Did These Guys Get Background Checks...before Killing 9 Year Old...

[2aguy]

If guns are registered then when someone is found with one of those 232,000 stolen guns it can be identified. Whoever has it now will be jailed as the thief or for buying it without a background check and the gun will be returned to original owner. This person if not the thief may rat out the seller.

What part of not needing registration to accomplish this do you not get...if you catch the criminal with a gun...and he cannot have the gun legally...you make him snitch anyway...no registration needed...then you arrest the guy who sold it....again, no registration required....saves tons of paper work and doesn't set up confiscation...

Problem solved without registration...

You guys want registration because it either just sounds good when you say it or you know it makes confiscation and bans easier later...

 

[2aguy]

By all means, since the law failed to protect this boy, let's just repeal it. After all, in inner city needs expanded economic opportunities, so it would be a good idea to allow vendors to set up flea markets in the lower 9th Ward in New Orleans on Saturday nights, for the purpose of buying and selling weapons. Business would be booming.....

Exactly...arrest the guys who break the law and put them in prison for a long time...that's how Japan does it...besides the police state....long prison sentences makes sure that the smart criminals won't handle guns, and the dumb criminals go to prison for a long time...and no innocent people get caught up in the added mess...

What part of locking up criminals for gun crimes is beyond you guys...a simple and effective solution that doesn't impact regular, law abiding citizens....but that is the point...you want the regular, law abiding people hassled and inconvenienced and targets of criminals because you hate the fact that they own guns....it's alright...admit it....

 

[Brain357]

The guy who sold it to him says he didn't know it was stolen. He also says he didn't know he sold it to a felon. Without registration and background checks he can't really be proven wrong now can he? So he walks. Now if he had to get a background check when he sold the gun he'd be looking at jail time, more jail time cause he sold to a felon. He might not sell guns because the likelihood of getting caught is too high.

If guns are registered then when someone is found with one of those 232,000 stolen guns it can be identified. Whoever has it now will be jailed as the thief or for buying it without a background check and the gun will be returned to original owner. This person if not the thief may rat out the seller.

What part of not needing registration to accomplish this do you not get...if you catch the criminal with a gun...and he cannot have the gun legally...you make him snitch anyway...no registration needed...then you arrest the guy who sold it....again, no registration required....saves tons of paper work and doesn't set up confiscation...

Problem solved without registration...

You guys want registration because it either just sounds good when you say it or you know it makes confiscation and bans easier later...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Did These Guys Get Background Checks...before Killing 9 Year Old..."

Do you get that this fails as a false comparison fallacy, where it in no way undermines or impugns the legitimacy or efficacy of background checks.


All you've succeeded in doing is making yourself and other guns owners look ignorant and ridiculous.

 

[2aguy]

The guy who sold it to him says he didn't know it was stolen.

Wow, do I have to do all the police work here...you set up a sting on this guy...or if you believe him...ask him where he got the gun from...or when multiple times you have criminals say he got the gun from this guy...you have cause to arrest him...don't you...

Again...no registration required...and word will get around...put the criminal in jail for a long time and they won't buy the gun illegally in the first place...

 

[Brain357]

Yes you can have more guns and more magazines, but that is another chance for someone to get away or stop the shooter as in Tucson. Reaching for a magazine or another gun might just take his eyes of the targets, he might drop the magazine, might shoot himself reaching for the next gun(gun owners sure seem to do that a lot)... Why not give the victims more of a chance?

How many mass shooters passed criminal background checks...Colorado theater shooter, Navy Yard shooter, both Fort Hood shooters, the Santa Barbara shooter... and the list goes on and on...and the guy you point to...bought from a private seller..

How many mass shooters just ignored the background check altogether and stole their guns...Columbine, Sandy Hook...and the list goes on and on....

even if you registered the gun...if the guy selling it stole the gun, registering the gun does nothing...get it...you will simply trace the gun back to the law abiding citizen who had the gun stolen....wow...crime not solved...

Magazine limits...the latest killer in Santa Barbara just legally bought more 10 round magazines...and then they could also just buy more guns and simply draw another gun and start shooting...

Background checks, registration (or the prelude to confiscation), and magazine limits are stupid...they do not stop crime and they do not stop mass shooters...

Lock up criminals with felonies who use guns for a long time....that will stop gun crime...

But no...you don't really care about stopping mass shooters or gun crime...you care about making it harder for regular people to have guns...it is the irrational fear of guns, not crime that motivates you...

 

[2aguy]

Do you get that this fails as a false comparison fallacy, where it in no way undermines or impugns the legitimacy or efficacy of background checks.

Are you always this dense...these guys did not go through background checks...they did not register their gun...they did not worry about magazine capacity...

They were not allowed to buy the gun...felony

They were not allowed to own the gun....felony

They were not allowed to carry the gun...felony

They murdered a nine year old boy...felony

I have gone through back ground checks multiple times...did not commit a crime...wouldn't commit a crime even if they just gave me the gun for free...I'm not the problem...

