Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[Slade3200]

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

I’m not talking about gang bangers

oh....

you want universal checks, except for gangbangers?

When are you people going to get in into your little minds, universal isn't going to work?

Nothing is going to work to stop gun violence but a better background check system will help prevent some to get weapons which will result in some prevented gun violence. Some is better than none. Agreed?

but a better background check system

Support the one in place, first.

Someone lies on the Form 4473, call the cops, 30 days minimum.

Catch a straw buyer?

a year in jail, minimum.

Enforce current laws on the books before making new ones.

Are we not enforcing the laws on the books?

 

[Slade3200]

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

I’m not talking about gang bangers

oh....

you want universal checks, except for gangbangers?

When are you people going to get in into your little minds, universal isn't going to work?

Nothing is going to work to stop gun violence but a better background check system will help prevent some to get weapons which will result in some prevented gun violence. Some is better than none. Agreed?

You can't show that.......we have current federally mandated background checks and criminals get around it easily, mass shooters pass it easily.

What you want is the government to do its job, and that doesn't take anything new....just pressing enter on the keyboard to submit the names of felons into the system.

Of course I can’t show that, how does one show proof of a crime that didn’t happen because the “offender” didn’t have access to something? That’s not something that leaves a trail to show. You use common sense and logic. If somebody has a mental break and wants to cause harm and they have have a gun on their hip, they are going to cause much more damage than if they only have their fists or their words.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Center for Disease Control has been effectively prohibited from conducting any meaningful research on guns in the country for decades.

Someone lied to you - the CDC has -all kinds- of information and research regarding gun violence.

Don't ignore the Dickey Amendment. Don't you dare.

the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[1]

Correct.
The CDC DOES, however, collect information and conducts research, on gun violence.
That is, Congress gives money to do what it is supposed to do, and does not give it money to do what it is not supposed to do.

As I said: Someone lied to you.

 

[Slade3200]

I wasn't trying to bait and switch here.

More guns = more gun-related death when comparing the numbers for each of the states. That's a fact. Can you address that fact or not?

Yes.....in some states there is more suicide.....Alaska for one, and that has nothing to do with guns.......guns are just the tool used..... if they didn't have guns, they would hang themselves...so guns are not relevant and suicide does not count to the gun murder number....the actual concern around guns and crime.

A few notes here:

The numbers I'm putting up also include accidental deaths.

I don't have the numbers for suicide methods in front of me, but that might be something I'll look at later.

This was strictly gun ownership vs gun deaths.

Notice...as more Americans own and carry guns....the accidental gun death number also went down....

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_causes_death.html

2017...486
2016 495
2015...489

2014.....461

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

Have there been more or less gun regulation laws from 1999 to 2017?

 

[OldLady]

You are oversimplifying and you know it. If the Second Amendment is going to be used as a roadblock toward effective regulation of guns in this country, then it needs to go.

Stop whining on USMB, get off your rump, and amend the Constitution.

If people were willing to accept restrictions on the types of guns and ammunition they could own...

Why on God's green earth would we let anti-gun loons define how we're "allowed" to exercise our rights?

You will lose, eventually. How much you lose is going to be dependent on the choices you make. I might not be around to see it, but it is inevitable that the mass gun slaughter in this country will stop.

There is not mass gun slaughter no matter what you say.....

Gun murder is down 49%...... gun accidents down too....nothing you believe about guns is true....

More Americans own guns, more people carry guns......less gun murder not more......

You have nothing but emotion...

600 million guns, 17.25 million carrying guns...

12 mass public shootings in 2018,

93 people killed.

How is that mass slaughter?

Cars killed 38,000

Can you tell which number is bigger?

I have an article based on recent, reliable polls, not emotion.
According to the 2017 Pew study, 30% of Americans own guns themselves (12 points lower than the 42% who live in households with guns). For Gallup, it was 29% (13 points lower than the 42% who live in households with guns). The GSS pegs it even lower -- only 21% of Americans said they personally own guns (11 points lower than the 32% who live in households with guns).

There's a gun for every American. Less than 1/3 own guns. - CNNPolitics

 

[Auld Phart]

useless.

