Law Gun and Gun Control News/Discussion

[Rational Poster]

It's a much better place to start. Where intentional negligence is proven folks should be punished accordingly. Which I believe does in fact happen now.



Yet folks still get released on bail and early as well as offered pleas.

First we need a set of guidelines and laws across the states to police negligence before it's possible.

Going after the root cause of the issue is always going to be the only thing effective, policing the result is just going to do that, but the problem with continue exist till you're willing to honestly deal with it, which you're not.

 

[oldshadow]

Policing the end user harsher doesn't deal with the negligent and intentional crimes going on in between.

Punishment for gun crimes are already incredibly harsh and carry mandatory sentences in most states.

Really, straw purchases are not.

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-new...-prosecuted-despite-crackdown-on-illegal-guns

 

[Rational Poster]

Really, straw purchases are not.

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-new...-prosecuted-despite-crackdown-on-illegal-guns

Mainly because straw purchases are not that common and they're hard to police till after a crime occurs with the gun and then things get traced, again straw purchases make a very small percent of guns found used in crimes. Like 1% or less even.

 

[spamking]

First we need a set of guidelines and laws across the states to police negligence before it's possible.

You can't police negligence with more laws. Folks who care and have common sense do so now without the government forcing them to do so. Those who are actually part of the problem now wouldn't change due to more laws.

Going after the root cause of the issue is always going to be the only thing effective

You might as well just come out and say that you're of the opinion that guns are the root cause of the issue and that you feel that the only effective thing to do would be to completely remove them from the equation.

Criminals are the root cause of the issue. Not guns.

policing the result is just going to do that

But we still need to police negligence?

but the problem with continue exist till you're willing to honestly deal with it, which you're not.

You keep saying this . . . how am I not being honest about this?

 

[spamking]

Mainly because straw purchases are not that common and they're hard to police till after a crime occurs with the gun and then things get traced, again straw purchases make a very small percent of guns found used in crimes. Like 1% or less even.

Straw purchases are more of an issue in some parts of the country than others. You keep saying I'm being dishonest here and yet keep trying to say that they have little impact on gun crime. Heck, even the extremely biased Everytown group understands that straw purchases are an issue, especially in Chicago.

Based on the story info below I'd say they're common, a problem and involved in a much higher percentage of crimes.

“We looked at every illegal gun purchase case in the Northern District of Indiana, where Westforth Sports is located, for about the last six years, and found that 44% of all prosecutions involved individuals who purchased guns from Westforth,” Lefkowitz said. “As we alleged in our lawsuit, court documents show that Westforth sold at least 180 guns to at least 40 people later charged in federal crimes in connection with these purchases. In one case, one defendant is accused of having bought 19 guns from Westforth Sports in 2020.”

Complicit dealers are as much of a problem as repeat offenders who commit crimes with guns.

 

[Rational Poster]

You can't police negligence with more laws. Folks who care and have common sense do so now without the government forcing them to do so. Those who are actually part of the problem now wouldn't change due to more laws.



You might as well just come out and say that you're of the opinion that guns are the root cause of the issue and that you feel that the only effective thing to do would be to completely remove them from the equation.

Criminals are the root cause of the issue. Not guns.



But we still need to police negligence?



You keep saying this . . . how am I not being honest about this?

Of course you can police negligence with laws. You just need to create the laws first. There's tons of laws on the books for all kind of negligent behavior. We can have laws for negligent aftermarket gun sales. If more laws and harsher punishment on the end users is the solution in your mind, why wouldn't they work on negligent aftermarket sales?

I never said guns are the issue, the issue is how people handle guns and their aftermarket transactions, over 50% of the problem, per your own sources.

 

[Rational Poster]

You can't police negligence with more laws. Folks who care and have common sense do so now without the government forcing them to do so. Those who are actually part of the problem now wouldn't change due to more laws.



You might as well just come out and say that you're of the opinion that guns are the root cause of the issue and that you feel that the only effective thing to do would be to completely remove them from the equation.

Criminals are the root cause of the issue. Not guns.



But we still need to police negligence?



You keep saying this . . . how am I not being honest about this?

You don't even want to admit that more than half of the guns used it crimes were legally purchased.

Let alone discuss a possible solution.

 

[spamking]

Of course you can police negligence with laws. You just need to create the laws first. There's tons of laws on the books for all kind of negligent behavior. We can have laws for negligent aftermarket gun sales. If more laws and harsher punishment on the end users is the solution in your mind, why wouldn't they work on negligent aftermarket sales?

I never said guns are the issue, the issue is how people handle guns and their aftermarket transactions, over 50% of the problem, per your own sources.

There are already laws on the books for private sales.

