and the U.S. rate is 10 times that of Norway. Marked regional differences exist even within the U.S. We and our colleague Andrew Reaves have established that in small U.S. cities in the South and the Southwest, the homicide rate for white males is about double that in the rest of the country. We also found that a white man living in a small county in the South is four times more likely to kill than one living in a small county in the Midwest. By making detailed regional comparisons, we have been able to rule out several explanations that have previously been offered to account for similar data, such as the history of slavery in the South, the higher temperatures there and the greater incidence of poverty.

 

[1sttruck]

Looks like others made the connection between the southern culture of honor and the high homicide rate among blacks in cities across the country, and wrote books on it too....

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/butterfield.html

Violence from generation to generation. David Gergen, editor-at-large of "U.S. News & World Report," talks to Fox Butterfield, New York Times correspondent, about his new book, All God's Children: The Bosket Family and the American Tradition of Violence

DAVID GERGEN: And the point you make in the book is there was that tradition of honor, of defending one's honor, and they grew up in the white community. A lot of Scotch-Irish came into South Carolina, just came into the South.

FOX BUTTERFIELD: This very high homicide rate, all the way back in the 19th Century, doesn't make any sense according to our modern explanations of crime, because it didn't come from cities. It didn't have anything to do with race or with poverty or the broken family, or with television, so I had to look for another explanation, and it seemed to grow out of white Southerners called honor or reputation, the notion that you derived your worth from the opinion of others, so that if somebody insulted you, said something about you, you had to take personal physical action.

DAVID GERGEN: And the slaves who lived in that society, who then after the Civil War largely became sharecroppers, they picked up that same code. They learned from the white community.

FOX BUTTERFIELD: They learned that code and particularly, they found themselves outside the law. They couldn't go to court to seek redress because the courts were controlled by whites, the sheriffs, the police, the judges, and the juries, and in Willie Bosket's family this very specifically happened. His great-grandfather, a man named Pud Bosket, was a sharecropper in the 1890's,growing cotton on a white man's land, but he got tired of the white farmer whipping him, the vestige of slavery, so one day when the white farmer went to whip him, he turned around and grabbed the whip out of the white man's hand and he said, "Don't step on my reputation." There was this notion of honor, or what today we call "respect," and kids in the inner-cities call"dissing," disrespecting.

DAVID GERGEN: And what you're arguing is that that tradition has passed down in the black community from one generation to the next, but it also, what struck me about your book was, as opposed to the usual suspects we find as causes of crime or homicide, say poverty, economic issues, lack of jobs, drugs, what have you, you really--I was surprised to the degree to which you felt that the tradition of violence was passed down from father to son, father to son.

 

[GMBoy]

Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
blah blah blah. I'm done with you.

You are against the 2nd amendment and I'm not.

Simple. Facts are facts. You ignore them. They have been posted but you have no intelligent replies to those so you quote anti-gun Mayors.

Whatever.

Have a nice day.






You can never "win" with a gun grabber (even when the facts are against them!)- time to close this thread.

 

[alreadygone]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
Originally Posted By: Bill in Utah
blah blah blah. I'm done with you.

You are against the 2nd amendment and I'm not.

Simple. Facts are facts. You ignore them. They have been posted but you have no intelligent replies to those so you quote anti-gun Mayors.

Whatever.

Have a nice day.






You can never "win" with a gun grabber (even when the facts are against them!)- time to close this thread.


Bill, GM Boy's right,,,. No need to attempt to confuse 'em with facts,,,mind's already made up.

Bob

 

[greenaccord02]

I think he was in the wrong section for that kind of talk in the first place. Hope he's got a can of mace ready if his home gets burglarized.

 

[Tempest]

1sttruck's arguments have holes in them a mile wide.

If you buy a gun in one state and transport it across state lines with intent to transfer, you are ALREADY breaking Federal Law.

If you purchase a gun with intent to transfer to an individual that will not pass a back ground check, that is a straw sale and you are ALREADY breaking Federal Law.

As far as those guns that are illegally taken across state borders, the real question becomes...why is this happening?
The answer is: criminals want guns. So then the next question becomes: why are there so many criminals in the states with high levels of gun control? THIS is the question that needs to be asked but never is on the nightly propaganda. Guns illegally moving across state lines is a symptom, not a cause. If you don't have a criminal problem, then you don't have a gun problem.
It's much easier for slime ball politicians to go on TV and pretend they are doing something by banning guns rather than actually addressing the CRIMINAL problem.

The low crime rates in Vermont? As JHZR2 questioned...Magic? Couldn't be that the criminals know that just about anyone could be armed at any time. Nope...couldn't be.
An armed society is a polite society.
Quote:
but the NFA is also important as it's one of the first major gun control laws in the country, we have about seven decades of experience with the law, and it seems to demonstrate the level of controls needed in order to produce such low levels of illegal use, at least at a national level.