Keeps honest people honest, keeps criminals laughing

How would it be either?

Gangbangers don't worry about background checks

I’m not talking about gang bangers

I’m not talking about gang bangers

oh....

you want universal checks, except for gangbangers?

When are you people going to get in into your little minds, universal isn't going to work?

Nothing is going to work to stop gun violence but a better background check system will help prevent some to get weapons which will result in some prevented gun violence. Some is better than none. Agreed?

but a better background check system

Support the one in place, first.

Someone lies on the Form 4473, call the cops, 30 days minimum.

Catch a straw buyer?

a year in jail, minimum.

Enforce current laws on the books before making new ones.

Are we not enforcing the laws on the books?

I'm sure 2aguy has the stats

 

[Slade3200]

Appreciated. I know you like to talk about this stuff so I'm sure you have plenty of good resources ready to go.

So far you seem like a normal person......if you want to discuss the issue I am more than happy too.......the sharp edge to my posts comes from years of debating the issue with people who simply want guns banned no matter what the facts may say...or the concept that normal people should not be disarmed because a tiny number of people use them for crime.

Oh I'm definitely on the other side of you regarding the gun issue.

I just think the truth can be found in the numbers, and the numbers can also be manipulated and misinterpreted.

For example, I think your 26 year argument doesn't work for reasons I've described. Obviously we'll disagree on that though.

Yes....we will...hard to get around a 49% decrease in gun murder, 75% decrease in gun crime and a 72% drop in violent crime as more Americans own and carry guns...


Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

What would you say if I argued that we've had a 49% decrease in gun murder, 75% decrease
in gun crime and a 72% drop in violent crime ever since the original Lion King movie came out?

That shows that Lion King has had a great impact on murder rates in this country, right?

That would be silly....

The argument from anti gunners is this...

More Guns = More Gun Crime

That is their argument, likely yours too......

26 years...more Americans buy, own and carry guns.....millions and millions of guns....and more and more Americans actually carry those guns into public spaces....now over 17.25 million people..

We had 26 years of More Guns....

What happened during that time...

Gun murder went down 49%
Gun crime went down 75%

the theory, again.... More Guns = More Gun Crime...

The result.... the exact opposite....

So that theory is wrong......if it was right...gun crimes would have gone up, not down with the introduction of more guns into society....

How about “More guns in the hands of dangerous people = more crime”... would you agree with that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have an article based on recent, reliable polls, not emotion..

Reliable, if you believe the average gun owner will tell a stranger on the other end of an unsolicited phone call that they have a gun.
As I am sure you know, gun owners are paranoid and distrusting - that's why they have guns.
Right?

 

[OldLady]

The Center for Disease Control has been effectively prohibited from conducting any meaningful research on guns in the country for decades.

Someone lied to you - the CDC has -all kinds- of information and research regarding gun violence.

Don't ignore the Dickey Amendment. Don't you dare.

the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[1]

Correct.
The CDC DOES, however, collect information and conducts research, on gun violence.
That is, Congress gives money to do what it is supposed to do, and does not give it money to do what it is not supposed to do.

As I said: Someone lied to you.

The CDC doesn't just "collect" information on ebola. They look at ways to stop it from spreading. Public health and safety is their mission. The Dickey Amendment should NEVER have been passed. It is not up to Congress to tell the CDC what the outcome of their research and their recommendations will be. Talk about messed up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Center for Disease Control has been effectively prohibited from conducting any meaningful research on guns in the country for decades.

Someone lied to you - the CDC has -all kinds- of information and research regarding gun violence.

Don't ignore the Dickey Amendment. Don't you dare.

the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[1]

Correct.
The CDC DOES, however, collect information and conducts research, on gun violence.
That is, Congress gives money to do what it is supposed to do, and does not give it money to do what it is not supposed to do.
As I said: Someone lied to you.

The CDC doesn't just "collect" information on ebola. They look at ways to stop it from spreading. Public health and safety is their mission.

