14 and 17 year old injured in shooting, why can't guns be banned?

[RetiredGySgt]

REASONABLE laws and regulations not what you want.

What do you think I want?

You want registration which is UNREASONABLE and most of the rest of your position is too.

 

[idb]

Bernie Sanders supporter uses a rifle with a magazine to shoot a Republican baseball team...kills 0.

muslim terrorist with a rental truck kills 89 and injures over 400........

Ban trucks.

You were asking if I was serious before?

The ownership and use of bombs is regulated....the ownership and use of cars are regulated...so you're saying there should be regulations on gun use and ownership?
Weeeelllllll...I dunno...it might work...

Ownership of guns is regulated.

Felons and those adjudicated to be mentally ill cannot legally purchase guns.

You want to hold law abiding gun owners responsible for the acts of criminals.

Isn't that the basis of most laws...the regulation of everyone - whether law abiding or not - to protect everyone from the acts of criminals?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So all criminals are gun owners?

Here's the thing you left out

ALL criminals are illegal gun owners

But you seem to think that all gun owners are criminals because you want to hold ALL gun owners responsible for the acts of criminals

No. All criminals are not illegal gun owners. Many got their guns and keep them perfectly legally. Lots of gang members who haven't been convicted of a felony. The NRA and gun nuts want them all to be allowed all the guns they want. Without universal background checks, they can legally buy from any private seller. Only the ones who have already been denied the right to own guns but still have them are illegal gun owners. I suspect that is only a small percentage.

If they haven't been convicted of a crime then by definition they are NOT criminals are they?

I don't know any person who belongs to the NRA that says convicted felons should be able to buy guns.

And in many if not most states it is already illegal for anyone, licensed dealer or private party, to knowingly sell a gun to anyone who is legally ineligible to buy a gun.

The laws on straw purchases are not enforced but that is not my fault so restricting me because our law enforcement fails to do its job is ludicrous.

Yes they are criminals. Lots of thugs with a rap sheet as long as your arm who have never been to prison. Lots of non felony crimes to be convicted of. They are criminals usually long before they are convicted of a felony, and can legally buy and even carry a gun in lots of states. The NRA and gun nuts consider all those thugs to be good guys with guns all the way up to that felony conviction that might not ever happen. How is an individual seller supposed to know who he is selling the gun to? There is no requirement for background checks or records of any kind. The seller isn't even required to ask the thug's name. On top of all that, unless the long time thug has had his first felony conviction, he is legal to buy all the guns he wants, anyway. There is no need for a straw purchase for any of the gang members and thugs to bother with a straw purchase unless they have had that first felony conviction. Excuse me. I should have called those gang members and thugs "Good Guys with a Gun" like the NRA and gun nuts do.

The standard is a felony conviction.
I don't see a misdemeanor disturbing the peace charge as sufficient enough for denying a person a firearm.

And now you fall back to the flawed default position that gun owners are just criminals in waiting so we should treat them like they have already been tried and convicted of a gun crime.

If that's your default position on gun holders are you consistent with other crimes as well?

Shouldn't all men be considered rapists in waiting and be put on a state and federal registration because all rapists were "good guys" until they raped a woman ?

Can you not see how utterly ridiculous this position is?

OK, so there is a convicted felon who should never be anywhere near a gun. He's a felon, so you know he will lie if he has to, but to get a gun he doesn't have to. An individual seller has no legal obligation to even know the name of the purchaser he sells to. No background check, no records to file, no records to keep. All he needs to care about is if the buyer has the money. There you go. The felon just bought a gun, and there was nothing legal to stop him other than the fact that they told him he couldn't have a gun. I suspect lots of felons won't worry about what they were told if there is nothing else to interfere with them purchasing a gun. I never said all gun owners were criminals in waiting, but lots of them are. Do you think those thugs/gang members/ Good guys with guns will hesitate to use their legally bought guns to commit a crime, especially since there is no record of them ever buying the gun from an individual seller.
Your silly mark about rape doesn't apply.
When you sell a thug, with a rap sheet as long as your arm, a gun with no record of that sale, it's reasonably expected that that thug will eventually use that unregistered, unknown gun in a crime.

As I said in many if not most states it is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon.

And I don't know how many gun owners you think will just sell a gun to any Tom Dick or Harry.

