Mock

(02-01-2013, 12:54 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-01-2013, 12:49 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not okay with 'I guess you just have to HOPE you're not the next random victim of a madman.'

No one is okay with that but I think it's a fact of life now. I don't believe that there is anything at all that can be done to stop it completely. People will always have guns & crazy people will always find a way to get their hands on one.

I agree that crazy people will always be around, but I don't agree that there's nothing that can be done to try and keep firearms out of their hands.

(02-01-2013, 01:06 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-01-2013, 01:02 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I don't agree that there's nothing that can be done to try and keep firearms out of their hands.

I don't disagree with that. You know that's not what I said, right?

It sounded like you were resigned to the fact that regardless of what we do, a crazy person will always get their hands on a gun.

I'm not saying we can eliminate 100% of these spree killers, but what if we're able to eliminate even half of them?

More stringent background/mental health checks, more restrictions at gun shows, etc. it is possible to at least reduce the carnage.

I think reasonable people are just asking for a consolidated effort by ALL.

(02-01-2013, 01:06 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-01-2013, 01:02 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I don't agree that there's nothing that can be done to try and keep firearms out of their hands.

I don't disagree with that. You know that's not what I said, right?

It sounded like you were resigned to the fact that regardless of what we do, a crazy person will always get their hands on a gun.

I'm not saying we can eliminate 100% of these spree killers, but what if we're able to eliminate even half of them?

More stringent background/mental health checks, more restrictions at gun shows, etc. it is possible to at least reduce the carnage.

I think reasonable people are just asking for a consolidated effort by ALL.

Don't know how this happened^^^.

:(

(02-01-2013, 12:49 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know if you're just trying to be difficult, but I think what most reasonable people are trying to achieve in this latest round of gun control debate, is to eliminate crazy people from shooting up public places, particularly elementary schools.

I guess I am trying to be difficult insofar as I completely agree with you. We do need to eliminate crazy people from shooting anything, period.

I feel I am a pretty reasonable person, relatively intelligent, and capable of sound logic. You are as well.

So you know as well as I do, that people are using this opportunity to push an agenda that is based on utter crap. Banning weapons over cosmetic features and enhancements doesn't make a gun less deadly. Banning weapons that are not responsible for 99% of gun deaths doesn't solve the problem of a broken mental health treatment protocols. In fact, there is nothing is the proposed legislation that would have stopped Newtown. If that was the goal, everyone is failing.

Look at all the spree killers, and you see mentally ill people. They were by and large on radar and being treated. But the warm and fuzzy treatment protocols now call for medication, and societal inclusion therapy. Whereas seriously mentally ill people used to be sequestered from society, they are now among us. It may not be popular to say, but it's true. And now when they snap, instead of a few orderlies tackling them we are left to deal with them on the streets.

(02-01-2013, 01:12 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]More stringent background/mental health checks, more restrictions at gun shows, etc. it is possible to at least reduce the carnage.

I think reasonable people are just asking for a consolidated effort by ALL.

I think these are all reasonable and good things to do.

If the systems that are in place right now would be enforced/improved it would go a long way to curbing this problem.
If the ATF would prosecute those that give false info on the NICS background check instead of just threatening them with jail time, it would help.
If the ATF would crack down on the unlicensed people setting up shop and selling guns at gunshows the background system would work better.
If the mental health records would be linked to the background checks it would catch a lot of crazy's.
If they would just enforce what is in place we may not need to infringe on law abiding citizens gun rights any further than we already have,

While this story is not new it sure tells a tale of the ATF's incompetence.
The ATF set up a decoy shop to attempting to get guns, drugs, etc off the streets and in the end put them in the criminals hands. Who in their right mind would leave their fully automatic firearms in the vehicle and not watch the vehicle?


http://m.jsonline.com/more/news/watchdog...c=Ct5vpWpS

Here is a C&P frome the above link.

Guns stolen from ATF SUV

As the gun and drug buys continued, the operation went awry. In September, an agent parked his Ford Explorer at the Alterra on N. Humboldt Blvd., about a half mile away, with three ATF guns stored in a metal box in the back.

About 3 p.m. Sept. 13, an Alterra employee spotted three men breaking into the Explorer. They stole three guns: a Smith & Wesson 9mm handgun, a Sig Sauer .40-caliber pistol and an M-4 .223-caliber fully automatic rifle. They also made off with ammunition and an ATF radio, according to a police report. It does not appear from the reports that the agent was at Alterra at the time of the break-in.

A major push began to find the weapons and the men who stole them, police records show. Two men were quickly arrested. An informant told police one of the suspects was showing off the guns and eight magazines of ammunition shortly after the vehicle burglary, according to police records.

One of the suspects hid the machine gun under a bed and took the handguns with him. He was questioned by police and refused to talk. He was released. No one has been charged in the burglary of the ATF guns, according to Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Karen Loebel. She declined to say if charges would be coming.

The ATF soon had one of its stolen guns back, however.

The very next day, according to court documents, 19-year-old Marquise Jones contacted agents at Fearless Distributing and sold the Sig Sauer - and another unrelated handgun - back to agents.

The price: $1,400.

