Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[EvilEyeFleegle]

European solutions for American problems are almost always doomed...IMO.

Yeah, testing all other options before finally ending up doing the right thing is time consuming - it's also "consuming" kids, see Sandy Hook, Gilroy Garlic Festival, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

BTW, you are the one hung up on population and geography - China (population) and Russia (geography) prove you wrong.

It's been fun - as always. Let's agree to disagree, shall we?

Of course...I'll concede you China..although the degree of freedom lost might not be worth the safety gained..and there is that pesky transplant market that ethnic minorities keep ending up on.. Russia/ Well..a kleptocracy ruled by oligarchs and fronted by a faux Democracy....might not be the best of examples.

 

[RealDave]

Oh, here's one.

You're as full of shit as I expected.

Not the mini argument. So why isn't it the most popular semi automatic?

Because...moron....

The AR-15 is customizable for different sized people, you can attach different sights, scopes, lazers and lights to it.....

If you have several members of a family, not all of them will fit that rifle above comfortably, you can't attach a light, laser or any other pieces of equipment for self defense or sport.

So, I was right. If you can't make it look scary, you don't want it.

& fuck your size comment.

How many here got measured so their Remington Model 760 would fit properly? Seems to me, I asked & I got a gin in a box?

 

[RealDave]

70% of all murders take place in poor urban areas and are committed by people who cannot legally possess firearms

So take the firearms out of circulation to reduce the firearms homicide rate. But I understand gun nuts are too selfish to do that as their paranoia will be aggravated.

It wouldn't reduce the murder rate because people would just kill with some other weapon

And people who want to keep their rights are not selfish.

People who want to take away rights are selfish

I have the right not to be shot for no reason.

Yes you do....and is someone shoots you, we can arrest them and lock them up.....we can't just walk around and arrest someone because we think, with no other evidence, that they might shoot you. Do you understand that?

Actually, if they were in a gun free zone, you could. Or if they were carrying a banned weapon or a banned magazine.

 

[RealDave]

Oh, here's one.

You're as full of shit as I expected.

Not the mini argument. So why isn't it the most popular semi automatic?

Ban AR 15s and it will be then you'll want to ban the mini as well

Yep

 

[2aguy]

Oh, here's one.

You're as full of shit as I expected.

Not the mini argument. So why isn't it the most popular semi automatic?

Because...moron....

The AR-15 is customizable for different sized people, you can attach different sights, scopes, lazers and lights to it.....

If you have several members of a family, not all of them will fit that rifle above comfortably, you can't attach a light, laser or any other pieces of equipment for self defense or sport.

So, I was right. If you can't make it look scary, you don't want it.

& fuck your size comment.

How many here got measured so their Remington Model 760 would fit properly? Seems to me, I asked & I got a gin in a box?

No...moron, you didn't understand......

The wooden stock will not adjust to accomodate different body sized shooters.....you can with an AR-15.....moron......second, you can't put any knew scopes or sights on that rifle....it has all to do with actually hitting what you shoot at....second, in self defense, you may choose to have a flashlight on the end of your weapon so you can see at night and still handle the rifle with two hands....and a laser site can help you shoot as well....you are a moron....

If anyone is shaking in their boots it is you.....the odds of being murdered by a gun are so small they are almost as small as your brain......as long as you aren't a criminal, the friends, family or associates of a criminal, and you don't live in a democrat crap hole voting district....guns are not a problem...

But you fear them so much that even though there are close to 600 million guns in private hands, and over 17.25 million people can legally carry them in public for self defense.....you want to ban them...even as gun murder has gone down 49%, gun crime down 75%, and violent crime down 72%

You are the irrational one, not us.

 

[2aguy]

70% of all murders take place in poor urban areas and are committed by people who cannot legally possess firearms

So take the firearms out of circulation to reduce the firearms homicide rate. But I understand gun nuts are too selfish to do that as their paranoia will be aggravated.

It wouldn't reduce the murder rate because people would just kill with some other weapon

And people who want to keep their rights are not selfish.

People who want to take away rights are selfish

I have the right not to be shot for no reason.

Yes you do....and is someone shoots you, we can arrest them and lock them up.....we can't just walk around and arrest someone because we think, with no other evidence, that they might shoot you. Do you understand that?

Actually, if they were in a gun free zone, you could. Or if they were carrying a banned weapon or a banned magazine.

Funny how the gun free zone doesn't stop criminals from using guns in them.......

And we can already arrest any criminal who has any gun .......... any gun...you nitwit...they can't touch any gun at all....