It seems to me most illegal purchases are straw purchases where a family member or friend buys a gun for a person who can't. And the person who made that purchase committed a crime.

It's not my responsibility if our legal system doesn't enforce the law regarding straw purchases.

NRA-ILA | Study: Criminals Don’t Get Guns From Legal Sources

Cook and colleagues also found that criminals do not often buy guns on the used market, as they have a fear of buying a gun from a source they do not know. Fear of police stings, or from being turned in by law-abiding gun owners leads them to obtain guns from sources they trust, most often, family, fellow gang members, and other criminals. They also found that criminals do not hold guns for a long period, fearing that a gun could be traced to a specific crime.

You're the one who made the statement that legal gun owners are good guys until they decide not to be aren't you?

You are assuming that a person is more likely to commit a crime simply because he happens to own firearms

So if you apply that "logic" to those law abiding people who are "good guys" until they're not you have to concede that ALL people are not criminals until they are criminals and just like you want to treat gun owners as criminals before they have committed a crime in order to be consistent you would have to treat everyone as a criminal because they might maybe someday in the near or distant future commit a crime.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Very poor analogy since a bank is private property

I can't carry a gun without a permit and having my fingerprints on file with the state police.
I can't buy a gun without a background check

And I have no real problem with that.

But that said if I pass every background check thrown at me and agree to have my fingerprints on file with the state even though I have committed no crime there is absolutely no reason to restrict my ownership of firearms or where I can and can't carry a concealed weapon.

Not sure about your state laws, but lots of states don't require a permit to own or carry. No fingerprints, no background check unless you are buying from a licensed dealer, no anything, you don't even have to give your name. The individual seller is required to file no paperwork, or keep any records of the sale, or even know who you are. All perfectly legal.

States rights and all that inconvenient liberty shit is a bitch ain't it?

Got nothing to do with states rights. The SC already said federal regulation of guns is not denying anybody their constitutional rights.

No the states have plenty of power. You stated yourself that some states require permits and some don't if the feds set the rules then those rules would apply to the entire country

And?

Hey you're the one who said that gun ownership has nothing to do with state's rights but it obviously does since gun regulations vary widely from state to state

 

[Skull Pilot]

Bernie Sanders supporter uses a rifle with a magazine to shoot a Republican baseball team...kills 0.

muslim terrorist with a rental truck kills 89 and injures over 400........

Ban trucks.

You were asking if I was serious before?

The ownership and use of bombs is regulated....the ownership and use of cars are regulated...so you're saying there should be regulations on gun use and ownership?
Weeeelllllll...I dunno...it might work...

Ownership of guns is regulated.

Felons and those adjudicated to be mentally ill cannot legally purchase guns.

You want to hold law abiding gun owners responsible for the acts of criminals.

Isn't that the basis of most laws...the regulation of everyone - whether law abiding or not - to protect everyone from the acts of criminals?

So everyone is subject to a search of their homes so as to maybe stop a criminal ?


You seem to forget that gun ownership is a protected right.

And most laws merely spell out what are illegal activities and the punishments for for those who get apprehended for committing those acts.

It is already illegal for some people to buy guns.
It is already illegal to commit crimes with or without guns

There is your regulation.

 

[Rustic]

More frivolous gun laws will never save people from violent crime... fact

 

[idb]

You were asking if I was serious before?

The ownership and use of bombs is regulated....the ownership and use of cars are regulated...so you're saying there should be regulations on gun use and ownership?
Weeeelllllll...I dunno...it might work...

Ownership of guns is regulated.

Felons and those adjudicated to be mentally ill cannot legally purchase guns.

You want to hold law abiding gun owners responsible for the acts of criminals.

Isn't that the basis of most laws...the regulation of everyone - whether law abiding or not - to protect everyone from the acts of criminals?

"So everyone is subject to a search of their homes so as to maybe stop a criminal ?"


You seem to forget that gun ownership is a protected right.

And most laws merely spell out what are illegal activities and the punishments for for those who get apprehended for committing those acts.

It is already illegal for some people to buy guns.
It is already illegal to commit crimes with or without guns

There is your regulation.

"So everyone is subject to a search of their homes so as to maybe stop a criminal ?"
When did I say that?
You sure kicked that straw-man over...good work!

