Your constant reference to off-board, personal facts about this poster is abusive and harrassing (and accordingly, a violation of the board’s rules). I am getting tired of reading it, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Please stop.
Is it your contention that if cocaine were legalized, the amount of cocaine consumed in this country would decrease? Would remain exactly constant?
Are there any other goods where consumption has increased following their criminalization?
No, honey, we ain’t doing it that way.* You* made an assertion. Other than that it supports what you want to say about guns, what allows you to make such a claim?
And I have backed up my argument by inductive reasoning. If your argument really does turn on the claim that unlike every other good, criminalization has no effect on the prevalence of guns, well, then, you don’t really have a pot to piss in.
Oh, okay…you pulled it out of your ass. Why didn’t you just say so?
Just to be a mensch, try your hand at one (or both!) of these questions:
- If cocaine were legalized, I would expect cocaine consumption to:
(a) Increase
(b) Decrease
(c) Remain unchanged
- Complete the following the sentence:
“_________ is an example of a good whose consumption increased following its criminalization.”
These facts are from previous gun control threads on this message board, not from off board, and they are perfectly relevant if you want to understand his bias towards supporting gun control.
Or do you think it’s a coincidence that someone who only stopped breaking into people’s houses because of the threat of physical violence from one of his victims holds the view that law-abiding citizens should be disarmed?
Um, what?
Because I think the debate on gun control does not turn on anyone’s particular personal history, I do not think those facts are relevant. We are not arguing “What is the origin of so-and-so’s beliefs about gun control?” we are debating what would make good policy in these United States. I stand by my original remonstrance. I add only this: even if these facts were relevant (which, again, they are not), they can be brought up in a less abusive and less tedious fashion.
Since the only impact of me shouldering that responsibility is that people like you don’t like me, I’m fine with shouldering it. You can also blame AIDS and Sudan and russia"s invasion of georgia on me if it makes you feel better.
Clearly.
According to this AP story, the mother of the shooter told the 911 operator that her son had weapons, but that they were “legal”.
So the 911 operator didn’t see fit to mention this to the officers responding to the call.
I can’t believe the operator wouldn’t have said anything if it was clear the weapons were in his possession at that moment. I can only hope that the operator interpreted the exchange as that the man owned weapons, but was not currently fondling them. This is one of those where we’ll have to hear the tape to decide how bad a screwup this was.
During Prohibition, alcohol consumption actually went up, as well as arrests for public drunkeness.
Said gangster tracked him down, and advised Ivan not to “shit on [his] own doorstep in future.”
And if we are to decide whether stronger gun control in the United States is a good thing, does the support of former criminals who are motivated by a fear of retribution carry the same weight in your mind?
Sorry, missed the post.
First, there are very VERY few ‘illegally manufactured’ guns. There are however many illegally modified ones. If as a company, in China or Russia or even Maine I decide to make a gun, it’s GOT to be able to sell to normal, law abiding people in some numbers in order for it to be profitable. In order to do that, the gun has to meet the BATF regs. Now after the gun as manufactured (and more importantly shipped) meets the regs I can leak, after the weapon has been on the market for a while, to the nutters how to modify the weapon. Once the weapon has grown in popularity (which it does because of three things, cost, look, sturdiness and as an ancillary point, the availablity of ammunition) the straw sales begin and the weapon begins its’ journey to the streets.
Here’s a scenario; I’m Jim the gun store owner, I sell 12 SKS rifles (AK-47 replica) a month. These are cheap, reliable, relatively powerful weapons with cheaper ammo and can use magazines that hold up to 100 rounds (these aren’t typically available, but they do exist). Now I have a constant flow of 144 of these guns a year. Something that does not go unnoticed. Because I’m part of a cooperative that buys two containers full of them a year and through the cooperative buy only what I need after they clear customs and make it into the US. I sell to legal, honest buyers who like to shoot these guns (and they are fun to shoot). However, in that cooperative, there are two FFL’s that aren’t exactly on the up and up and have no problem reporting guns ‘stolen’ when they were sold to someone out the back door. However, they don’t report them until they absolutely HAVE to, then they make a claim on their insurance, get more guns to sell and pocket both the insurance money and that of the bad guys, live as a ‘victim’ and cry foul (something that needs to be addressed for dealers, NOT ordinary citizens).