And as I have shown, magazine capacity has nothing to do with deaths and injuries in a mass public shooting....as the 5 shot shotgun in Russia showed when it was used to kill 20 people....

You twit.

 

[RealDave]

So take the firearms out of circulation to reduce the firearms homicide rate. But I understand gun nuts are too selfish to do that as their paranoia will be aggravated.

It wouldn't reduce the murder rate because people would just kill with some other weapon

And people who want to keep their rights are not selfish.

People who want to take away rights are selfish

I have the right not to be shot for no reason.

Yes you do....and is someone shoots you, we can arrest them and lock them up.....we can't just walk around and arrest someone because we think, with no other evidence, that they might shoot you. Do you understand that?

Actually, if they were in a gun free zone, you could. Or if they were carrying a banned weapon or a banned magazine.

Funny how the gun free zone doesn't stop criminals from using guns in them.......

And we can already arrest any criminal who has any gun .......... any gun...you nitwit...they can't touch any gun at all....

And as I have shown, magazine capacity has nothing to do with deaths and injuries in a mass public shooting....as the 5 shot shotgun in Russia showed when it was used to kill 20 people....

You twit.

So, the shooter at the Garlic festival was a felon? Are you such a fucking moron that you think these mass shooters were all felons.

Jesus fuck.

Then, if high capacity magazine prove no advantage, why do you assfucks want them?

 

[RealDave]

Oh, here's one.

You're as full of shit as I expected.

Not the mini argument. So why isn't it the most popular semi automatic?

Because...moron....

The AR-15 is customizable for different sized people, you can attach different sights, scopes, lazers and lights to it.....

If you have several members of a family, not all of them will fit that rifle above comfortably, you can't attach a light, laser or any other pieces of equipment for self defense or sport.

So, I was right. If you can't make it look scary, you don't want it.

& fuck your size comment.

How many here got measured so their Remington Model 760 would fit properly? Seems to me, I asked & I got a gin in a box?

No...moron, you didn't understand......

The wooden stock will not adjust to accomodate different body sized shooters.....you can with an AR-15.....moron......second, you can't put any knew scopes or sights on that rifle....it has all to do with actually hitting what you shoot at....second, in self defense, you may choose to have a flashlight on the end of your weapon so you can see at night and still handle the rifle with two hands....and a laser site can help you shoot as well....you are a moron....

If anyone is shaking in their boots it is you.....the odds of being murdered by a gun are so small they are almost as small as your brain......as long as you aren't a criminal, the friends, family or associates of a criminal, and you don't live in a democrat crap hole voting district....guns are not a problem...

But you fear them so much that even though there are close to 600 million guns in private hands, and over 17.25 million people can legally carry them in public for self defense.....you want to ban them...even as gun murder has gone down 49%, gun crime down 75%, and violent crime down 72%

You are the irrational one, not us.

So deer hunters cant hit shit because their guns don't fit. Who knew?

 

[Slade3200]

So you don’t support felons or mental people from getting gun but you want no measures in place to prevent them from getting guns? So your basically just making a legal play where if one commits a crime with a gun they get a harsher sentence... that’s your deterrent?

And what constitutions somebody mentally ineligible to own a gun? How do they know?

I'm a proponent of the 3 strike rule.
3 strikes, life in prison.

Example:
Commit a crime - Strike 1
Have a gun while committing a crime - Strike 2
Use the gun while committing a crime, firing the weapon, assaulting with the weapon - Strike 3

Ok thanks for explaining that but you didn’t answer any of my questions

Only in a court of law can anyone's rights be removed.
If a person is adjudicated guilty of a felony, their right to possess a weapon and to vote, removed.
Same if they are adjudicated mentally incompetent.

That’s interesting... would you apply the same standard to the first amendment and remove all censorship regulations? Allow Max Strength Penis Enlargement LLC to toss up a billboard next to the local elementary school with their world famous Mandingo modeling his 13 inch python?

You fail to understand.....those regulations effect the public space .... carrying a gun effects no one unless you actually break the law.

The question is whether the government should be able to place regulations on our rights. You justify regulations on the first amendment for things that effect the public space. Others justify regulating the second amendment because they feel it helps safety and the general welfare of our citizens.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, the shooter at the Garlic festival was a felon?

As soon as he stepped across the CA border with a rifles that is banned under CA law - yes.

Then, if high capacity magazine prove no advantage, why do you assfucks want them?