 

[BULLDOG]

REASONABLE laws and regulations not what you want.

What do you think I want?

You want registration which is UNREASONABLE and most of the rest of your position is too.

Registration works well in lots of states. Are you one of those tinfoil hat, 'they're coming to get our guns" nuts?

 

[BULLDOG]

No. All criminals are not illegal gun owners. Many got their guns and keep them perfectly legally. Lots of gang members who haven't been convicted of a felony. The NRA and gun nuts want them all to be allowed all the guns they want. Without universal background checks, they can legally buy from any private seller. Only the ones who have already been denied the right to own guns but still have them are illegal gun owners. I suspect that is only a small percentage.

If they haven't been convicted of a crime then by definition they are NOT criminals are they?

I don't know any person who belongs to the NRA that says convicted felons should be able to buy guns.

And in many if not most states it is already illegal for anyone, licensed dealer or private party, to knowingly sell a gun to anyone who is legally ineligible to buy a gun.

The laws on straw purchases are not enforced but that is not my fault so restricting me because our law enforcement fails to do its job is ludicrous.

Yes they are criminals. Lots of thugs with a rap sheet as long as your arm who have never been to prison. Lots of non felony crimes to be convicted of. They are criminals usually long before they are convicted of a felony, and can legally buy and even carry a gun in lots of states. The NRA and gun nuts consider all those thugs to be good guys with guns all the way up to that felony conviction that might not ever happen. How is an individual seller supposed to know who he is selling the gun to? There is no requirement for background checks or records of any kind. The seller isn't even required to ask the thug's name. On top of all that, unless the long time thug has had his first felony conviction, he is legal to buy all the guns he wants, anyway. There is no need for a straw purchase for any of the gang members and thugs to bother with a straw purchase unless they have had that first felony conviction. Excuse me. I should have called those gang members and thugs "Good Guys with a Gun" like the NRA and gun nuts do.

The standard is a felony conviction.
I don't see a misdemeanor disturbing the peace charge as sufficient enough for denying a person a firearm.

And now you fall back to the flawed default position that gun owners are just criminals in waiting so we should treat them like they have already been tried and convicted of a gun crime.

If that's your default position on gun holders are you consistent with other crimes as well?

Shouldn't all men be considered rapists in waiting and be put on a state and federal registration because all rapists were "good guys" until they raped a woman ?

Can you not see how utterly ridiculous this position is?

OK, so there is a convicted felon who should never be anywhere near a gun. He's a felon, so you know he will lie if he has to, but to get a gun he doesn't have to. An individual seller has no legal obligation to even know the name of the purchaser he sells to. No background check, no records to file, no records to keep. All he needs to care about is if the buyer has the money. There you go. The felon just bought a gun, and there was nothing legal to stop him other than the fact that they told him he couldn't have a gun. I suspect lots of felons won't worry about what they were told if there is nothing else to interfere with them purchasing a gun. I never said all gun owners were criminals in waiting, but lots of them are. Do you think those thugs/gang members/ Good guys with guns will hesitate to use their legally bought guns to commit a crime, especially since there is no record of them ever buying the gun from an individual seller.
Your silly mark about rape doesn't apply.
When you sell a thug, with a rap sheet as long as your arm, a gun with no record of that sale, it's reasonably expected that that thug will eventually use that unregistered, unknown gun in a crime.

As I said in many if not most states it is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon.

And I don't know how many gun owners you think will just sell a gun to any Tom Dick or Harry.

It seems to me most illegal purchases are straw purchases where a family member or friend buys a gun for a person who can't. And the person who made that purchase committed a crime.

It's not my responsibility if our legal system doesn't enforce the law regarding straw purchases.

NRA-ILA | Study: Criminals Don’t Get Guns From Legal Sources

Cook and colleagues also found that criminals do not often buy guns on the used market, as they have a fear of buying a gun from a source they do not know. Fear of police stings, or from being turned in by law-abiding gun owners leads them to obtain guns from sources they trust, most often, family, fellow gang members, and other criminals. They also found that criminals do not hold guns for a long period, fearing that a gun could be traced to a specific crime.

You're the one who made the statement that legal gun owners are good guys until they decide not to be aren't you?