That is legally owned weapons. How many ILLEGALLY owned machine guns have been used in crimes? By definition, they are breaking the law simply by possessing these weapons. Shockingly, the law doesn't seem to stop criminals from illegal activity. Whoda' thunk it?
And as you state, handguns are used in the vast majority of gun crimes. 97% I believe. Rifles of ANY SORT used in crime is rare.

 

[1sttruck]

"blah blah blah. I'm done with you.

You are against the 2nd amendment and I'm not.

Simple. Facts are facts. You ignore them."

More intelligent replies. It appears that facts are not so simple as you don't seem to be able to understand an issue that consists of more than one or maybe two of them, and typically only seem to be able to reply with logical fallicies, although I suspect that you aren't aware of them.

An example is 'you are against the 2nd amendment and I am not', a simplistic statement, infantile really, that even within the simplistic scope is a double fallacy;

1. You make a groundless assumption that you are 'for the 2nd amendment', but your position is just one of many ranging from a desire for much more restrictive guns controls to essentially no gun controls. you've made it clear that you don't favor more gun controls, but you're not made a statement on how many existing controls you're willing to do away with. I'll assume that you're probably not of supporter of a 'guns for felons' program, or 'pistols for school kids' program, or 'mail order machine guns for anyone' program, but if that's not a good assumption please say so. If in fact you suuport some types of gun control then you're 'for gun control' and in the eyes of some others 'are not a supporter of the 2nd amendment', so to avoid that type of logical problem it's better to make a more rational statement.

2. Because I choose to take a position that is different than yours in this discussion you assume that I'm not a supporter of the 2nd amendment, which is a classic fallacy in many discussions. An example when we turn it around is 'I support keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, and since you don't agree with everything I say you do not, so you support giving guns to criminals'. I can contruct many more childish statements like this, and 'prove' that you support cop killings, school shootings, etc.

In fact I've not made any statement about my position on gun control as these types of discussions are interesting for me and I take different positions depending upon the topic. In fact I've owned firearms for more than 40 years now, although I don't have time for as much shooting as I use to. I did let my NRA membership drop years ago, a bit before Bush Sr dropped his lifetime NRA membership over the jack booted thug flap and the NRA withdrew support for Bush.

 

[1sttruck]

" "but the NFA is also important as it's one of the first major gun control laws in the country, we have about seven decades of experience with the law, and it seems to demonstrate the level of controls needed in order to produce such low levels of illegal use, at least at a national level."

That is legally owned weapons. How many ILLEGALLY owned machine guns have been used in crimes? By definition, they are breaking the law simply by possessing these weapons. Shockingly, the law doesn't seem to stop criminals from illegal activity. Whoda' thunk it?
And as you state, handguns are used in the vast majority of gun crimes. 97% I believe. Rifles of ANY SORT used in crime is rare."

I posted links to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports previously, which a good place to start on questions like that. See below, where firearms were used 68% of homicides in 2007, rifles and shotguns in 6%.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/index.html

Handguns 50%
Rifles 3%
Shotguns 3%
Other 1%
not stated 11%

An overall concern is that law abiding manufacturers make guns and distribute them to dealers, law abiding dealers (the vast majority are law abiding) sell guns, so how is it that so many guns end up being used in illegal activity ? If we look at a fire that is heavily regulated, NFA weapons like machine guns, we see that they are rarely used in crimes. If gun makers, dealers and owners aren't willing to help in cleaning up the mess then others will, which is why some people want to see more gun control laws (it's not been as much of an issue in recent elections).





"The low crime rates in Vermont? As JHZR2 questioned...Magic? Couldn't be that the criminals know that just about anyone could be armed at any time. Nope...couldn't be.
An armed society is a polite society."

Polite perhaps, but in the US often still producing high homicide rates. Look over the UCR data by region, where you'll see the south having typically the highest homicide rates by region, and it's also the region with the highest rate of firearm and handgun ownership. Another example is to look over the previous links on the homicide rate in Toronto vs a number of US cities, where they found that their rate was lower than something like any US city with a population of 500k and more.

It's not just more guns / fewer guns, more laws / fewer laws, as willingless to use a weapon is the primary factor, and in the US we have lots of people that do so. The Economists looked the issue a few years back and noticed that one will actually see more fights in Great Britain, in clubs, at soccer matches, etc., but the big difference is that it's much easier to kill someone with a firearm. The more More laws / less laws is confounded by effectveness, as in spite of the number of laws in the US many are obviously ineffective, so there is a tendancy to build bigger piles of ineffective laws.