Why we have gun crime...7 time felon with 4th gun case freed on ankle monitor tries to shoot and kill his girlfriend. Thanks democrats.

[Dadoalex]

Universal background checks do nothing, since mass public shooters can pass any background check, and criminals use straw buyers, who can also pass any background check, or they steal their guns....

Registration?

Mass public shooters will happily register their guns on the way to the gun free zone they plan on attacking, and criminals are not legally required to register their illegal guns.....

Haynes v United States.

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]

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Background checks would have stopped several mass shootings before they ever happened.
Registration? When you know that gun is traceable directly back to you you will be less likely to sell that gun without following the law. Criminals can't pass the background checks so they need someone like you to buy the gun. But if you fail to register the gun, trouble, if you sell the gun w/o background check, trouble, if the gun is used in a crime and you failed to report a sale/transfer trouble.

Now for the law abiding gun owner, none of this is an issue.
But, for the gun owner who is not law abiding, problems.

Why are you defending criminals?

 

[2aguy]

I'm sure, for you, a woman walking around in shorts is an invitation to rape.
That's your sickness, not mine.
But the simplest fact in existence is that criminals get most of their guns from gun owners willingly breaking the law.
That's you.

I am simply applying your logic to the problems of other crimes......you don't want to direct the solution at the criminals, you want to blame and punish the victims.

No, criminals get most of their guns from other criminals...people who know they are breaking the law and happily do it for money......

 

[2aguy]

Background checks would have stopped several mass shootings before they ever happened.
Registration? When you know that gun is traceable directly back to you you will be less likely to sell that gun without following the law. Criminals can't pass the background checks so they need someone like you to buy the gun. But if you fail to register the gun, trouble, if you sell the gun w/o background check, trouble, if the gun is used in a crime and you failed to report a sale/transfer trouble.

Now for the law abiding gun owner, none of this is an issue.
But, for the gun owner who is not law abiding, problems.

Why are you defending criminals?

No......in fact, you would have to look very hard to show the mass public shooters who didn't pass background checks for their guns....even the guy drummed out of the air force passed his background check because your god, the government, failed to input his getting kicked out of the air force..which would actually have stopped his purchase of the guns.....

The guns on the street have a life on the street of up to 11 years.....so the first owner has no connection to that gun.....

Haynes v United States from the supreme court says criminals do not have to register their illegal guns.........so registering guns is stupid.

Yes.....none of this is an issue as long as you jump through the hoop, pay the increasing high taxes, fees.......and wrap yourself in all the red tape......fail to dot the "i" or cross the "t," and assholes like you will destroy your life...even though you never used your gun for any form of crime...

Similarly, an ongoing study of how Chicago gang members get their guns has found that only a trivial percentage obtained them by direct purchase from a store.
--
If a gun ends up in criminal use, it is usually after several more transactions. The average age of guns taken from Chicago gangs is over 11 years.
------
What appears to be true is that there are few big operators in this domain. The typical trafficker or underground broker is not making a living that way, but rather just making a few dollars on the side. The supply chain for guns used in crime bears little relationship to the supply chain for heroin or cocaine and is much more akin to the supply chain for cigarettes and beer that are diverted to underage teenagers.
----

All in the family​

So how do gang members, violent criminals, underage youths and other dangerous people get their guns?

A consistent answer emerges from the inmate surveys and from ethnographic studies. Whether guns that end up being used in crime are purchased, swapped, borrowed, shared or stolen, the most likely source is someone known to the offender, an acquaintance or family member. That Farook’s friend and neighbor was the source of two of his guns is quite typical, despite the unique circumstances otherwise.
How dangerous people get their guns
=======

 

[2aguy]

Background checks would have stopped several mass shootings before they ever happened.
Registration? When you know that gun is traceable directly back to you you will be less likely to sell that gun without following the law. Criminals can't pass the background checks so they need someone like you to buy the gun. But if you fail to register the gun, trouble, if you sell the gun w/o background check, trouble, if the gun is used in a crime and you failed to report a sale/transfer trouble.

Now for the law abiding gun owner, none of this is an issue.
But, for the gun owner who is not law abiding, problems.

Why are you defending criminals?

It is already illegal to straw buy a gun for a criminal....we can already arrest them for that......it is already illegal for a criminal to buy, own, or carry a gun....so gun registration is pointless......

The problem isn't that we can't arrest these people .... cops can and do over and over and over and over again.....because our problem is the democrat party releasing the most dangerous, most violent, and well known criminals, over and over and over again.........no matter how many felonies they commit...even and up to shooting other human beings....

You are the problem...not the guy or gal who owns a gun for self defense.....you are the problem because you keep empowering the democrats to release violent gun offenders...

 

[Dadoalex]

I am simply applying your logic to the problems of other crimes......you don't want to direct the solution at the criminals, you want to blame and punish the victims.

No, criminals get most of their guns from other criminals...people who know they are breaking the law and happily do it for money......

No, you're applying your criminal loving logic.

But you are personally culpable for each and every one of those mass shooting. Own it.

 

[Dadoalex]

No......in fact, you would have to look very hard to show the mass public shooters who didn't pass background checks for their guns....even the guy drummed out of the air force passed his background check because your god, the government, failed to input his getting kicked out of the air force..which would actually have stopped his purchase of the guns.....

...

If the Military had done as legally required but some gun nut in the military decided otherwise.

I thought you wanted to enforce existing laws.
So, I presume you want to jail the military officers responsible?

How anti-military of you.

 

[Dadoalex]

It is already illegal to straw buy a gun for a criminal....we can already arrest them for that......it is already illegal for a criminal to buy, own, or carry a gun....so gun registration is pointless......