You are assuming that a person is more likely to commit a crime simply because he happens to own firearms

So if you apply that "logic" to those law abiding people who are "good guys" until they're not you have to concede that ALL people are not criminals until they are criminals and just like you want to treat gun owners as criminals before they have committed a crime in order to be consistent you would have to treat everyone as a criminal because they might maybe someday in the near or distant future commit a crime.

There are plenty of individuals who will happily sell their gun to any Tom Dick and Harry. Without any requirement for a background check, or any kind of check, no records kept of any kind, and the only requirement for an individual seller is to make sure they have the money, there is nothing about owning a gun that magically makes the owner care about who they sell to. Gun owners are no more ethical than golfers, bowlers, or any other group. Some gun owners are more inclined to commit a crime just because they own a gun. Those thugs and gang members mentioned before are a good example of that. Reasonable regulations to keep guns out of the hands of unethical people are not treating anyone like a criminal.

 

[2aguy]

with the very telling, overwhelming numbers/stats I have posted, you are saying strict gun laws don't work?? numbers and stats from 3 of the largest, densest cities--with the most ''variety'' of people
then you are denying reality....you are so obsessed, that you are denying the truth

Cherry picking cities doesn't help.....you still haven't answered why Houston has a lower gun murder rate than Chicago......

Also...Baltimore has 600,000 people...New York 8 million.....Baltimore has every gun control law you want down to fingerprinting gun owners magazine limits, rifle bans....

Baltimore...with more gun control than NY...has more gun murders.........than a city with 8 million people.....

I showed you that St Louis has their gun crime problem for reason that have nothing to do with guns....you ignored it.....they have low prison sentences for gun crime, not enough police and yet you ignore that......the real reasons....

You are not serious.

 

[2aguy]

If they haven't been convicted of a crime then by definition they are NOT criminals are they?

I don't know any person who belongs to the NRA that says convicted felons should be able to buy guns.

And in many if not most states it is already illegal for anyone, licensed dealer or private party, to knowingly sell a gun to anyone who is legally ineligible to buy a gun.

The laws on straw purchases are not enforced but that is not my fault so restricting me because our law enforcement fails to do its job is ludicrous.

Yes they are criminals. Lots of thugs with a rap sheet as long as your arm who have never been to prison. Lots of non felony crimes to be convicted of. They are criminals usually long before they are convicted of a felony, and can legally buy and even carry a gun in lots of states. The NRA and gun nuts consider all those thugs to be good guys with guns all the way up to that felony conviction that might not ever happen. How is an individual seller supposed to know who he is selling the gun to? There is no requirement for background checks or records of any kind. The seller isn't even required to ask the thug's name. On top of all that, unless the long time thug has had his first felony conviction, he is legal to buy all the guns he wants, anyway. There is no need for a straw purchase for any of the gang members and thugs to bother with a straw purchase unless they have had that first felony conviction. Excuse me. I should have called those gang members and thugs "Good Guys with a Gun" like the NRA and gun nuts do.

The standard is a felony conviction.
I don't see a misdemeanor disturbing the peace charge as sufficient enough for denying a person a firearm.

And now you fall back to the flawed default position that gun owners are just criminals in waiting so we should treat them like they have already been tried and convicted of a gun crime.

If that's your default position on gun holders are you consistent with other crimes as well?

Shouldn't all men be considered rapists in waiting and be put on a state and federal registration because all rapists were "good guys" until they raped a woman ?

Can you not see how utterly ridiculous this position is?

OK, so there is a convicted felon who should never be anywhere near a gun. He's a felon, so you know he will lie if he has to, but to get a gun he doesn't have to. An individual seller has no legal obligation to even know the name of the purchaser he sells to. No background check, no records to file, no records to keep. All he needs to care about is if the buyer has the money. There you go. The felon just bought a gun, and there was nothing legal to stop him other than the fact that they told him he couldn't have a gun. I suspect lots of felons won't worry about what they were told if there is nothing else to interfere with them purchasing a gun. I never said all gun owners were criminals in waiting, but lots of them are. Do you think those thugs/gang members/ Good guys with guns will hesitate to use their legally bought guns to commit a crime, especially since there is no record of them ever buying the gun from an individual seller.
Your silly mark about rape doesn't apply.
When you sell a thug, with a rap sheet as long as your arm, a gun with no record of that sale, it's reasonably expected that that thug will eventually use that unregistered, unknown gun in a crime.