Magazines are an integral port of the modern firearm; as such the 2nd protects our right to own and use them.
Thus, the onus is on those who seek to restrict the size of said magazines to demonstrate the necessity for same.

 

[2aguy]

It wouldn't reduce the murder rate because people would just kill with some other weapon

And people who want to keep their rights are not selfish.

People who want to take away rights are selfish

I have the right not to be shot for no reason.

Yes you do....and is someone shoots you, we can arrest them and lock them up.....we can't just walk around and arrest someone because we think, with no other evidence, that they might shoot you. Do you understand that?

Actually, if they were in a gun free zone, you could. Or if they were carrying a banned weapon or a banned magazine.

Funny how the gun free zone doesn't stop criminals from using guns in them.......

And we can already arrest any criminal who has any gun .......... any gun...you nitwit...they can't touch any gun at all....

And as I have shown, magazine capacity has nothing to do with deaths and injuries in a mass public shooting....as the 5 shot shotgun in Russia showed when it was used to kill 20 people....

You twit.

So, the shooter at the Garlic festival was a felon? Are you such a fucking moron that you think these mass shooters were all felons.

Jesus fuck.

Then, if high capacity magazine prove no advantage, why do you assfucks want them?

Look, dipstick....I have posted research that shows 90% of those who commit murder have long histories of crime and violence, often going back to their teen years...

So....moron, that means another 10% are not criminals before they commit their first murder......

You are the moron.......you are the guy who hates guns to the point it has made you deranged.

 

[Slade3200]

Do support any regulations of firearms such as.... Auto ban, Carry permits, no guns allowed in schools?

Auto Ban.....what do you mean by this? If you mean full automatic, no.

Carry permits....no, they are unConstitutional.....a fee or test to exercise a Right is UnConstitutional....

No guns allowed to be carried by law abiding citizens with lawful business in schools....no.

Gun free school zones are targeted by some mass public shooters. We know from actual mass public shooters either captured or from their notes that they target gun free zones. If a parent is legally allowed to carry a gun, they should be able to take it with them into the school. As long as they don't draw the weapon without cause, what is the problem? If they take the weapon out they can already be arrested for disturbing the police.

We already have every law we need to deal with gun criminals...the problem is that once we catch them, democrats like you keep letting them out of jail and prison. There were 12 mass public shootings in 2018. 93 people, total, killed in those shootings.

The vast majority of gun murder, the other 10,899 are criminals who are already banned from buying, owning and carrying a gun...we can already arrest them with all the laws we already have.........again, it is people like you letting them out of prison that causes the gun crime and gun murder...

you are the problem.

Why am I the problem? I’m just asking questions. And these laws we have in place wouldn’t exist if we did things your way, is that right? Everybody would be legally allowed to have a gun because that is their right. There would be now restrictions to purchase, we could go buy a machine gun with a slurpy at the local 7-11, is that right?

711 doesn't carry firearms for sale, and the libs can't force them to do it.

The real issue isn't the 2nd Amendment, but instead people's God Given right to keep and bear arms. Nothing more basic than the right to defend yourself. Not who should or shouldn't carry firearms for sale.

Right now, there is a good system. Legitimate stores show discretion and sell weapons to responsible people. Do you have a problem with this system we have now?

Or would you prefer to force citizens into the backroom of cocktail lounges for cash sales of firearms and zero discretion or background checking?

No I don’t have a problem with the current system. I’d like to see some improvements made to the background check database and wouldn’t mind a registration system to help with criminal investigations. But I think we are doing a fine job. I definitely don’t think regulations are unconstitutional and should be done away with. That is so silly in my opinion

Do you understand that criminals, by Supreme Court ruling, do not have to register their illegal guns...because it violates their 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination? So the very people you want to target, do not have to comply with your proposal......

only normal people would suffer the consequences of not registering their guns....do you see how stupid that is?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

I don’t think registration directly targets criminals. But I think if joe citizen gets a gun and then 5 years later gets arrested for beating his wife or raping his niece it would be nice to know that he’s got a gun in the safe and probably a good idea to take it away. Dontchyathink?

 

[Defiant1]

Auto Ban.....what do you mean by this? If you mean full automatic, no.

Carry permits....no, they are unConstitutional.....a fee or test to exercise a Right is UnConstitutional....

No guns allowed to be carried by law abiding citizens with lawful business in schools....no.

Gun free school zones are targeted by some mass public shooters. We know from actual mass public shooters either captured or from their notes that they target gun free zones. If a parent is legally allowed to carry a gun, they should be able to take it with them into the school. As long as they don't draw the weapon without cause, what is the problem? If they take the weapon out they can already be arrested for disturbing the police.