 

[Brain357]

Yes waste time chasing down a bunch of "I didn't know it was stolen" and "I didn't know he was a felon". Where is that going to get you? Or you could require registration and background checks and actually make arrests. And make people think twice about selling a gun illegally. Then we could actually stop criminals before they kill. Why do you insist on making it so easy for criminals?

The guy who sold it to him says he didn't know it was stolen.

Wow, do I have to do all the police work here...you set up a sting on this guy...or if you believe him...ask him where he got the gun from...or when multiple times you have criminals say he got the gun from this guy...you have cause to arrest him...don't you...

Again...no registration required...and word will get around...put the criminal in jail for a long time and they won't buy the gun illegally in the first place...

 

[2aguy]

Yes you can have more guns and more magazines, but that is another chance for someone to get away or stop the shooter as in Tucson.

Hmmmm...so...a guy planning on committing a mass shooting is going to be reluctant to get a 30 round magazine illegally...

Tell me how that works...

You aren't that familiar with guns, so...a 30 round magazine is more likely to make a weapon malfunction, than a 10 round magazine...

Changing a magazine when you have planned for months to commit a mass shooting where you plan on killing a lot of people takes less than 2 seconds....

or...you simply draw another fully loaded pistol there by not having to change the magazine in the first place...

 

[PredFan]

I'm actually with the Wrongpublicans on the issue of background checks before gun purchases--I believe there shouldn't be any, because I believe there shouldn't be any guns to buy. No matter how much we regulate them, they're still dangerous tools of mass murder. The only way to stop the senseless violence guns are used for is to ban them completely.

You know it to be true.

Let's pretend that you could actually push a button and banish guns, you can't but I'm entering liberal fantasy land here. It wouldn't stop senseless violence at all. Your ridiculously simplistic statement that we need to end GUN violence and the only way to do that is to ban guns completely is true but idiotic. It isn't the tool we should be focussing on. As long as loony birds like you point the finger at guns, VIOLENCE, the real problem, won't go away.

 

[2aguy]

Or you could require registration and background checks and actually make arrests

Criminal drug user breaks into a house and steals a gun...sells it to drug dealer who sells it to gang banger...gang banger kills 9 year old boy...gets arrested....check registration on gun...gun was stolen....waste of time....

or...arrest gang banger...get him to tell you who sold it to him...arrest drug dealer...he tells you druggies name...arrest druggie...

Again...no registration required...even if the gun is stolen and resold on the street...

 

[PredFan]

exactly how does banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms stop criminals from having them?

You misunderstand. I don't want to do anything to law-abiding citizens, I want to ban guns. All weapons really, and as well as all weapon-like objects, or things that can potentially be used as a weapon. The motivation to use weapons will always be there--violence in manpigs is innate--so we must merely remove the opportunity to act upon their motives by banning all weapons from the United States. Only then can we know peace.

All weapons? You mean like guns, knives of any kind, baseball bats, hammers, anything poisonous, etc.?

 

[2aguy]

Hands, feet...which kill more people than rifles...

 

[PredFan]

Thank you for pointing out how stupidly easy it is for criminals to get guns right now. First thing we have to do is register all guns. Then we can track who the previous owner of that gun is and find out how it got into criminal hands. Next we need to require background checks on all sales. As laws are now these guys could have bought the gun from some guy on the corner without a background check. The guy on the corner has no worries because the gun isn't registered.

Well, they seem to have caught the gang members who murdered a 9'year old boy...Why did they kill the boy...they were out looking to kill rival gang members and thought he was going to shout a warning...so they shot him 4 times killing him....

Now...these guys are all full time gang members....with prior criminal convictions...in fact....the murderer did 3 1/2 years for a previous gun crime...okay...none of these guys could legally buy a gun, own a gun or carry a gun....they did not register their gun...they did not go through 16 hours of training to get a concealed carry permit...

And they somehow had a gun and used it to slaughter a 9 year old boy...without hesitation, mercy or regret....

so tell me....what law prevented this from happening....?

9-Year-Old Boy Shot And Killed By Gang Member In Chicago Concealed Nation

Antonio Smith, a 9-year-old boy, was shot at least four times by Allmon and died at the hospital. The boy, nor any of his family members, were affiliated with any gangs.

Allmon threw the handgun down a sewer and was later recovered by police during their investigation. The handgun was traced back to two other shootings, one of which was fatal.

Also important to note is that Allmon had been arrested in 2012 on gun charges and served 3 1/2 years for those crimes. He was released just a few weeks before gunning down this innocent 9-year-old boy.

Registration doesn't stop crime nutjob, you only find out who registered the weapon. You can't even be sure that the person who did committed the crime. Christ you liberals can't think at all can you?

 

[2aguy]

Again...they tried gun registration in New Zealand...and stopped...why...it didn't stop crime...and it didn't help them solve crime....

It did consume huge numbers of police man hours researching and investigating non criminal citizens.

Been tried and it didn't work in a country smaller than ours with fewer guns and fewer people and fewer actual criminals...