Now, if you’re wondering what two containers of guns means, the SKS typically fits 10 to a crate and you can fit over 500 crates in a typical container. That’s 10,000 guns.
The other thing to remember is that guns don’t evaporate or go bad, guns from WWI are still as lethal as they were the day they were made if they’re in operable condition. There are LOADS of mil-surplus weapons available for state and local police departments for free save the cost of transport, the bad guys know that and when THOSE guns are stolen, it takes a long time to come to light and by that time, the guns are already on the street.
The “stolen gun” problem is a somewhat false dichotomy in that to get the guns from the hands of innocent legal buyers/owners into the hands of the badguys, the amount of work/risk is hardly worth it over all. You’re not, as a criminal who may need 50 guns to outfit your criminal enterprise going to break into 50 houses to steal 50 different kinds of guns from people you already know are armed.
The flow of guns comes from bad actors on a larger scale, not from stolen guns from your neighbors.
The solution, IMO is to have the BATF be who they’re supposed to be in the first place, and regulate the flow of firearms to better track their FFL/Dealers.
The simplest way to do that is to do as those states with state liquor stores do and have guns go from manufacturer to ATF clearinghouses wherein the weapons are recorded and sold to the dealer with the $5 per unit ‘tax’ added (Rifle B costs $350.00, the BATF clearinghouse charges $355.00, and only sells directly to FFLS. The ATF must then audit dealers on a bi-yearly basis. Lest we forget how strained they are chasing bootleggers and cigarette thieves, they can use some of their budget to train local PD administrators to complete the audits which does two things; gets the audits done at a significantly reduced rate and allows for real local intel to come into play, the dealer can’t pretty up the place for the yearly ATF inspection, the local cops know the score).
Now there would be REAL pushback here, but I’d say that the FFL’s are where the holes in the levee happen. The FFL’s could code the sales to a number to help privacy but that number would relate to a person directly, though the ATF would have to obtain the FFL’s information via subpoena.
Also, close the gun-show loophole.
If I’m violating the board rules, you should report me. If I’m not, then I guess you should take your admonition, shove it up your ass and give it a quarter turn.
The question operators should be asking for responders isn’t “is he holding his gun” it’s “are there guns in the house”. That changes response drastically and changes my comments about the officers’ complacency.
SKS’s are not AK replicas. They were invented long before the AK-47, have no parts in common with them and use a very different mechanism. They have fixed 10 round magazines, although it is possible to modify them to work (poorly) with some detachable mags.
The round they (and AK-47s) fire is not a powerful round at all. It’s an intermediate caliber which is less powerful than a typical hunting round.
Care to define that term?
SKS.
AK-47.
7.62 x 39 mm cartridge.
PatriotGrrrl is, of course, correct. The only thing the two have in common is the cartridge. Neither is a replica of the other.
Which gunshow loophole, exactly, are we talking about? I was under the impression that such loopholes were right up there with unicorns and other imaginary creatures.
First, the best you can do when explaining to people who don’t understand guns is to to say X looks like Y. The SKS LOOKS, with a wooden stock and metal receiver, like a Kalishnikov. Makes a frame of reference possible and newer SKS magazines when properly smithed WILL function. The SKS D model is meant to take all manner of AK mags. Also, the 7.62x39 WILL penetrate most body armor below NIJ VI, calling it less powerful than say a 30.06 is accurate but saying it’s not powerful “at all” is false.
I mean by ‘gun show loophole’ person-to-person sales with no record in large numbers. If I’m a guy who, in the FFL co-op bought five hundred guns because I’m a ‘collector’ and I turn around and sell them without a background check and without a license, which happens, then I’m part of the problem.
If I want to sell my gun or guns to my brother, I should be able to, but if he’s not able to have them, that should be on me to know, just like anyone else who sells guns.
Take prescriptions, I’m not able to sell MY vicodin to someone else, because it’s regulated, but if I took it to a flea market and sold it, suddenly it’s ok. Same with unregulated gun shows, hence the loophole.