We already have every law we need to deal with gun criminals...the problem is that once we catch them, democrats like you keep letting them out of jail and prison. There were 12 mass public shootings in 2018. 93 people, total, killed in those shootings.

The vast majority of gun murder, the other 10,899 are criminals who are already banned from buying, owning and carrying a gun...we can already arrest them with all the laws we already have.........again, it is people like you letting them out of prison that causes the gun crime and gun murder...

you are the problem.

Why am I the problem? I’m just asking questions. And these laws we have in place wouldn’t exist if we did things your way, is that right? Everybody would be legally allowed to have a gun because that is their right. There would be now restrictions to purchase, we could go buy a machine gun with a slurpy at the local 7-11, is that right?

711 doesn't carry firearms for sale, and the libs can't force them to do it.

The real issue isn't the 2nd Amendment, but instead people's God Given right to keep and bear arms. Nothing more basic than the right to defend yourself. Not who should or shouldn't carry firearms for sale.

Right now, there is a good system. Legitimate stores show discretion and sell weapons to responsible people. Do you have a problem with this system we have now?

Or would you prefer to force citizens into the backroom of cocktail lounges for cash sales of firearms and zero discretion or background checking?

No I don’t have a problem with the current system. I’d like to see some improvements made to the background check database and wouldn’t mind a registration system to help with criminal investigations. But I think we are doing a fine job. I definitely don’t think regulations are unconstitutional and should be done away with. That is so silly in my opinion

Do you understand that criminals, by Supreme Court ruling, do not have to register their illegal guns...because it violates their 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination? So the very people you want to target, do not have to comply with your proposal......

only normal people would suffer the consequences of not registering their guns....do you see how stupid that is?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

I don’t think registration directly targets criminals. But I think if joe citizen gets a gun and then 5 years later gets arrested for beating his wife or raping his niece it would be nice to know that he’s got a gun in the safe and probably a good idea to take it away. Dontchyathink?

You want to take my gun away without a court intervening?
Just because I beat my wife doesn't mean I want to shoot her.

 

[2aguy]

I'm a proponent of the 3 strike rule.
3 strikes, life in prison.

Example:
Commit a crime - Strike 1
Have a gun while committing a crime - Strike 2
Use the gun while committing a crime, firing the weapon, assaulting with the weapon - Strike 3

Ok thanks for explaining that but you didn’t answer any of my questions

Only in a court of law can anyone's rights be removed.
If a person is adjudicated guilty of a felony, their right to possess a weapon and to vote, removed.
Same if they are adjudicated mentally incompetent.

That’s interesting... would you apply the same standard to the first amendment and remove all censorship regulations? Allow Max Strength Penis Enlargement LLC to toss up a billboard next to the local elementary school with their world famous Mandingo modeling his 13 inch python?

You fail to understand.....those regulations effect the public space .... carrying a gun effects no one unless you actually break the law.

The question is whether the government should be able to place regulations on our rights. You justify regulations on the first amendment for things that effect the public space. Others justify regulating the second amendment because they feel it helps safety and the general welfare of our citizens.

The public space is just that...public...we all have a Right to it but it can't be all at the same time...so we have to have some minor rules to deal with it.

Guns are not like that, I can carry my gun all day long and as long as I don't use it to commit a crime, you are not effected by it......

And just like the First Amendment....you can't be touched until you use it to violate the Rights of someone else....you can write anything you want, but if you commit libel, then you broke the law...up to that point...as the anti-gunners keep saying, you weren't a criminal till you broke that law..

What they and you want is to prevent people from writing, speaking and saying anything because you are afraid they will break the law with their speech.....that is what you are doing to the 2nd Amendment.

Others justify regulating the second amendment because they feel it helps safety and the general welfare of our citizens

We have those regulations......it is against the law...already, to use any gun to commit a crime......it is against the law to use a gun to threaten someone unlawfully....it is against the law for any felon to buy, own or carry any gun, at anytime.....if you do any of these things you can already be arrested

Those above cover everything we need to regulate guns. Anything else is simply your phobia about guns.

The problem you don't want to see because you simply hate guns, and want them banned, is that the problem isn't that we don't have regulations on guns....I just showed you a few of the 20,000 local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to guns.....