As I said in many if not most states it is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a felon.

And I don't know how many gun owners you think will just sell a gun to any Tom Dick or Harry.

It seems to me most illegal purchases are straw purchases where a family member or friend buys a gun for a person who can't. And the person who made that purchase committed a crime.

It's not my responsibility if our legal system doesn't enforce the law regarding straw purchases.

NRA-ILA | Study: Criminals Don’t Get Guns From Legal Sources

Cook and colleagues also found that criminals do not often buy guns on the used market, as they have a fear of buying a gun from a source they do not know. Fear of police stings, or from being turned in by law-abiding gun owners leads them to obtain guns from sources they trust, most often, family, fellow gang members, and other criminals. They also found that criminals do not hold guns for a long period, fearing that a gun could be traced to a specific crime.

You're the one who made the statement that legal gun owners are good guys until they decide not to be aren't you?

You are assuming that a person is more likely to commit a crime simply because he happens to own firearms

So if you apply that "logic" to those law abiding people who are "good guys" until they're not you have to concede that ALL people are not criminals until they are criminals and just like you want to treat gun owners as criminals before they have committed a crime in order to be consistent you would have to treat everyone as a criminal because they might maybe someday in the near or distant future commit a crime.

There are plenty of individuals who will happily sell their gun to any Tom Dick and Harry. Without any requirement for a background check, or any kind of check, no records kept of any kind, and the only requirement for an individual seller is to make sure they have the money, there is nothing about owning a gun that magically makes the owner care about who they sell to. Gun owners are no more ethical than golfers, bowlers, or any other group. Some gun owners are more inclined to commit a crime just because they own a gun. Those thugs and gang members mentioned before are a good example of that. Reasonable regulations to keep guns out of the hands of unethical people are not treating anyone like a criminal.

Sorry. The only thing we have to do is arrest the criminal who buys the gun. They already know they can't buy, own or carry the gun......the actual solution is to put them in jail for 30 years...you guys won't do that. If you have an actual gun trafficker...we already catch them using old fashioned police work.......snitches.

The problem isn't catching the criminals, the problem is keeping them locked up.....and you guys focusing on law abiding gun owners does nothing to stop gun crime.

Actual criminals don't buy their guns from strangers...they buy them from friends and family and from known sources...so you can register guns...and it will do nothing......you can have universal background checks...and they will do nothing.....you don't care....you just want to punish law abiding gun owners.

 

[2aguy]

REASONABLE laws and regulations not what you want.

What do you think I want?

You want registration which is UNREASONABLE and most of the rest of your position is too.

Registration works well in lots of states. Are you one of those tinfoil hat, 'they're coming to get our guns" nuts?

Registration doesn't do anything..just forcing law abiding people to register their guns accomplishes nothing..........it doesn't stop crime it doesn't love crime.....it is useless paperwork...but...it does help you get ready to confiscate and ban guns......

 

[2aguy]

Britain always had a low murder rate....our non gun murder rate is higher than their total murder rate.........and after they banned and confiscated guns...their gun crime rate has gone up, not down....

They are an island....they banned and confiscated guns.....their gun crime rate is going up...

Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.

Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.

Banning and confiscating guns didn't lower their gun crime or their gun murder rates....

Now....they too are cutting their police numbers, their police money, and they are attacking their police with Politically Correct policies........added to that, they are importing violent people who are taking over their drug trades......and using guns more and more.....and their social welfare state can't civilize their poor, young males anymore...

That is driving their gun crime rate and their violent crime rate....

0.23 per 100,000

Any of the European countries especially the western ones are what not to be like… we need to reject the cesspool that is Europe

Hard to reject 0.23 per 100,000 gun related deaths. You think it's better to have more dead people due to guns?

I think it's better when people are free to own guns.

What people do with those guns is not my responsibility. Gun owners are not responsible for the acts of criminals they are not responsible for acts of suicide.

Criminals are gun owners.

They are illegal gun owners...

 

[2aguy]

And here you have some more numbers...again, it isn't law abiding people with guns that are the issue.....it is criminals and how the local justice system deals with them.....