The CDC says otherwise:
As the nation's health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.
Health Threats, per the CDC:
The biggest antibiotic-resistant threats in the U.S.
I don't see firearm violence here.
Probably because it isn't a disease.

The Dickey Amendment should NEVER have been passed. It is not up to Congress to tell the CDC what the outcome of their research and their recommendations will be

Congress CREATED the CDC; as such, congress has not just the the right, but the responsibility to tell the CDC what it can and can't do.

AND... here an example of the research the CDC does re: firearms:
Search Results | CDC

Someone lied to you, and you bought it.

 

[OldLady]

The Center for Disease Control has been effectively prohibited from conducting any meaningful research on guns in the country for decades.

Someone lied to you - the CDC has -all kinds- of information and research regarding gun violence.

Don't ignore the Dickey Amendment. Don't you dare.

the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[1]

Correct.
The CDC DOES, however, collect information and conducts research, on gun violence.
That is, Congress gives money to do what it is supposed to do, and does not give it money to do what it is not supposed to do.
As I said: Someone lied to you.

The CDC doesn't just "collect" information on ebola. They look at ways to stop it from spreading. Public health and safety is their mission.

The CDC says otherwise:
As the nation's health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.
Health Threats, per the CDC:
The biggest antibiotic-resistant threats in the U.S.
I don't see firearm violence here.
Probably because it isn't a disease.

The Dickey Amendment should NEVER have been passed. It is not up to Congress to tell the CDC what the outcome of their research and their recommendations will be

Congress CREATED the CDC; as such, congress has not just the the right, but the responsibility to tell the CDC what it can and can't do.

AND... here an example of the research the CDC does re: firearms:
Search Results | CDC

Someone lied to you, and you bought it.

No one has a valid reason to tell an organization poised to do research what its findings can be.
I didn't buy anything--you are ignoring a blatant piece of bullshit passed by the NRA.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one has a valid reason to tell an organization poised to do research what its findings can be.

No one has.

I didn't buy anything--you are ignoring a blatant piece of bullshit passed by the NRA.

I'm sorry the truth isn't what you want it to be.
Perhaps if you thought for yourself a little more often you'd not have this problem.

 

[OldLady]

No one has a valid reason to tell an organization poised to do research what its findings can be.

No one has.

I didn't buy anything--you are ignoring a blatant piece of bullshit passed by the NRA.

I'm sorry the truth isn't what you want it to be.
Perhaps if you thought for yourself a little more often you'd not have this problem.

I'm right. You're wrong. And the Dickey Amendment is atrocious and should have been repealed years ago.

 

[XponentialChaos]

2aguy

I ran the numbers for a few more measurements and I think the results are interesting. I'll post some of them.

Gun ownership rate vs Gun Death Rate (Includes suicide, self-defense, and accidents) This is the one I referred to before.

Correlation = 0.698. This is a moderate to strong positive correlation. In general, more gun owners means more people die from guns.

Gun ownership rate vs Accidental Death Rate (Doesn't include car accidents)

Correlation = 0.138. This is a weak positive correlation. It's slightly upward. I'm curious what this would look like if it specifically looked at accidental gun-related deaths. Interestingly, this is more positive than the slightly negative correlation comparing gun ownership rates vs murder rates. (-0.095)

Gun ownership rate vs Suicide Rate (includes various forms of suicide)

Correlation = 0.553. This is moderate positive correlation. In general, more gun owners means more people commit suicide.

This could be because people who want to kill themselves will go out and buy a gun to do so. Or it could be because people who already have a gun in the house, and have a bad day, are more likely to finish themselves off. I suspect it's a bit of both, though it's probably not possible to tell for sure.

Gun ownership rate vs Violent Crime Rate

Correlation = 0.111. This is another weak positive correlation. It's only slightly upward. Isn't gun ownership supposed to prevent these kinds of incidents? That doesn't appear to be the case.


These are a few negative statistics showing that more guns owners are correlated with more gun deaths. The positive impact of preventing murder is highly over-romanticized in my opinion as it's the only negative correlation and it's the weakest of all the numbers I've calculated. Even violent crime, which gun ownership is also intended to prevent, is going in the wrong direction. Granted it's only a slight positive correlation, but its still positive.