Our problem is that democrat politicians, judges and prosecutors keep letting out violent gun criminals after they have been arrested over and over again with illegal guns.....of the 10,982 gun murders committed in 2017 for example.....using the most recent mass public shooting number for 2018.....93 were killed by mass shooters........of the rest, the majority of those shooters were criminals shooting other criminals, most often when they were already on parole for other gun offenses......and often the first time offenders are 15,16, year old gang members using guns for crime....

So we don't have a gun problem, we don't have a gun regulation problem, we have a democrats letting known, repeat, violent gun offenders out of jail on bond, where they then shoot people, and out of prison on reduced sentences...often bargaining away the gun charge as if it is just inconsequential...

Japan has kept their criminals from using guns by having a life sentence for anyone who uses a gun in an actual crime......this is how you stop gun crime....not by targeting people who don't use their legal guns for crime...

But because you just want to attack guns.....you won't understand that actual criminals with guns are the issue....and if you make the actual punishment steep...like Japan does, then gun crime will go down, and you don't have to do anything else......

Now that I have explained the actual problem and the actual solution...you can proceed to ignore the actual problem, the actual solution and just tell us we need to ban guns...

http://www.atimes.com/article/japans-gun-control-laws-strict-yakuza-turn-toy-pistols/



Ryo Fujiwara, long-time writer on yakuza affairs and author of the book, The Three Yamaguchi-Gumi, says that the punishment for using a gun in a gang war or in a crime is now so heavy that most yakuza avoid their use at all – unless it is for an assassination.

“In a hit, whoever fires the gun, or is made to take responsibility for firing the gun, has to pretty much be willing to go to jail for the rest of their life. That’s a big decision. The repercussions are big, too. No one wants to claim responsibility for such acts – the gang office might actually get shut-down.”

The gang typically also has to support the family of the hit-man while he is in prison, which is also a financial burden for the organization.

Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Laws make it a crime to illegally possess a gun, with a punishment of jail time of up to 10 years.

Illegal possession more than one gun, the penalty goes up to 15 years in prison. If you own a gun and matching ammunition, that’s another charge and a heavier penalty. The most severe penalty is for the act of discharging a gun in a train, on a bus, or most public spaces, which can result in a life sentence.

---

A low-ranking member of the Kobe-Yamaguchi-gumi put it this way: “All of the smart guys got rid of their guns a long-time ago. The penalties are way too high. You get life in prison if you just fire a gun. That’s not fun.”

 

[2aguy]

Auto Ban.....what do you mean by this? If you mean full automatic, no.

Carry permits....no, they are unConstitutional.....a fee or test to exercise a Right is UnConstitutional....

No guns allowed to be carried by law abiding citizens with lawful business in schools....no.

Gun free school zones are targeted by some mass public shooters. We know from actual mass public shooters either captured or from their notes that they target gun free zones. If a parent is legally allowed to carry a gun, they should be able to take it with them into the school. As long as they don't draw the weapon without cause, what is the problem? If they take the weapon out they can already be arrested for disturbing the police.

We already have every law we need to deal with gun criminals...the problem is that once we catch them, democrats like you keep letting them out of jail and prison. There were 12 mass public shootings in 2018. 93 people, total, killed in those shootings.

The vast majority of gun murder, the other 10,899 are criminals who are already banned from buying, owning and carrying a gun...we can already arrest them with all the laws we already have.........again, it is people like you letting them out of prison that causes the gun crime and gun murder...

you are the problem.

Why am I the problem? I’m just asking questions. And these laws we have in place wouldn’t exist if we did things your way, is that right? Everybody would be legally allowed to have a gun because that is their right. There would be now restrictions to purchase, we could go buy a machine gun with a slurpy at the local 7-11, is that right?

711 doesn't carry firearms for sale, and the libs can't force them to do it.

The real issue isn't the 2nd Amendment, but instead people's God Given right to keep and bear arms. Nothing more basic than the right to defend yourself. Not who should or shouldn't carry firearms for sale.

Right now, there is a good system. Legitimate stores show discretion and sell weapons to responsible people. Do you have a problem with this system we have now?

Or would you prefer to force citizens into the backroom of cocktail lounges for cash sales of firearms and zero discretion or background checking?

No I don’t have a problem with the current system. I’d like to see some improvements made to the background check database and wouldn’t mind a registration system to help with criminal investigations. But I think we are doing a fine job. I definitely don’t think regulations are unconstitutional and should be done away with. That is so silly in my opinion

Do you understand that criminals, by Supreme Court ruling, do not have to register their illegal guns...because it violates their 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination? So the very people you want to target, do not have to comply with your proposal......

only normal people would suffer the consequences of not registering their guns....do you see how stupid that is?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

I don’t think registration directly targets criminals. But I think if joe citizen gets a gun and then 5 years later gets arrested for beating his wife or raping his niece it would be nice to know that he’s got a gun in the safe and probably a good idea to take it away. Dontchyathink?

