Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[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?

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.

You’re talking about long guns, mainly hunting riffles. Canada still has registration rules for restricted and prohibited firearms.

 

[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?

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...

I’m sure some do go out and get black market guns. Are you saying that happens in every case?

Fact is many people agree that only responsible citizens should own firearms. Mentally disturbed and violent people should not as they post a greater risk. When people are found to be a risk then it should be known so that we don’t sell them guns and we can confiscate the guns they might already have. That’s the responsible thing to do. Now could these people still get guns on the black market and commit crimes, yes of course and this will happen in some cases. It won’t happen in other cases and lives will be saved. Agree with it or not, you do understand the argument don’t you?

 

[2aguy]

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?

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

The wife should pay if she lied.

 

[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?

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.

You’re talking about long guns, mainly hunting riffles. Canada still has registration rules for restricted and prohibited firearms.

And it hasn't helped......gun crime is increasing in Canada.

Again.....if you care about gun crime....increase the sentence for gun crime...leave normal gun owners alone...

 

[2aguy]

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?

The wife should pay if she lied.

and if she can't?

 

[Slade3200]

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?

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

 

[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?

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...

I’m sure some do go out and get black market guns. Are you saying that happens in every case?

Fact is many people agree that only responsible citizens should own firearms. Mentally disturbed and violent people should not as they post a greater risk. When people are found to be a risk then it should be known so that we don’t sell them guns and we can confiscate the guns they might already have. That’s the responsible thing to do. Now could these people still get guns on the black market and commit crimes, yes of course and this will happen in some cases. It won’t happen in other cases and lives will be saved. Agree with it or not, you do understand the argument don’t you?

We have a background check system already.......criminals are in the system...when the government puts them in it...as are dangerously mentally ill....we already have that....

There were 10,982 gun murders in 2017.......the majority of criminals who used guns got them through friends and family or stole the guns...which means the Background check system didn't stop them...

And yet....when they are caught, they can already be arrested and put in prison....the problem is that democrat judges, prosecutors and politicians keep reducing gun sentences and letting them out on bail...

 

[2aguy]

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?

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

 

[Defiant1]

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?

The wife should pay if she lied.

That's why you never tell anyone, including your wife how many and what weapons you have.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Three years ago. And that one truck killed more than all of the mass shootings we have had since Las Vegas. NEXT!

Trucks have a purpose. An assault type rifle doesn't.

good thing a purpose is not necessary for a right.

You don't have a right to own an AR-15. The USSC said so.

Do the words in common use mean anything to you?

Don't run around claiming the Second Amendment means no regulation.

U.S.v Miller 1939
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

Shall Not be infringed

Hitler heavily regulated guns how did that work out for the Jew?

Do you trust a trump administration while you want to disarm people from the best weapon to fight against his so called tyranny?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But we cannot deny people any of their rights because they MIGHT commit a crime.

True, you can make it so handguns and military style semi automatic rifles are not a right. Just like other weapons which citizens have no right to. After all, RPGs are commonly carried by the military and would be damned useful to a militia.

Any other wishes you want to share?

Everyone knows how to change the Constitution and if there was any chance in hell of repealing the Second Amendment it would have already been tried.

The Second will never be repealed in our lifetime. But in the meantime we should enforce the laws we already have because when they are enforced they work.

There is absolutely no reason to deny law abiding people the right to own firearms

I think the problem is that people think the ight to own firearms means any firearm of any style.

If you had a single shot .22 rifle, you would bear arms.

What is your qualitative experience on the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?
What if you have multiple attackers armed with semiautomatics?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

 

[Slade3200]

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.

You’re talking about long guns, mainly hunting riffles. Canada still has registration rules for restricted and prohibited firearms.

And it hasn't helped......gun crime is increasing in Canada.

Again.....if you care about gun crime....increase the sentence for gun crime...leave normal gun owners alone...

Why has gun crime been increasing?

 

[Slade3200]

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?

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

 

[2aguy]

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.

You’re talking about long guns, mainly hunting riffles. Canada still has registration rules for restricted and prohibited firearms.

And it hasn't helped......gun crime is increasing in Canada.

Again.....if you care about gun crime....increase the sentence for gun crime...leave normal gun owners alone...

Why has gun crime been increasing?