The problem isn't that we can't arrest these people .... cops can and do over and over and over and over again.....because our problem is the democrat party releasing the most dangerous, most violent, and well known criminals, over and over and over again.........no matter how many felonies they commit...even and up to shooting other human beings....

You are the problem...not the guy or gal who owns a gun for self defense.....you are the problem because you keep empowering the democrats to release violent gun offenders...

Could, but can't
After all, without registration who knows where those guns went?

 

[2aguy]

No, you're applying your criminal loving logic.

But you are personally culpable for each and every one of those mass shooting. Own it.

You are the one with every post blaming normal gun owners instead of going after the criminals who actually stole their guns....that is you, not me.....and I am applying that stupid logic to rape and auto theft....

 

[2aguy]

If the Military had done as legally required but some gun nut in the military decided otherwise.

I thought you wanted to enforce existing laws.
So, I presume you want to jail the military officers responsible?

How anti-military of you.

No......your god, the government, failed. Some clerk in the air force, some JAG officer in the air force, failed to push a button to submit his record to NICS.......

I want to enforce existing laws....you are the idiot who thinks more laws, that won't be enforced, will work, this time, when the existing laws aren't being enforced now....

 

[2aguy]

Could, but can't
After all, without registration who knows where those guns went?

Don't need to know where the gun went, you simply catch the criminal using it........

Gun registration that actually happened....and how it failed massively.....followed by why gun registration doesn't solve crimes....and how bullet registration also fails...

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

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.


As to solving crimes....it doesn't...
10 Myths About The Long Gun Registry

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.


-----

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.
====
In the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Pa. gun registry waste of money, resources - Crime Prevention Research Center

Gun-control advocates have long claimed that a comprehensive registry would be an effective safety tool. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but reality has never worked that way. Crime guns are rarely left at crime scenes. The few that are have been unregistered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. When a gun is left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed. These crimes would have been solved even without registration.

Registration hasn’t worked in Pennsylvania or other places. During a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania State Police could not identify a specific crime that had been solved through the registration system from 1901 to 2001, though they did claim that it had “assisted” in a total of four cases but they could provide no details.

During a 2013 deposition, the Washington, D.C., police chief said that she could not “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.”

When I testified before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, the Honolulu chief of police also stated that he couldn’t find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours each year to registering and licensing guns. This time is being taken away from traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.

Of course, many are concerned that registration lists will eventually be used to confiscate people’s guns. Given that such lists have been used to force people to turn in guns in California, Connecticut, New York and Chicago, these fears aren’t entirely unjustified.

Instead of wasting money and precious police time on a gun registry that won’t solve crime, Pennsylvania should get rid of the program that we already have and spend our resources on programs that matter. Traditional policing works, and we should all be concerned that this bill will keep even more officers from important duties.


Bullet tracking..

Maryland scraps gun "fingerprint" database after 15 failed years
Millions of dollars later, Maryland has officially decided that its 15-year effort to store and catalog the "fingerprints" of thousands of handguns was a failure.

Since 2000, the state required that gun manufacturers fire every handgun to be sold here and send the spent bullet casing to authorities. The idea was to build a database of "ballistic fingerprints" to help solve future crimes.

But the system — plagued by technological problems — never solved a single case. Now the hundreds of thousands of accumulated casings could be sold for scrap.

"Obviously, I'm disappointed," said former Gov. Parris N. Glendening, a Democrat whose administration pushed for the database to fulfill a campaign promise. "It's a little unfortunate, in that logic and common sense suggest that it would be a good crime-fighting tool."

The database "was a waste," said Frank Sloane, owner of Pasadena Gun & Pawn in Anne Arundel County. "There's things that they could have done that would have made sense. This didn't make any sense."

 

[JoeB131]

If it was so obvious that the Second Amendment was about Militias, why did the court find otherwise in Heller?

If it wasn't that way, why did they find it did in US v. Miller?

 

[Hollie]

If it wasn't that way, why did they find it did in US v. Miller?

You didn't know that the Heller decision confirmed the rights of individuals.

If it was so obvious that the Second Amendment was about Militias, why did the court find otherwise in Heller?

 

[AZrailwhale]

If the Military had done as legally required but some gun nut in the military decided otherwise.

I thought you wanted to enforce existing laws.
So, I presume you want to jail the military officers responsible?

How anti-military of you.

You won’t find many “gun nuts” in the military. Firearms are simply tools for soldiers.

 

[Blues Man]

Unless you can figure out how to steal a car without getting into the car then the first step to stolen is the 90% that are left unlocked.

But who knows, maybe those criminals that buy magic guns have figured out how to use the same trick on cars.

Yeah dude just admit you were wrong and move on.

 

[Blues Man]

Sorry.
Perhaps if I used smaller words it would help you out?

I'm not the one who doesn't know the definitions of the words I use.

 

[JoeB131]

You didn't know that the Heller decision confirmed the rights of individuals.

If it was so obvious that the Second Amendment was about Militias, why did the court find otherwise in Heller?

US v. Miller, look it up, chatbot.

 

[Hollie]

US v. Miller, look it up, chatbot.

You should look it up. Completely irrelevant regarding Heller.

 

[JoeB131]

You should look it up. Completely irrelevant regarding Heller.

Actually, no, it isn't Chatbot... Miller found the government could regulate firearms under the Second Amendment.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, no, it isn't Chatbot... Miller found the government could regulate firearms under the Second Amendment.

Actually, the Heller decision was about an individual's right to ownership of firearms.

You completely moved the goalposts when you didn't understand the differences between the Miller and Heller decisions.

Try paying attention and do some actual research on the subjects you know nothing about.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, the Heller decision was about an individual's right to ownership of firearms.

which overturned Miller

Even SCOTUS has realized Miller was an overstep when it subsequently refused to lift machine gun restrictions in US v. Warin.