The police will already do that without registering the gun.....the wife he beat, the daughter he raped can tell them he has guns....we can get this done without any new laws..........in fact, in states that require that people arrested give up their guns.....they get other guns and use them to murder that wife and daughter.....

As I showed in the post on Canada...registration doesn't do anything, costs a fortune in time, money and manpower and doesn't help to solve crimes....

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.



----------

3/24/18



Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.




3/24/18



https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

 

[Slade3200]

Why am I the problem? I’m just asking questions. And these laws we have in place wouldn’t exist if we did things your way, is that right? Everybody would be legally allowed to have a gun because that is their right. There would be now restrictions to purchase, we could go buy a machine gun with a slurpy at the local 7-11, is that right?

711 doesn't carry firearms for sale, and the libs can't force them to do it.

The real issue isn't the 2nd Amendment, but instead people's God Given right to keep and bear arms. Nothing more basic than the right to defend yourself. Not who should or shouldn't carry firearms for sale.

Right now, there is a good system. Legitimate stores show discretion and sell weapons to responsible people. Do you have a problem with this system we have now?

Or would you prefer to force citizens into the backroom of cocktail lounges for cash sales of firearms and zero discretion or background checking?

No I don’t have a problem with the current system. I’d like to see some improvements made to the background check database and wouldn’t mind a registration system to help with criminal investigations. But I think we are doing a fine job. I definitely don’t think regulations are unconstitutional and should be done away with. That is so silly in my opinion

Do you understand that criminals, by Supreme Court ruling, do not have to register their illegal guns...because it violates their 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination? So the very people you want to target, do not have to comply with your proposal......

only normal people would suffer the consequences of not registering their guns....do you see how stupid that is?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

I don’t think registration directly targets criminals. But I think if joe citizen gets a gun and then 5 years later gets arrested for beating his wife or raping his niece it would be nice to know that he’s got a gun in the safe and probably a good idea to take it away. Dontchyathink?

You want to take my gun away without a court intervening?
Just because I beat my wife doesn't mean I want to shoot her.

I didn’t say “without a court intervening” don’t put words in my mouth

 

[2aguy]

Auto Ban.....what do you mean by this? If you mean full automatic, no.

Carry permits....no, they are unConstitutional.....a fee or test to exercise a Right is UnConstitutional....

No guns allowed to be carried by law abiding citizens with lawful business in schools....no.

Gun free school zones are targeted by some mass public shooters. We know from actual mass public shooters either captured or from their notes that they target gun free zones. If a parent is legally allowed to carry a gun, they should be able to take it with them into the school. As long as they don't draw the weapon without cause, what is the problem? If they take the weapon out they can already be arrested for disturbing the police.

We already have every law we need to deal with gun criminals...the problem is that once we catch them, democrats like you keep letting them out of jail and prison. There were 12 mass public shootings in 2018. 93 people, total, killed in those shootings.

The vast majority of gun murder, the other 10,899 are criminals who are already banned from buying, owning and carrying a gun...we can already arrest them with all the laws we already have.........again, it is people like you letting them out of prison that causes the gun crime and gun murder...

you are the problem.

Why am I the problem? I’m just asking questions. And these laws we have in place wouldn’t exist if we did things your way, is that right? Everybody would be legally allowed to have a gun because that is their right. There would be now restrictions to purchase, we could go buy a machine gun with a slurpy at the local 7-11, is that right?

711 doesn't carry firearms for sale, and the libs can't force them to do it.

The real issue isn't the 2nd Amendment, but instead people's God Given right to keep and bear arms. Nothing more basic than the right to defend yourself. Not who should or shouldn't carry firearms for sale.

Right now, there is a good system. Legitimate stores show discretion and sell weapons to responsible people. Do you have a problem with this system we have now?

Or would you prefer to force citizens into the backroom of cocktail lounges for cash sales of firearms and zero discretion or background checking?