But Jones would not be arrested for two months. And when he was, it was not for the theft. His name does not appear on the police reports related to the vehicle break-in. He was charged with having a stolen gun.

Meanwhile, the hunt for the machine gun and the other stolen handgun continues.

"We are actively looking for any missing firearms that might be out there right now," the ATF's Schmidt said.

Gerald Nunziato, a retired ATF agent who supervised undercover operations, said he was shocked at the number of mistakes made during the operation. He questioned the decision to leave the agent's truck at the coffee shop with guns inside.

"That bothers me the most," Nunziato said. "The last thing you want to have is a gun stolen. If that gun is used to shoot someone, that is so personal."

F.U. - pretty amazing that ATF personnel can have their firearms stolen right out of their vehicle. Kind of leaves me at a loss for words.

What are the consequences for that individual if those weapons are used to kill somebody?

Which leads me to a good question (I believe).

How would gun owners feel about no new gun control legislation, but instead, really harsh penalties for having your legally purchased weapon used in the commission of a crime?

It would put the onus of responsible gun ownership squarely on the owner. Then, if your weapon kills someone or is recovered from a perp who just used it to rob someone, you pay almost as much as the perp?

So, let's say Lanza's mom hadn't been murdered, she'd be on the hook for 26 counts of accessory to murder.

It could be interesting.

I don't think you could hold the owner of the firearm responsible for the crime. For reasons I have stated on this subject, a couple pages back, sometimes a person would not even know their firearm is missing. I am one of those people that could lose a firearm or two and never even know it's gone from my house.

I do feel that this ATF agent should be reviewed and reprimanded [loss of work hours, demotion, something like that] because of his carelessness.

Its one thing to have a firearm stolen from your home on the good side of town, but a totally different story to lose your firearm when it is stolen from your vehicle in the bad part of town.

This agent should have ben and probably was, trained better than this. Even the average Joe knows better than to leave their gun sitting in their auto unattended. That is one reason I dislike gun free zones. A gun free zone makes a person that has their legally carried firearm, unholster it and leave it unattended in their auto while they do business in that gun free zone, but that's a little off topic.

So F.U., maybe this gets to the heart of an important issue.

If someone truly has too many guns to keep track of, isn't that a problem.

Again, though I'm not a gun owner, I have no problem with those that choose to have them. However, if someone tells me that they have too many to keep track of, then to me that's problematic, and doesn't represent responsible gun ownership.

Again, someone can own all the guns they want, but they are going to be criminally responsible if those guns end up committing crimes.

I think it's a great idea, and would certainly cut down on straw purchases and other illegal sales of firearms.

Again, if you report your weapon stolen, that's a different story, but of course the gun owner that seems to have problems with his weapons being stolen would eventually lose his right to legally purchase.

I don't see it as a problem or as irresponsible gun ownership MS. I see it as a rather large collection.

Before I obtained my type 01 FFL[dealer] I held a type 03 FFL. The type 03 is a collector license.

Just like many collections I have so many pieces in my collection that I may not notice one or two come up missing right away. Just like a salt and pepper shaker collector would not notice a set or two of shakers disappear. Its not that I am careless with them, it is just that I have so many of them, plus I do not go and look at each firearm every day.

I do however have a bound book with all the info [manufacturer, model, caliber/gauge, action and serial # ,purchased from info, sold to info] about each firearm in it. If I were to notice something missing I can easily call one of the cops I deal with through the shop and file a report. But the hard part would be to notice it missing first.

(01-31-2013, 09:24 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]This video is worth the 10 minutes of your time to watch.
One portion I thought was nice to know is about the so called 40% of gun sales are done at a gunshow with no background check. While I try to know as much about this topic as I can, I did not know that statistic came from a time when background checks were not required at all.
I all sowas unaware that only 1.9% of firearms used in a crime were purchased at a gunshow.

Warning F.U., long post ahead! I think this is an important topic in the overall gun control debate.

While somewhere near 40% of ALL gun sales may be through private transactions not requiring a background check, certainly not all private transactions occurs at gun shows. Labeling the 40% statistic as the "gunshow loophole" is also therefore very misleading (I don't know if the label came before or after Columbine, but I suspect it was after).

"40% of all guns are purchased through private sellers who are not required to run a background check on buyers, according to the best available statistics" would be a more accurate statement.

So how reliable is the data behind the "40% no background check” statistic even when it’s cited accurately? Not very, in my view. The data was gathered from a very small sample of gun owners in private households (251) more than 15 years ago. Any stat is only as solid as the data supporting it. New research needs to be done to more accurately reflect where and how the public is getting its guns, in my opinion.

More importantly, to me, is finding out where and how CRIMINALS get their guns. I found the data below to be interesting.

Snipped:
Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, will report data from a 2004 survey of inmates in state prisons in a chapter in a book titled “Reducing Gun Violence in America,” to be published Jan. 28 by Johns Hopkins Press.

The offenders were incarcerated from crimes committed with handguns, and this is how they reported how they obtained the guns:
-Licensed gun dealer: 11 percent (legal w/ background check)
-Friends or family: 39.5 percent (legal w/o background check)
-“The street:” 37.5 percent (illegal w/o background check)
-Stolen gun: 9.9 percent (illegal w/o background check)
-Gun show/Flea market: 1.7 percent
(legal, some with background check and some through private seller w/o background check).