 

[Leo123]

2aguy

I ran the numbers for a few more measurements and I think the results are interesting. I'll post some of them.

Gun ownership rate vs Gun Death Rate (Includes suicide, self-defense, and accidents) This is the one I referred to before.

Correlation = 0.698. This is a moderate to strong positive correlation. In general, more gun owners means more people die from guns.

Gun ownership rate vs Accidental Death Rate (Doesn't include car accidents)

Correlation = 0.138. This is a weak positive correlation. It's slightly upward. I'm curious what this would look like if it specifically looked at accidental gun-related deaths. Interestingly, this is more positive than the slightly negative correlation comparing gun ownership rates vs murder rates. (-0.095)

Gun ownership rate vs Suicide Rate (includes various forms of suicide)

Correlation = 0.553. This is moderate positive correlation. In general, more gun owners means more people commit suicide.

This could be because people who want to kill themselves will go out and buy a gun to do so. Or it could be because people who already have a gun in the house, and have a bad day, are more likely to finish themselves off. I suspect it's a bit of both, though it's probably not possible to tell for sure.

Gun ownership rate vs Violent Crime Rate

Correlation = 0.111. This is another weak positive correlation. It's only slightly upward. Isn't gun ownership supposed to prevent these kinds of incidents? That doesn't appear to be the case.


These are a few negative statistics showing that more guns owners are correlated with more gun deaths. The positive impact of preventing murder is highly over-romanticized in my opinion as it's the only negative correlation and it's the weakest of all the numbers I've calculated. Even violent crime, which gun ownership is also intended to prevent, is going in the wrong direction. Granted it's only a slight positive correlation, but its still positive.

What are you doing? Dividing Gun Death Rate by number of guns? How do you determine "Gun Ownership Rate?" What is your population of data? It's hard to understand the results without explaining your data collection and statistical calculations.

 

[XponentialChaos]

2aguy

I ran the numbers for a few more measurements and I think the results are interesting. I'll post some of them.

Gun ownership rate vs Gun Death Rate (Includes suicide, self-defense, and accidents) This is the one I referred to before.

Correlation = 0.698. This is a moderate to strong positive correlation. In general, more gun owners means more people die from guns.

Gun ownership rate vs Accidental Death Rate (Doesn't include car accidents)

Correlation = 0.138. This is a weak positive correlation. It's slightly upward. I'm curious what this would look like if it specifically looked at accidental gun-related deaths. Interestingly, this is more positive than the slightly negative correlation comparing gun ownership rates vs murder rates. (-0.095)

Gun ownership rate vs Suicide Rate (includes various forms of suicide)

Correlation = 0.553. This is moderate positive correlation. In general, more gun owners means more people commit suicide.

This could be because people who want to kill themselves will go out and buy a gun to do so. Or it could be because people who already have a gun in the house, and have a bad day, are more likely to finish themselves off. I suspect it's a bit of both, though it's probably not possible to tell for sure.

Gun ownership rate vs Violent Crime Rate

Correlation = 0.111. This is another weak positive correlation. It's only slightly upward. Isn't gun ownership supposed to prevent these kinds of incidents? That doesn't appear to be the case.


These are a few negative statistics showing that more guns owners are correlated with more gun deaths. The positive impact of preventing murder is highly over-romanticized in my opinion as it's the only negative correlation and it's the weakest of all the numbers I've calculated. Even violent crime, which gun ownership is also intended to prevent, is going in the wrong direction. Granted it's only a slight positive correlation, but its still positive.

What are you doing? Dividing Gun Death Rate by number of guns? How do you determine "Gun Ownership Rate?" What is your population of data? It's hard to understand the results without explaining your data collection and statistical calculations.

Sorry, I was talking to him and I had already shown him the links I was using.

Here's where the gun ownership rate is coming from: Gun ownership by state
Gun death rate is just the number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. Here is the firearm death rate: Firearm death rates in the United States by state - Wikipedia

I'm simply calculating the Pearson's correlation coefficient by state, comparing a few different measures to see how closely correlated they are.