No I don’t have a problem with the current system. I’d like to see some improvements made to the background check database and wouldn’t mind a registration system to help with criminal investigations. But I think we are doing a fine job. I definitely don’t think regulations are unconstitutional and should be done away with. That is so silly in my opinion

Do you understand that criminals, by Supreme Court ruling, do not have to register their illegal guns...because it violates their 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination? So the very people you want to target, do not have to comply with your proposal......

only normal people would suffer the consequences of not registering their guns....do you see how stupid that is?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

I don’t think registration directly targets criminals. But I think if joe citizen gets a gun and then 5 years later gets arrested for beating his wife or raping his niece it would be nice to know that he’s got a gun in the safe and probably a good idea to take it away. Dontchyathink?

it would be nice to know that he’s got a gun in the safe and probably a good idea to take it away.

And this does nothing....we have had cases where they simply go out and get an illegal gun...and again, the majority of those killing their wives are not John Citizen angry over burnt dinner.....they are also individuals with long histories of crime and violence, drug and alcohol abuse, with lots of contact with the police......who know who these people are...

 

[bodecea]

Why am I the problem? I’m just asking questions. And these laws we have in place wouldn’t exist if we did things your way, is that right? Everybody would be legally allowed to have a gun because that is their right. There would be now restrictions to purchase, we could go buy a machine gun with a slurpy at the local 7-11, is that right?

711 doesn't carry firearms for sale, and the libs can't force them to do it.

The real issue isn't the 2nd Amendment, but instead people's God Given right to keep and bear arms. Nothing more basic than the right to defend yourself. Not who should or shouldn't carry firearms for sale.

Right now, there is a good system. Legitimate stores show discretion and sell weapons to responsible people. Do you have a problem with this system we have now?

Or would you prefer to force citizens into the backroom of cocktail lounges for cash sales of firearms and zero discretion or background checking?

No I don’t have a problem with the current system. I’d like to see some improvements made to the background check database and wouldn’t mind a registration system to help with criminal investigations. But I think we are doing a fine job. I definitely don’t think regulations are unconstitutional and should be done away with. That is so silly in my opinion

Do you understand that criminals, by Supreme Court ruling, do not have to register their illegal guns...because it violates their 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination? So the very people you want to target, do not have to comply with your proposal......

only normal people would suffer the consequences of not registering their guns....do you see how stupid that is?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

I don’t think registration directly targets criminals. But I think if joe citizen gets a gun and then 5 years later gets arrested for beating his wife or raping his niece it would be nice to know that he’s got a gun in the safe and probably a good idea to take it away. Dontchyathink?

You want to take my gun away without a court intervening?
Just because I beat my wife doesn't mean I want to shoot her.

Interesting confession.

 

[2aguy]

711 doesn't carry firearms for sale, and the libs can't force them to do it.

The real issue isn't the 2nd Amendment, but instead people's God Given right to keep and bear arms. Nothing more basic than the right to defend yourself. Not who should or shouldn't carry firearms for sale.

Right now, there is a good system. Legitimate stores show discretion and sell weapons to responsible people. Do you have a problem with this system we have now?

Or would you prefer to force citizens into the backroom of cocktail lounges for cash sales of firearms and zero discretion or background checking?

No I don’t have a problem with the current system. I’d like to see some improvements made to the background check database and wouldn’t mind a registration system to help with criminal investigations. But I think we are doing a fine job. I definitely don’t think regulations are unconstitutional and should be done away with. That is so silly in my opinion

Do you understand that criminals, by Supreme Court ruling, do not have to register their illegal guns...because it violates their 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination? So the very people you want to target, do not have to comply with your proposal......

only normal people would suffer the consequences of not registering their guns....do you see how stupid that is?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

I don’t think registration directly targets criminals. But I think if joe citizen gets a gun and then 5 years later gets arrested for beating his wife or raping his niece it would be nice to know that he’s got a gun in the safe and probably a good idea to take it away. Dontchyathink?

You want to take my gun away without a court intervening?
Just because I beat my wife doesn't mean I want to shoot her.

I didn’t say “without a court intervening” don’t put words in my mouth

I am curious....let's say someone gets their guns taken away.....an allegation from a wife, for example.....and then that guy proves he didn't do anything wrong, the wife lied.

Who do you think should pay his lawyers fees and court costs and for the storage and return of his guns? If he didn't do anything wrong, then the public should reimburse him for lost time from work for court, consulting with lawyers, the lawyers fees, court costs....Right?

 

[Slade3200]

Ok thanks for explaining that but you didn’t answer any of my questions

Only in a court of law can anyone's rights be removed.
If a person is adjudicated guilty of a felony, their right to possess a weapon and to vote, removed.
Same if they are adjudicated mentally incompetent.