Chicago...2016

Population 2.705 million

762

Houston...2016

Population 2.303

302

England population 53, 000,000 homicides 580
ST louis population 300,000 homicides 188
that's one city vs a country

You still don't understand ratios do you?

WHat's the murder rate per 100000 people?

Given those numbers, that would be
St Louis 62.6666 per 100,000
England 1.09 per 100,000

So?

I do not want to live in England but it seems like you do.
I don't want to live in St Louis

The thing you just can't seem to understand is that I am not responsible for what criminals do

You aren't responsible for what bank robbers do either, yet you aren't allowed to roam freely through a bank vault with an empty sack. You aren't responsible for what terrorists do, yet you aren't allowed to build an explosive device. You might be an excellent driver, but you aren't allowed to drive without taking the test and getting a license. We are limited on a lot of things because not everybody can be trusted to be safe and legal to do those things. It's called basic accommodation to the safety of society. Don't start whining about guns being constitutionally allowed. The SC already said reasonable restrictions don't deny your rights.

Reasonable restrictions....felons can't own guns...that is what they said....

 

[2aguy]

Any of the European countries especially the western ones are what not to be like… we need to reject the cesspool that is Europe

Hard to reject 0.23 per 100,000 gun related deaths. You think it's better to have more dead people due to guns?

I think it's better when people are free to own guns.

What people do with those guns is not my responsibility. Gun owners are not responsible for the acts of criminals they are not responsible for acts of suicide.

Criminals are gun owners.

So all criminals are gun owners?

Here's the thing you left out

ALL criminals are illegal gun owners

But you seem to think that all gun owners are criminals because you want to hold ALL gun owners responsible for the acts of criminals

No. All criminals are not illegal gun owners. Many got their guns and keep them perfectly legally. Lots of gang members who haven't been convicted of a felony. The NRA and gun nuts want them all to be allowed all the guns they want. Without universal background checks, they can legally buy from any private seller. Only the ones who have already been denied the right to own guns but still have them are illegal gun owners. I suspect that is only a small percentage.

Universal background checks won't stop them...since the people they get the guns from can pass current federal background checks. You can lie about criminals and guns but the facts are the facts....

 

[2aguy]

You still don't understand ratios do you?

WHat's the murder rate per 100000 people?

Given those numbers, that would be
St Louis 62.6666 per 100,000
England 1.09 per 100,000

So?

I do not want to live in England but it seems like you do.
I don't want to live in St Louis

The thing you just can't seem to understand is that I am not responsible for what criminals do

You aren't responsible for what bank robbers do either, yet you aren't allowed to roam freely through a bank vault with an empty sack. You aren't responsible for what terrorists do, yet you aren't allowed to build an explosive device. You might be an excellent driver, but you aren't allowed to drive without taking the test and getting a license. We are limited on a lot of things because not everybody can be trusted to be safe and legal to do those things. It's called basic accommodation to the safety of society. Don't start whining about guns being constitutionally allowed. The SC already said reasonable restrictions don't deny your rights.

Very poor analogy since a bank is private property

I can't carry a gun without a permit and having my fingerprints on file with the state police.
I can't buy a gun without a background check

And I have no real problem with that.

But that said if I pass every background check thrown at me and agree to have my fingerprints on file with the state even though I have committed no crime there is absolutely no reason to restrict my ownership of firearms or where I can and can't carry a concealed weapon.

Not sure about your state laws, but lots of states don't require a permit to own or carry. No fingerprints, no background check unless you are buying from a licensed dealer, no anything, you don't even have to give your name. The individual seller is required to file no paperwork, or keep any records of the sale, or even know who you are. All perfectly legal.

And when the criminal is caught with the gun...they are arrested...with no need for anything you stated..we can already arrest them. You don't need a background check to buy a computer...even if you have been banned from using them....but you can be arrested when you are caught.

You guys have no clue.....you just hate people carrying guns....

 

[2aguy]

You still don't understand ratios do you?

WHat's the murder rate per 100000 people?

Given those numbers, that would be
St Louis 62.6666 per 100,000
England 1.09 per 100,000

So?