Let me know if you need any other links so you can follow along.

 

[2aguy]

Yes....we will...hard to get around a 49% decrease in gun murder, 75% decrease in gun crime and a 72% drop in violent crime as more Americans own and carry guns...


Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

What would you say if I argued that we've had a 49% decrease in gun murder, 75% decrease
in gun crime and a 72% drop in violent crime ever since the original Lion King movie came out?

That shows that Lion King has had a great impact on murder rates in this country, right?

That would be silly....

The argument from anti gunners is this...

More Guns = More Gun Crime

That is their argument, likely yours too......

26 years...more Americans buy, own and carry guns.....millions and millions of guns....and more and more Americans actually carry those guns into public spaces....now over 17.25 million people..

We had 26 years of More Guns....

What happened during that time...

Gun murder went down 49%
Gun crime went down 75%

the theory, again.... More Guns = More Gun Crime...

The result.... the exact opposite....

So that theory is wrong......if it was right...gun crimes would have gone up, not down with the introduction of more guns into society....

It's silly because Lion King had nothing to do with those murder rates. But it's still a true statement - those murder rates significantly decreased ever since the movie Lion King came out. This is what I mean by correlation does not necessarily imply a causation. You can find some numbers that fit your argument, and you can ignore the possibility that they may have had nothing to do with each other.

I think there are numerous reasons why murder has decreased over time - and I think it's mostly tied to the societal norms in this country, not on whether people own guns or not. Of course, I know we disagree on this point. I'm just trying to explain my reasoning for the disagreement.

Also, I didn't say anything about gun crime.

Sorry, that doesn't hold water.....

Again, the argument is that adding guns to a society will automatically increase gun murder and gun crime.....

That did not happen.

Yes...I also agree that many things contributed to the decrease in crime..... more police, better police techniques....

But that isn't their argument.....their argument is

More Guns = More Gun Crime..... and that didn't happen over the last 26 years....no matter how you try it, it doesn't work.

The reason we have more murder and crime in general is due to societal factors, not gun ownership by normal people....

Singel teenage mothers raising children from multiple males without a father is the biggest factor.....and Europe is beggining to feel the effect of this...as their knife murder rates show......and now illegal guns are flooding that country....so gun crime will be escalating in the not to far future.

I know the argument doesn't hold water. That's the point. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. And we're already agreeing with the external forces that may have significantly decreased crime, including amount of police and their techniques. We're both agreeing that something other than guns helped reduce the gun crime, which is why your 26 year argument, while true, is misleading. Just as it would be misleading for me to say that gun crime has decreased by 49% ever since the movie Lion King came out.

Once again, I didn't say that more guns = more gun crime. I can look into it later, but I'm not making that argument.

No, it isn't misleading and I always point out that for this part of the argument I am not saying that guns reduced crime.......that is for the other part...for this part I am taking on the idea that the Theory of Anti-gunners.....that More Guns = More Gun crime is valid....showing that that isn't true....

If you go back through my posts on this thread I do not make the argument that guns reduced crime.....notice I state more police and better police technique......

Later we can talk about gun ownership reducing crime, in particular the research that actually shows that concealed carry helps reduce crime, in particular interpersonal crime.

And no....the Lion King argument is not the same.......

 

[2aguy]

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

Wow, that whole straw buyer process sounds pretty intense. Surely you wouldn’t assume that every criminal who wanted a gun would have the will and the resources to do all that. Right? Some, yes, I’m sure they would, but that process alone sounds like it would detour a good percentage of criminals from getting guns. Also, what about the mentally ill who you agree shouldn’t be carrying. Wouldn’t universal
Background checks and an improved system help identify more of those individuals?

Again...you register the individual who can't buy guns, not all gun owners, there is no need. And if the straw buyer process was so difficult, the criminals wouldn't use it as one of their main sources for illegal guns....friends and family are a major source for illegal guns....and again, the baby mommas and grandmothers buying the guns for their boyfriend and grandson criminals often do it under threats........