 

[Rational Poster]

There are already laws on the books for private sales.

So why not more? And make the penalties harsher? We can also police them more.

Clearly the current state isn't effective enough since more than half of guns used in crimes are still purchased legally.

 

[spamking]

You don't even want to admit that more than half of the guns used it crimes were legally purchased.

Let alone discuss a possible solution.

Are you serious? I've already stated in this discussion that ALL guns were legally purchased at one point. You're the one dumping all over the idea that straw purchases (legal purchases on paper) are an issue.

Are we not discussing possible solutions? I've offered several and you have decided to ignore them.

 

[Rational Poster]

Are you serious? I've already stated in this discussion that ALL guns were legally purchased at one point. You're the one dumping all over the idea that straw purchases (legal purchases on paper) are an issue.

Are we not discussing possible solutions? I've offered several and you have decided to ignore them.

Your only solutions was just put people in jail longer that use guns to commit a crime... even though they are already some of the harshest laws we have and we put more people in jail per capita than anywhere else in the world.. which also does nothing to police the flow of arms from the legal to criminal market.

Do you have any interest in decreasing the flow of weapons from the legal to criminal market?

 

[spamking]

So why not more? And make the penalties harsher? We can also police them more.

Have you bothered to read anything I've responded with in our discussion at all? This type of comment indicates that you're being very selective and purposefully obtuse about this entire thing.

I've already brought up harsher penalties. You dumped all over that.

I've already addressed the issues with enforcement using registries. You dumped all over that too.

Clearly the current state isn't effective enough since more than half of guns used in crimes are still purchased legally.

The data never states whether the original, legal purchaser was the criminal who committed the act where the gun was used.

 

[spamking]

Your only solutions was just put people in jail longer that use guns to commit a crime... even though they are already some of the harshest laws we have and we put more people in jail per capita than anywhere else in the world.. which also does nothing to police the flow of arms from the legal to criminal market.

Obviously those harsher laws aren't effective enough . . . more laws won't either.

Do you have any interest in decreasing the flow of weapons from the legal to criminal market?

Yes.

 

[Rational Poster]

Obviously those harsher laws aren't effective enough . . . more laws won't either.



Yes.

So let's just have no laws if new laws and harsher laws do nothing, right?

By this logic, even your own purposed solution is pointless.

Also,

 

[spamking]

So let's just have no laws if new laws and harsher laws do nothing, right?

Oh sure . . . let's just scratch all of them from the books. Every man for himself.

See how these discussions go? When cornered your type immediately goes for the emotional response.

 

[Rational Poster]

Oh sure . . . let's just scratch all of them from the books. Every man for himself.

See how these discussions go? When cornered your type immediately goes for the emotional response.

I'm cornered? I'm just following your logic that you presented yourself.. and arguing using the data that you also provided.

 

[spamking]

I'm cornered? I'm just following your logic that you presented yourself.. and arguing using the data that you also provided.

Right. That's what's going on . . . you're using the data stating guns recovered in crimes that can be traced back to a legal purchase as some barometer that indicates criminals buy guns legally. If the data showed that the criminal caught with the gun was the original, legal purchaser you might have a point.

 

[Rational Poster]

Right. That's what's going on . . . you're using the data stating guns recovered in crimes that can be traced back to a legal purchase as some barometer that indicates criminals buy guns legally. If the data showed that the criminal caught with the gun was the original, legal purchaser you might have a point.

No I'm not. I'm saying that criminals get their gun from negligent aftermarket arms sales or transfers, or yeah they are actually the criminal that used the gun in a crime.

You guys seem to have this fantasy that criminal are some other race of humans, when in reality, the difference between a criminal and law abiding gun owner is the opportunity or desire or need to commit a crime using a gun.

 

[oldshadow]

Mainly because straw purchases are not that common and they're hard to police till after a crime occurs with the gun and then things get traced, again straw purchases make a very small percent of guns found used in crimes. Like 1% or less even.

And it's a start to hold illegal transfers and punishment for those that do them. In the link a woman that did this was not held responsible as she should have been.

 

[spamking]

No I'm not. I'm saying that criminals get their gun from negligent aftermarket arms sales or transfers, or yeah they are actually the criminal that used the gun in a crime.

Yes, you've stated that several times here, but you've also argued the point I made a comment on related to recovered guns though. You wouldn't have mentioned legally purchased as some sort of gotcha if you weren't implying that point.

You guys seem to have this fantasy that criminal are some other race of humans, when in reality, the difference between a criminal and law abiding gun owner is the opportunity or desire or need to commit a crime using a gun.

No. Not really. That's an answer you've come up with on your own and applied to this discussion. Outside of the first time someone breaks the law this isn't the case.