I do not want to live in England but it seems like you do.
I don't want to live in St Louis

The thing you just can't seem to understand is that I am not responsible for what criminals do

You aren't responsible for what bank robbers do either, yet you aren't allowed to roam freely through a bank vault with an empty sack. You aren't responsible for what terrorists do, yet you aren't allowed to build an explosive device. You might be an excellent driver, but you aren't allowed to drive without taking the test and getting a license. We are limited on a lot of things because not everybody can be trusted to be safe and legal to do those things. It's called basic accommodation to the safety of society. Don't start whining about guns being constitutionally allowed. The SC already said reasonable restrictions don't deny your rights.

Very poor analogy since a bank is private property

I can't carry a gun without a permit and having my fingerprints on file with the state police.
I can't buy a gun without a background check

And I have no real problem with that.

But that said if I pass every background check thrown at me and agree to have my fingerprints on file with the state even though I have committed no crime there is absolutely no reason to restrict my ownership of firearms or where I can and can't carry a concealed weapon.

Not sure about your state laws, but lots of states don't require a permit to own or carry. No fingerprints, no background check unless you are buying from a licensed dealer, no anything, you don't even have to give your name. The individual seller is required to file no paperwork, or keep any records of the sale, or even know who you are. All perfectly legal.

So...if you want background checks for the Right to carry a gun...then you have no trouble for background checks to vote...right? since they would catch illegal voters..right? John Lott is just making this point in his recent article.......so background checks for voting..right?

 

[2aguy]

I think it's better when people are free to own guns.

What people do with those guns is not my responsibility. Gun owners are not responsible for the acts of criminals they are not responsible for acts of suicide.

Criminals are gun owners.

So all criminals are gun owners?

Here's the thing you left out

ALL criminals are illegal gun owners

But you seem to think that all gun owners are criminals because you want to hold ALL gun owners responsible for the acts of criminals

No. All criminals are not illegal gun owners. Many got their guns and keep them perfectly legally. Lots of gang members who haven't been convicted of a felony. The NRA and gun nuts want them all to be allowed all the guns they want. Without universal background checks, they can legally buy from any private seller. Only the ones who have already been denied the right to own guns but still have them are illegal gun owners. I suspect that is only a small percentage.

If they haven't been convicted of a crime then by definition they are NOT criminals are they?

I don't know any person who belongs to the NRA that says convicted felons should be able to buy guns.

And in many if not most states it is already illegal for anyone, licensed dealer or private party, to knowingly sell a gun to anyone who is legally ineligible to buy a gun.

The laws on straw purchases are not enforced but that is not my fault so restricting me because our law enforcement fails to do its job is ludicrous.

Yes they are criminals. Lots of thugs with a rap sheet as long as your arm who have never been to prison. Lots of non felony crimes to be convicted of. They are criminals usually long before they are convicted of a felony, and can legally buy and even carry a gun in lots of states. The NRA and gun nuts consider all those thugs to be good guys with guns all the way up to that felony conviction that might not ever happen. How is an individual seller supposed to know who he is selling the gun to? There is no requirement for background checks or records of any kind. The seller isn't even required to ask the thug's name. On top of all that, unless the long time thug has had his first felony conviction, he is legal to buy all the guns he wants, anyway. There is no need for a straw purchase for any of the gang members and thugs to bother with a straw purchase unless they have had that first felony conviction. Excuse me. I should have called those gang members and thugs "Good Guys with a Gun" like the NRA and gun nuts do.

Wrong..if they have a misdemeanor, no gun...you have no clue........

 

[Rustic]

Given those numbers, that would be
St Louis 62.6666 per 100,000
England 1.09 per 100,000

So?

I do not want to live in England but it seems like you do.
I don't want to live in St Louis

The thing you just can't seem to understand is that I am not responsible for what criminals do

You aren't responsible for what bank robbers do either, yet you aren't allowed to roam freely through a bank vault with an empty sack. You aren't responsible for what terrorists do, yet you aren't allowed to build an explosive device. You might be an excellent driver, but you aren't allowed to drive without taking the test and getting a license. We are limited on a lot of things because not everybody can be trusted to be safe and legal to do those things. It's called basic accommodation to the safety of society. Don't start whining about guns being constitutionally allowed. The SC already said reasonable restrictions don't deny your rights.

Very poor analogy since a bank is private property

I can't carry a gun without a permit and having my fingerprints on file with the state police.
I can't buy a gun without a background check

And I have no real problem with that.