 

[2aguy]

Registration doesn't stop crime nutjob, you only find out who registered the weapon. You can't even be sure that the person who did committed the crime. Christ you liberals can't think at all can you?

Eloquently stated Predfan...

 

[PredFan]

Listen up you ignorant idiots! As long as we are focussing on the gun, we will never get to what's important; the WHY. Why do parents kill their kids, why do young people join gangs, why are so many insane and violent people running around loose, why ARE there so many insane and violent people?

Liberals don't care about the violence, they don't care about the lives lost, it's obvious that they only care about controlling others and taking freedoms away.

Mulon Labe mother fuckers!

 

[2aguy]

Here is another look at how stupid gun registration is...if you actually are concerned with gun crime and not law abiding citizens owning guns...

The only question about gun registration

The unfortunate answer is that, no matter how good it feels when the words first pass your ears, registering honest gun owners doesn't stop criminals, and in fact focuses in exactly the opposite direction. It is an allocation of resources that has no chance of achieving its goal, if that goal is the reduction of crime.

1. Registering 70 million American households is extremely expensive.

Do you know what it takes to run a database that big? You need 19,000 changes daily, just to keep up with people who move every ten years. Floor after floor of cubicle after cubicle for employees with permanent jobs, payroll, parking and dry cleaning bills. It's a government jobs program all by itself, all in the common sense -- but deceptive name -- of stopping crime. How many criminals do you figure will register when all is said and done? That's right, none, and the planners know that. All that money and time, invested on tracking the innocent. That's why so many police departments are against it -- they'll be forced to run huge data centers with their limited resources, and hire clerks instead of cops.

2. Americans who fail to register would become felons without committing a crime.

Under registration, activity that is a common practice and has been perfectly legal since inception makes you a felon. Think about that. Possession of private property would subject you to felony arrest, if the property isn't on the government's master list. Boy, that doesn't sound like the American way. No other evil is needed, there is no victim and no inherent criminal act takes place. Paperwork equals prison. That's just wrong.

3. Registration, if enacted, will create an underground market for unregistered guns bigger than the drug trade.

How many times must an elite forbid what the public wants, before learning the unintended consequences of outlawing liberties? People get what they want either way, it's just a question of how much crime the government itself forces to accompany it. With respect to guns, the last thing you want to encourage is the creative import programs and price supports that drug dealers enjoy, for gun runners.

4. People have said to me, "But Alan, if all guns were registered and there was a crime, then you could tell."

Tell what? If your neighbor is shot, that's not probable cause to search everyone with a matching caliber in a ten-block radius. The evidence needed to conclusively link a person to a crime has no connection at all to a registration plan -- you need motive, opportunity, witnesses, physical evidence, the murder weapon. Police aren't waiting for official lists so they can start catching murderers. Gun registration schemes lack a crime prevention component.

5. You don't really think authorities would use gun registration lists to confiscate weapons from people, do you?

Despite real-life examples recently of exactly that in New York, California and Louisiana, and global history for the past century, this couldn't really happen, do you think? Who would even support such a thing in a country like America, with its Bill of Rights? The guarantees against confiscating property, unwarranted seizures and the right to keep and bear arms would surely forestall any such abuse of power. Are there really U.S. politician who would support firearm seizures? (Unfortunately, it's a long list of usual suspects.)

And what about the so-called First Amendment test? If it's OK for arms it must pass muster for words too. Why would an honest writer object to being on the government list of approved writers? Why indeed.

 

[Brain357]

That mass shooter in CA didn't bother illegally getting a hi cap magazine. And if he had there is a chance to catch him illegally buying a 30 round magazine before he kills people.

Do you think a 20 round magazine is more likely to malfunction? In Tucson the shooter was stopped at reload. You prefer he shoots 20 times rather than 10 before being stopped?

Even at the shooting range there is a good chance to fail while reloading. Much bigger chance under a high stress situation:


If he grabs another gun maybe he will shoot himself. Gun owners seem to be doing a lot of that.
Utah Teacher Shoots Self With Concealed Weapon Teachers who do bring a concealed weapon to work must keep it on their person at all times and are barred from leaving it in a drawer or cabinet even if under lock and key. National Boise Weekly

So again, why do you want to make it so easy for mass shooters? Why do you want gang bangers firing more rounds with more chances for innocent people to get hit by a stray?

Yes you can have more guns and more magazines, but that is another chance for someone to get away or stop the shooter as in Tucson.

Hmmmm...so...a guy planning on committing a mass shooting is going to be reluctant to get a 30 round magazine illegally...

Tell me how that works...

You aren't that familiar with guns, so...a 30 round magazine is more likely to make a weapon malfunction, than a 10 round magazine...

Changing a magazine when you have planned for months to commit a mass shooting where you plan on killing a lot of people takes less than 2 seconds....

or...you simply draw another fully loaded pistol there by not having to change the magazine in the first place...

 

[Brain357]

And far less than handguns. Are you suggesting a handgun ban?

Hands, feet...which kill more people than rifles...