Mass shooters rarely use straw buyers because they can already pass current background checks, which means they can use regular gun stores. They have no criminal records...for example...the Pulse Night Club shooter passed a criminal background check for his job as a security guard....he passed a current, federally mandated background check for each gun he bought, he was under covert FBI surveillance for a year, he was given a complete FBI criminal investigation as well, and he was interviewed by the FBI 2 times.....he passed all of it even though someone reported him as a possible terrorist....then he went on to attack the night club.

Criminals use straw buyers or steal their guns.....bypassing both current Federal background checks, and if they wanted to buy a gun from a private individual, their straw buyer could buy the gun from those sources too...since they can pass background checks.

Besides...from actual research, criminals do not like to use unknown, private sellers......they are too afraid the sellers might be police.

Besides....it is already against the law to use a gun in a crime...if you do we can already arrest you. It is already against the law for a felon to buy, own or carry a gun.....if they are caught they can already be arrested.

We have all the laws we need to reduce gun crime...the problem isn't that we don't have enough laws, the problem is that judges give bail to repeat gun offenders, prosecutors plea bargain away the gun charge, and politicians reduce sentences for gun offenders because they think the criminal justice system is unfair..

That is where the gun violence problem comes from...not John and Jane citizen having a gun for self defense.

The focus on banning guns is a waste of time. The focus needs to be on keeping the known, repeat gun offenders in prison.

Japan keeps their criminals from using guns with a life sentence for any crime involving a gun....that is how you actually dry up gun crime. Here? You have felons, with repeat arrests for illegal gun possession getting personal recognizance bonds, walking out of the court room in a matter of days, going out and shooting people.....that is our problem...

Here are the reasons we have a gun problem in our big cities...if any of these criminals were refused bond for repeat gun violations, and then, when convicted were sentenced to 30 years to life for using a gun, even for armed robbery where they didn't fire the weapon.....criminals would stop using guns for crime. The gangs would start using gullible 15 year olds to commit their murders, but the majority of gun crime would dry up....

Look at the following stories...the facts and reality of lax enforcement.......if you kept these guys in jail, you wouldn't have gun violence....

Top cop laments violence as 66 shot, 5 fatally, over long Fourth of July weekend


Between last Wednesday and Friday, 42 people were charged with felony gun-related offenses, he said, but only 15 remain in custody.


That lack of accountability for gun offenders has damaged the Police Department’s relationship with the communities most beset by violence, Johnson said, making victims of crimes less likely to cooperate with officers.
-----
“It’s not about mass incarceration. It’s not about having quotas. But when somebody has a demonstrated track record of being a violent gun offender, that should say something to the judges who are making decisions about bail. They shouldn’t be out on the street,” Lightfoot said. “We can’t keep our communities safe if people just keep cycling through the system because what that says to them is, I can do whatever I want, I can carry whatever I want, I can shoot up a crowd and I’m going to be back on the street. How does that make sense? It doesn’t.”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/07/criminal_justice_reform_comes_home_to_roost.html
=======

CWB Chicago: You Be The Judge: We give you the case details. You try to guess their bail amount.

McKay was sentenced to four years for robbery in 2008; two years for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (firearm) in 2010; seven years for being a felon in possession of a weapon (firearm) in 2012; and three years for possession of fentanyl in 2016.
-----
For McKay, who has two gun convictions and a robbery conviction, Willis set bail at….$5,000. McKay will need to put down a 10% deposit of $500 to go free. Willis also ordered him to go on electronic monitoring if he is released.

Some details that Willis did not know:
• McKay’s 2008 robbery conviction involved an armed carjacking. Prosecutors reduced the charge to “ordinary” robbery as part of a plea deal.• In 2012, McKay’s second gun case also included allegations that he fired the weapon. Prosecutors dropped the weapon discharge count and seven other weapons charges in a plea deal.• The 2016 drug possession charge started as allegations of manufacture-delivery of fentanyl, but, again, prosecutors pleaded that down to possession.

========


Under DA Krasner, more gun-possession cases get court diversionary program

In June 2018, Maalik Jackson-Wallace was arrested on a Frankford street and charged with carrying a concealed gun without a license and a gram of marijuana. It was his first arrest.