Reference/Source:
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/201...52462.html

I don’t know how big the sample size was for this criminal survey, but it shows that appx. 75% of criminals get their guns either legally or illegally through channels that don’t require background checks.

While limiting the private transaction requirement for background checks to gun shows is in actuality a small step, it may be all that gun control advocates feel they can get passed or have enforced at this time. I support this new background check requirement, btw, however I'm aware that its impact is much lesser than some politicians and media would have me believe.

Extending the background check requirements to all non-licensed transactions, stronger enforcement and severe penalties against straw purchases (and attempted purchases), and stricter enforcement of mental illness reporting requirements to NICS are the best ways to minimize gun violence as much as possible. Restricting the vast majority of the population which is law-abiding and mentally stable from certain types of guns, on the other hand, will not reduce gun violence, in my opinion. Bans haven't accomplished their goals in the past and there's been nothing presented that indicates that they would be more effective today.

Will any measures stop seasoned determined criminals from getting ahold of guns and committing crimes? No, they have their own channels. But, extending the background check requirements and better enforcement of existing laws will prevent some unqualified owners from getting ahold of guns before they have the opportunity to commit crimes. This applies equally to the statistically rare spree-killer and anyone else who doesn't have direct access to illegal channels.

I'm still open-minded regarding any proposals to reduce gun violence; these are just my conclusions/opinions based on research and evaluation since the Newton shooting.

I actually did wade through the minutia, it didn't change my opinions in the slightest.
I have always known to keep my weapons out of the hands of crazy people and kids.
Got that from my dad, there was a weird guy used to come around now and then, dad locked the gun cabinet.
I have seen personally the results of unarmed victems being attacked, some died, badly.
I have also seen the results of attempted roberies of armed folks, the robber died. Ever seen what a 44 mag hollow point does from about 10 feet away? A center shot to the chest will remove vertabra.
Armed guards works, Armed police officers works, armed citizenry works as evedinced by hundreds of stories that just don't get much play because the news homos don't think its splashy enough.
Keep your powder dry, keep your doors locked, keep your kids educated, keep your guns.

got that OBK?

Long but good read.
http://redflagnews.com/headlines/must-re...lan-korwin

This entire bill has me worried but this portion from page 13 is disturbing.

The problem on page 13: All semi-autos are outlawed, not just some.

Pro-rights and anti-rights attention has been focused on the tremendous list of guns that would be banned under Feinstein's bill, which takes up a significant portion of the 122 pages of this proposal.
Here's the problem none of the "news" reports have spotted:1.The list of guns doesn't matter.
2.Magazine size doesn't matter.
3.If the semi-auto firearm has anything to grip it by, it is banned.
4.It's very clever actually.
According to the bill, any semiautomatic firearm that uses a magazine -- handgun, rifle or shotgun -- equipped with a "pistol grip," would be banned. That sounds like a limitation, but it is not.
A pistol grip (on page 2) is defined (on page 13) as "a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." In other words, the gun list does not matter. It is a smokescreen designed to distract people from the true meaning of the bill. And it has done a magnificent job. It worked!
Any semi-automatic firearm that exists, with anything on it you can grip, is banned. (There is a grandfather clause for old stuff.)
The list is meaningless tripe. It is camouflage for the real purpose of the bill. When the president said he is not going to take away your guns, well, Feinstein's bill puts the lie to that.
Magazine size does not matter. Brand name does not matter. It doesn't matter if it's black. If you can grip it, it's banned under this bill.

Harry Reid is not going to move this bill, because it will put Democrats in an extremely vulnerable position for upcoming elections. Banning guns is not popular with the electorate, and he knows this. Senators in pro-gun states (which are the vast majority) would get slaughtered, and the Democrats would lose control of the US Senate. On top of that, there is no ground swell or support for these measures, as people (not politicians) are rightly focused on mental health as the real problem.

Side note... a little reported fact about the old AWB, is that Harry Reid himself was instrumental in making sure it WAS NOT renewed in 2004. He even praised Wayne La Pierre from the NRA.

On the federal level Feinstein's dog and pony show was entertaining, but it's going nowhere. The 20 Democratic Senators who joined her are the only 'yes' votes they could expect on this bill. So including her, there are only 21 out of 100 Senators who would vote yes... not even close to seriously be considered. The real danger might come from an imperial President acting unilaterally, but from his initial EO's it appears they are aware of their Constitutional restrictions.

Gun and ammo retailers have made out like bandits, as prices for both have skyrocketed. Once this dies down prices will normalize and inventory will return. In the meantime, the Democrats have sold more guns in the past two months than ever before.

Granted I'm not following this near as closely as many of you but my take away has been I tend to agree with universal background checks and closing the private and gun show loopholes. I still agree with limiting the magazine capacities. Granted some gun owners can reload in seconds but I doubt that's true for all. I think it was Laughner that was stopped while attempting to reload. That just doesn't seem like to onerous a request for law abiding gun owners.