Because they likely have brought in immigrants from 3rd world countries who are now beginning to run their drug gangs.....they have a culture of violence from war torn countries that the native Canadians did not have. Much like in Britain and Australia where you have immigrants running their drug gangs too...In Britain, you have violent gangs from Albania and other former soviet bloc countries, and they are more violent than the native British criminals.....and then for Canada you have the Mexican drug cartels setting up shop in the country too...

It isn't about guns it is about the culture of the criminal class in a country.

100s of drug cartel members have entered Canada since Liberals waived Mexican visa: Report

Hundreds of criminals connected to the illegal drug trade are freely plying their trades as importers, go-betweens and hitmen in Canada — according to Quebec news outlet TVA Nouvelles — largely because Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government dropped the visa requirement for Mexican travelers.

TVA investigative journalist Felix Seguin spoke to several in-the-know sources who revealed there are 400 criminals who have recently entered Canada to traffic drugs — half of them living in Quebec while the other half are presumed to be mainly operating in the Toronto area.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

You’re talking about long guns, mainly hunting riffles. Canada still has registration rules for restricted and prohibited firearms.

And it hasn't helped......gun crime is increasing in Canada.

Again.....if you care about gun crime....increase the sentence for gun crime...leave normal gun owners alone...

Why has gun crime been increasing?

Because they likely have brought in immigrants from 3rd world countries who are now beginning to run their drug gangs.....they have a culture of violence from war torn countries that the native Canadians did not have. Much like in Britain and Australia where you have immigrants running their drug gangs too...In Britain, you have violent gangs from Albania and other former soviet bloc countries, and they are more violent than the native British criminals.....and then for Canada you have the Mexican drug cartels setting up shop in the country too...

It isn't about guns it is about the culture of the criminal class in a country.

100s of drug cartel members have entered Canada since Liberals waived Mexican visa: Report

Hundreds of criminals connected to the illegal drug trade are freely plying their trades as importers, go-betweens and hitmen in Canada — according to Quebec news outlet TVA Nouvelles — largely because Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government dropped the visa requirement for Mexican travelers.

TVA investigative journalist Felix Seguin spoke to several in-the-know sources who revealed there are 400 criminals who have recently entered Canada to traffic drugs — half of them living in Quebec while the other half are presumed to be mainly operating in the Toronto area.

There’s a good crime drama about Canadian monsters on Netflix called Bad Blood. Check it out... lots of gun violence

 

[Auld Phart]

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?

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

Why do you oppose universal?

useless.

Keeps honest people honest, keeps criminals laughing

Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

How would it be either?

Gangbangers don't worry about background checks

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

black ground checks only work when all party's participating are doing their job. a guy gets discharged from the airforce but Airforce does not give reason guy goes and buys an AR and shoots up a church his ex-wife family attends and then gets taken down with a good guy with an AR.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

We regulate criminals.....we don't regulate guns.....felons and criminals in prison have had their Rights removed through due process of law...

The regulations I support......I'll name some, if you have some list them and I will respond.

--if someone is adjudicated dangerously mentally ill by medical professionals and a court, we can take their guns, if they are proven to not be dangerously medically ill, the court reimburses the individual for all fees.

--criminals caught committing crimes with guns should not be allowed to have their gun crime bargained away...and it should carry a 30 year penalty for simply using the gun in an actual crime....rape, robbery, murder, on top of the sentence for the crime...this alone will dry up gun crime in this country, like it did in Japan....

I don't think guns should be registered....there should be no permits to carry a gun for self defense, since taxing a Right is unconstitutional....Murdock v Pennsylvania........ no training requirements....since that too would be like having a Literacy test for voting........

No magazine bans, no rifle or pistol bans......increase the penalty for using those in a crime is the way you handle that.....if you get 30 years for using a gun, another for using a magazine in a crime.....that would actually reduce gun violence.....anything else is just theater or a baby step in banning guns.

Thanks for sharing... how do you feel about background checks?

To show I am willing to compromise....

I can live with the current background check system, no universal background check.....and the system should simply be a pass/fail, with no permanent record kept....and we can already to this.....you simply submit your name, if it comes back as a criminal or on the nutcase list...fail.....no registration of every single gun owner to do that...we register actual criminals instead. We can already do it.....

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

Why do you oppose universal?

useless.

Keeps honest people honest, keeps criminals laughing

Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

How would it be either?

Gangbangers don't worry about background checks

I’m not talking about gang bangers