The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office recommended the Frankford man for a court diversionary program called Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) that put him on two years’ probation. His record could have been expunged if he had successfully completed the program.

But Jackson-Wallace, 24, was arrested again on gun-possession charges in March in Bridesburg. He was released from jail after a judge granted a defense motion for unsecured bail. And on June 13, he was arrested a third time — charged with murder in a shooting two days earlier in Frankford that killed a 26-year-old man.

Jackson-Wallace’s case has been cited by some on social media as an example of how they say District Attorney Larry Krasner’s policies are too lenient and lead to gun violence.



In fact, statistics obtained from the DA’s Office show that in 2018, Krasner’s first year in office, 78 gun-possession cases were placed in the ARD program — compared with just 12 such diversions in gun-possession cases the previous year, 11 in 2016, 14 in 2015. and 10 in 2014.

============

Officials Address 'Vicious Cycle' Of I-Bond Violations After Violent Weekend

Many of the gun offenders arrested by Chicago police over the weekend walked out of jail on bond, without having to pay a dime.

As of Monday morning, 19 people had been arrested on gun-related charges. By Monday afternoon, 11 were back on the street, some with prior gun offenses.

“We know who a lot of these people are,” Chicago Police Supt. Eddie Johnson said. “And how do we know that? Because we keep arresting them over and over and over and over and over again. And it’s just a vicious cycle.”

In a tweet Sunday night, a Chicago police spokesperson criticized the practice of letting gun offenders out on Individual Recognizance Bonds or “I-Bonds.”
-----

The tweet said, in part, “Letting gun offenders out on I-Bonds shows there is absolutely no repercussion for carrying illegal guns In Chicago.”
-----
In a statement, an office representative said since the beginning of this year, 72% of gun related cases received monetary bail or no bond.
==================
http://www.cwbchicago.com/2019/05/man-connected-to-whitney-young-high.html

The man who is charged with driving the carjacked SUV of a Whitney Young High School teacher this week is on probation for possessing a handgun—a probation term that was cut in half just three weeks ago by a Cook County judge.

The CPD arrest report that documents the capture of Nicholas Williams on Tuesday says cops and federal agents found Williams “in possession” of a loaded 9-millimeter handgun with a defaced serial number. But, a source with knowledge of the case told CWBChicago tonight that the gun was “ditched” and weapons charges could not be approved.

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to an after-hours email seeking comment.

Court records show that in Aug. 2017 Williams was charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon for allegedly carrying a handgun in the front of his waistband during a traffic stop on the West Side. Police said in a report that the gun had been reported stolen one month earlier.

A grand jury returned a 12 felony count true bill against Williams. But the Cook County State’s Attorney dropped all charges on May 3, 2018.

Five months after that case was dropped, Williams was charged with a new set of eight weapons felonies for allegedly carrying a handgun in the front of his waistband while riding his bike on the West Side.

----

Last month, Judge Maria Kuriakos-Ciesil sentenced Williams to two year’s probation, 30 hours of community service and 175 days time served in the case.

His attorneys asked for a reduced sentence and, on April 29th, Kuriakos-Ciesil granted the motion by reducing Williams’ punishment to one year of TASC probation and 30 hours of community service.

-------------------------
14 year old shot two men, released without bond or home confinement...


Cook County, IL: 14-Year-Old Charged With Shooting Two, Freed Without Supervision - The Truth About Guns

Welcome to Cook County, Illinois, where crime often has no meaningful consequences. Between a State’s Attorney’s Office reluctant to file charges and judges who mollycoddles defendants, Chicagoland has become the modern Wild West.

Case in point: a 14-year-old who (reportedly) shot and tried to kill two in a nice uptown neighborhood was released by a judge Friday to his parent with no bond – not even electronic home monitoring.


The Cook County judge claims the police failed to bring this suspected would-be gang killer (pictured above, right) in front of a judge quickly enough. So the judge, in order to penalize the police, released the kid without conditions other than to report to court next week.

Of course, the judge is really only penalizing the community as the accused certainly missed his calling as a choir boy.