That’s interesting... would you apply the same standard to the first amendment and remove all censorship regulations? Allow Max Strength Penis Enlargement LLC to toss up a billboard next to the local elementary school with their world famous Mandingo modeling his 13 inch python?

You fail to understand.....those regulations effect the public space .... carrying a gun effects no one unless you actually break the law.

The question is whether the government should be able to place regulations on our rights. You justify regulations on the first amendment for things that effect the public space. Others justify regulating the second amendment because they feel it helps safety and the general welfare of our citizens.

The public space is just that...public...we all have a Right to it but it can't be all at the same time...so we have to have some minor rules to deal with it.

Guns are not like that, I can carry my gun all day long and as long as I don't use it to commit a crime, you are not effected by it......

And just like the First Amendment....you can't be touched until you use it to violate the Rights of someone else....you can write anything you want, but if you commit libel, then you broke the law...up to that point...as the anti-gunners keep saying, you weren't a criminal till you broke that law..

What they and you want is to prevent people from writing, speaking and saying anything because you are afraid they will break the law with their speech.....that is what you are doing to the 2nd Amendment.

Others justify regulating the second amendment because they feel it helps safety and the general welfare of our citizens

We have those regulations......it is against the law...already, to use any gun to commit a crime......it is against the law to use a gun to threaten someone unlawfully....it is against the law for any felon to buy, own or carry any gun, at anytime.....if you do any of these things you can already be arrested

Those above cover everything we need to regulate guns. Anything else is simply your phobia about guns.

The problem you don't want to see because you simply hate guns, and want them banned, is that the problem isn't that we don't have regulations on guns....I just showed you a few of the 20,000 local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to guns.....

Our problem is that democrat politicians, judges and prosecutors keep letting out violent gun criminals after they have been arrested over and over again with illegal guns.....of the 10,982 gun murders committed in 2017 for example.....using the most recent mass public shooting number for 2018.....93 were killed by mass shooters........of the rest, the majority of those shooters were criminals shooting other criminals, most often when they were already on parole for other gun offenses......and often the first time offenders are 15,16, year old gang members using guns for crime....

So we don't have a gun problem, we don't have a gun regulation problem, we have a democrats letting known, repeat, violent gun offenders out of jail on bond, where they then shoot people, and out of prison on reduced sentences...often bargaining away the gun charge as if it is just inconsequential...

Japan has kept their criminals from using guns by having a life sentence for anyone who uses a gun in an actual crime......this is how you stop gun crime....not by targeting people who don't use their legal guns for crime...

But because you just want to attack guns.....you won't understand that actual criminals with guns are the issue....and if you make the actual punishment steep...like Japan does, then gun crime will go down, and you don't have to do anything else......

Now that I have explained the actual problem and the actual solution...you can proceed to ignore the actual problem, the actual solution and just tell us we need to ban guns...

http://www.atimes.com/article/japans-gun-control-laws-strict-yakuza-turn-toy-pistols/



Ryo Fujiwara, long-time writer on yakuza affairs and author of the book, The Three Yamaguchi-Gumi, says that the punishment for using a gun in a gang war or in a crime is now so heavy that most yakuza avoid their use at all – unless it is for an assassination.

“In a hit, whoever fires the gun, or is made to take responsibility for firing the gun, has to pretty much be willing to go to jail for the rest of their life. That’s a big decision. The repercussions are big, too. No one wants to claim responsibility for such acts – the gang office might actually get shut-down.”

The gang typically also has to support the family of the hit-man while he is in prison, which is also a financial burden for the organization.

Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Laws make it a crime to illegally possess a gun, with a punishment of jail time of up to 10 years.

Illegal possession more than one gun, the penalty goes up to 15 years in prison. If you own a gun and matching ammunition, that’s another charge and a heavier penalty. The most severe penalty is for the act of discharging a gun in a train, on a bus, or most public spaces, which can result in a life sentence.

---

A low-ranking member of the Kobe-Yamaguchi-gumi put it this way: “All of the smart guys got rid of their guns a long-time ago. The penalties are way too high. You get life in prison if you just fire a gun. That’s not fun.”

I had to stop after I got to this part...

“The problem you don't want to see because you simply hate guns, and want them banned, is that the problem isn't that we don't have regulations on guns....I just showed you a few of the 20,000 local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to guns.....”

I own 11 guns and don’t want them banned. Know who you are talking to before you make false presumptions.

You point out all the regulations and say they are enough but then you say regulating guns is unconstitutional? Well which is it? Do you support the regulations we have in place on guns. Do some of the regulations make sense to you and do you see them as constitutionally legal?