But that said if I pass every background check thrown at me and agree to have my fingerprints on file with the state even though I have committed no crime there is absolutely no reason to restrict my ownership of firearms or where I can and can't carry a concealed weapon.

Not sure about your state laws, but lots of states don't require a permit to own or carry. No fingerprints, no background check unless you are buying from a licensed dealer, no anything, you don't even have to give your name. The individual seller is required to file no paperwork, or keep any records of the sale, or even know who you are. All perfectly legal.

And when the criminal is caught with the gun...they are arrested...with no need for anything you stated..we can already arrest them. You don't need a background check to buy a computer...even if you have been banned from using them....but you can be arrested when you are caught.

You guys have no clue.....you just hate people carrying guns....

Control freaks can't help themselves

 

[2aguy]

So all criminals are gun owners?

Here's the thing you left out

ALL criminals are illegal gun owners

But you seem to think that all gun owners are criminals because you want to hold ALL gun owners responsible for the acts of criminals

No. All criminals are not illegal gun owners. Many got their guns and keep them perfectly legally. Lots of gang members who haven't been convicted of a felony. The NRA and gun nuts want them all to be allowed all the guns they want. Without universal background checks, they can legally buy from any private seller. Only the ones who have already been denied the right to own guns but still have them are illegal gun owners. I suspect that is only a small percentage.

If they haven't been convicted of a crime then by definition they are NOT criminals are they?

I don't know any person who belongs to the NRA that says convicted felons should be able to buy guns.

And in many if not most states it is already illegal for anyone, licensed dealer or private party, to knowingly sell a gun to anyone who is legally ineligible to buy a gun.

The laws on straw purchases are not enforced but that is not my fault so restricting me because our law enforcement fails to do its job is ludicrous.

Yes they are criminals. Lots of thugs with a rap sheet as long as your arm who have never been to prison. Lots of non felony crimes to be convicted of. They are criminals usually long before they are convicted of a felony, and can legally buy and even carry a gun in lots of states. The NRA and gun nuts consider all those thugs to be good guys with guns all the way up to that felony conviction that might not ever happen. How is an individual seller supposed to know who he is selling the gun to? There is no requirement for background checks or records of any kind. The seller isn't even required to ask the thug's name. On top of all that, unless the long time thug has had his first felony conviction, he is legal to buy all the guns he wants, anyway. There is no need for a straw purchase for any of the gang members and thugs to bother with a straw purchase unless they have had that first felony conviction. Excuse me. I should have called those gang members and thugs "Good Guys with a Gun" like the NRA and gun nuts do.

The standard is a felony conviction.
I don't see a misdemeanor disturbing the peace charge as sufficient enough for denying a person a firearm.

And now you fall back to the flawed default position that gun owners are just criminals in waiting so we should treat them like they have already been tried and convicted of a gun crime.

If that's your default position on gun holders are you consistent with other crimes as well?

Shouldn't all men be considered rapists in waiting and be put on a state and federal registration because all rapists were "good guys" until they raped a woman ?

Can you not see how utterly ridiculous this position is?

OK, so there is a convicted felon who should never be anywhere near a gun. He's a felon, so you know he will lie if he has to, but to get a gun he doesn't have to. An individual seller has no legal obligation to even know the name of the purchaser he sells to. No background check, no records to file, no records to keep. All he needs to care about is if the buyer has the money. There you go. The felon just bought a gun, and there was nothing legal to stop him other than the fact that they told him he couldn't have a gun. I suspect lots of felons won't worry about what they were told if there is nothing else to interfere with them purchasing a gun. I never said all gun owners were criminals in waiting, but lots of them are. Do you think those thugs/gang members/ Good guys with guns will hesitate to use their legally bought guns to commit a crime, especially since there is no record of them ever buying the gun from an individual seller.
Your silly mark about rape doesn't apply.
When you sell a thug, with a rap sheet as long as your arm, a gun with no record of that sale, it's reasonably expected that that thug will eventually use that unregistered, unknown gun in a crime.

When the police catch the felon with the illegal gun they go to prison..already...then guys like you let them back out...that is the problem.

The cops catch the felons and then you guys let them back out....we have no problem catching these guys...the problem is keeping them locked up.