The police, on the other hand, said they had concerns about the young man’s safety. Police released images of the suspects to the media in an effort to identify them and the media published them.

The Chicago mainstream media refer to the accused as a “boy.” Even though this “boy”reportedly shot one man in the back, abdomen, buttocks and groin and the other in the head.
===========

16 year old shooter released on 10,000 bond.....Cuomo's Raise the age bill for family court let this shooter go free on bail...

Case Of 16-Year-Old Accused Of Shooting Up Bronx Street Prompts Criticism Of NY's Raise The Age Law
Bronx Supreme Court Justice John Collins made Garcia’s release contingent on either $10,000 bail or $25,000 bond, he made bail and he was freed.

As The New York Post explains, “The law already guarantees that he can’t be held in a jail that also houses adults — and if convicted, his sentencing judge would have to take his age into account.”
--------
On Monday, prosecutor Daniel Defilippi indicated he would try to stop the case from being transferred to Family Court. Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis, referring to the case as a “prime example” of the problems with the Raise the Age bill, said, “One of the things we brought up during debate was how this encourages gang recruitment. Gangs can recruit young people to do dirty work because they won’t be treated the same when caught.
------
Residents of the neighborhood acknowledged that the neighborhood has become a frightening place to live; one said, “We don’t go out. We don’t go to the park. I keep my kids in the house. We’re scared.” Another commented, “People don’t feel safe. People shooting in the street like that? No one is safe.” A third commented of the young girl, “She is lucky. Like an angel is watching over her because she was really close.”

I’m glad you like to add info to back up your statements but you really gotta work on being more concise. It will yield a much better conversation

You want to know why we have gun crime....I gave you all the information you need to understand that it isn't gun owners....it is the constant releasing of violent gun offenders back into the public......

Oh I think the issue is much more complicated than that with many of factors involved

I didn't say it was...but those posts show the leading cause of violent crime in these cities, while the "root" cause is fatherless homes......

 

[2aguy]

useless.

Keeps honest people honest, keeps criminals laughing

How would it be either?

Gangbangers don't worry about background checks

I’m not talking about gang bangers

I’m not talking about gang bangers

oh....

you want universal checks, except for gangbangers?

When are you people going to get in into your little minds, universal isn't going to work?

Nothing is going to work to stop gun violence but a better background check system will help prevent some to get weapons which will result in some prevented gun violence. Some is better than none. Agreed?

but a better background check system

Support the one in place, first.

Someone lies on the Form 4473, call the cops, 30 days minimum.

Catch a straw buyer?

a year in jail, minimum.

Enforce current laws on the books before making new ones.

Are we not enforcing the laws on the books?

As my links show you we are not enforcing these gun laws.....they are letting repeat gun offenders, with violent crimes with illegal guns out on I-Bonds, and out of prison on light sentences..often less than 3 years for violent crimes with guns.....

Look at the news in these shootings in cities, and then look up the history of the shooters they capture...long histories of crime and violence and likely previous gun convictions...

 

[2aguy]

useless.

Keeps honest people honest, keeps criminals laughing

How would it be either?

Gangbangers don't worry about background checks

I’m not talking about gang bangers

I’m not talking about gang bangers

oh....

you want universal checks, except for gangbangers?

When are you people going to get in into your little minds, universal isn't going to work?

Nothing is going to work to stop gun violence but a better background check system will help prevent some to get weapons which will result in some prevented gun violence. Some is better than none. Agreed?

You can't show that.......we have current federally mandated background checks and criminals get around it easily, mass shooters pass it easily.

What you want is the government to do its job, and that doesn't take anything new....just pressing enter on the keyboard to submit the names of felons into the system.

Of course I can’t show that, how does one show proof of a crime that didn’t happen because the “offender” didn’t have access to something? That’s not something that leaves a trail to show. You use common sense and logic. If somebody has a mental break and wants to cause harm and they have have a gun on their hip, they are going to cause much more damage than if they only have their fists or their words.

Sorry, you don't deny 320 million people access to a gun because someone might abuse it....no more than you deny people access to cars because they might drive drunk...