Well there you go. Add the human factor and no system is perfect. The NCIS system works pretty good. Some groups claim that over a million purchases were stopped because of it. The problem is however that if people were inelligible to buy a gun, they most likely lied on a Federal form when attempting to purchase said gun.
One rarely hears of these folks being prosecuted. The whole “enforce the existing laws” statement comes to the mind of many a law abiding gun owner.
If they’ve always been vocal, why are they getting more attention now than before?
Actually I think catsix is correct in saying that the NRA has largely won the debate in the US. Not even Democratic politicians seem to be saying much about gun control after the VT shootings, or if they are, the media isn’t doing much to publicize it.
I think what makes this case different is the ages of the victims.
The VT victims were/are all adults and thus, potential gun owners. The other school shootings involved a bunch of kids. The “if only one 'em hadda gun” argument doesn’t work when it’s a bunch of kids involved. Few people (except maybe the fringes) think teenagers have a right to bear arms.
In the case of VT, we’re talking about older people who in theory, could have been armed and capable of fighting fire with fire. So the “if only one 'em hadda gun” argument works.
I can’t recall a single prosecution of one of these alleged one million people for attempting to illegally purchase a weapon. There has also been some opining that requiring a person to answer questions 12 d e and h could be a violation of their Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, as answering ‘yes’ to any of those questions is admitting to a crime.
If it’s true that these people are being denied firearms, and they lied on the BATF Form 4473, why are they not being prosecuted?
My initial thought is that it is far easier to pass a law than to enforce it. The Brady folks can tout how many purchases were stopped, and I guess that is not such a bad thing. However, if those folks are not charged with a crime by lying on their 4473, what’s the point?
I will not get sucked into another gun control debate, but exaggeration does not serve either side’s cause. According to a pro gun rights site Keep and Bear Arms
Yup, pretty poor, and I’d guess it has gone down since, not up, but not none.
Whether the anti gun folks wish to believe it or not, the last thing that regular joe, law abiding gun owners want is for the wrong people to get guns. If people are prohibited from purchasing them, yet lie on federal forms to do so they need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Criminals walking around with guns do nothing positive for the pro-gun cause.
Nothing pisses me off more than to see the usual BS about the gun show loopholes and legislative attempts to record private gun sales when the legislation that is in place already (NCIS, 4473) is ineffective at best in locking people up. It’s great for being inconvenient to the regular folks, but it does squat for getting people off the streets for committing gun crimes.
When this first happened, I thought about posting a GD titled “Did the Virginia Tech Shootings Cost the Dems the White House in 2008?”
It sounds like a bizarre logical leap but I don’t think it is. I assumed that some pro gun-control wings of the Democratic party would become vocal and shrill and immediately propose new restrictive measures like they have done in the past. That has proven to be a terrible move because pro gun-control people are not the same as the pro-gun people. For pro-gun people, it can be a single voter issue much like abortion rights are for others. There are many moderates and even some Democrats like rural union workers that will switch votes based only on keeping their gun rights. In a game where even 5 percent of voters flowing from one side to the other, single voter issues can be huge.
A lot of people don’t understand how powerful the NRA is. They are one of the single powerful most powerful lobbying organizations in the U.S. (the AARP is an example of another extremely powerful one). They have their own small skyscraper right outside of Washing D.C. filled with lobbyists, media people, publication staff, and lawyers. They have several magazines that go out to people all over the U.S. who are paid members and serious about their gun rights. They are prepared to hit hard and fast at Congress as well as the public for things like this. Gun owners have learned and been told that any new gun control initiatives are a 45 dgree slippery slope to an almost total gun ban. Based on things I have seen and learned in my life, I know that really is the end-goal for a significant portion of the gun control movement and they are not to be trusted in that respect.
Gun control people surprised me on this one. I suppose I underestimate their sense of practicality and overall tactics.
I doubt it. Gun control hasn’t been an issue in Presidential elections in a while. At most the candidates are going to pay lip service, but otherwise ignore it. Compared to the economy, the Iraq war, abortion, gay marriage, and foreign policy, gun control is a non-issue.
Surely the serious pro-gun lobby isn’t using the argument you have noted here.
Saying that ‘arming more people prevents violence’ is the thinking of a psychopath. Its like saying every country on the planet should have nukes to prevent war. I suspect the argument that ‘arming adults prevents harm’ is also from the lunatic fringe of the pro-gub lobby.
No, it isn’t a fringe argument at all even though it isn’t universally popular. Many individual people believe it rather than just being a statement from a lobbying group. I grew up in a small town in Louisiana (1300 people). Almost all households had guns, kids grew up with them, and we were even allowed to bring them to high school during hunting season as long as we left them in our cars. They were just tools and we certainly never feared a school shooting and people could indeed have taken care of the matter if it somehow ever came to that. There were very few burglaries and almost no hold-ups while people were home like is more common in Britain probably because of that fact. We had the odd crime using a gun from time to time but it wasn’t anything that doesn’t happen anywhere else.
I can’t see a large-scale gun crime happening in my home town because it would become an equal contest and maybe several against the perpetrator. Living in Massachusetts now, people’s opinion seems absurd to me. I could almost respect a great plan to restrict gun for an effective deterrent. Instead they demonize them and even the mention of one is enough to get gasps and dirty looks. I grew up with them just being tools that do a regular job from time to time and could equalize the situation if it ever came to that.
The most common argument for widespread arming is just familiarization and preparedness in case the worst happens like a natural disaster or worse (see Katrina). Your analogy for nuclear weapons is piss poor because a nuclear strike almost demands that the whole world will end at least according to U.S. strategy. Widespread gun ownership might mean guns are chosen as a premeditated weapon of choice but that is localised to a few people and the possibility for a 1:1 defense is very real.
Not every country. Just the U.S.
When a (Canadian) friend assumed out loud over dinner that this tragedy would change American minds about gun control, I told her about the argument above. She didn’t openly weep, but there was a general, ‘Well, I guess they’ve given up. Kill or be killed’ sentiment all around.
I wonder how many gun owners try to intervene in crimes (perhaps not school shootings, but robberies, muggings, etc.) and end up getting killed while they otherwise might have lived.
One would think that’s the case, but a co-worker of mine suggested that professors carrying handguns would be a viable solution to prevent such a massacre. I work part-time at an on campus grill and he’s one of the local full-time employees and not the sharpest tool in the shed. So I’m hoping his attitude is unique.
Well, take a look at the pro-gun side’s responses on this board in the aftermath of the incident. The general sentiment was exactly that.
I am a licensed CCW permit holder. I don’t carry so that I can be a cop and stop a situation, nor do I feel by the mere fact of carrying a gun I am affecting crime rates either. At the same time, I don’t feel that I am giving myself a 100% chance of surviving a situation like at VT. I am improving my odds however. I’m not advocating that anyone be forced to carry anything for their own protection. At the same time, they should not be outlawed from doing so either…
2005 - Murder and non-Negligent Manslaughter
Massachusetts: 2.7/100,000
Louisiana: 9.9/100,000
Burglary
Massachusetts: 541/100,000
Louisiana: 870/100,000
The leadership of the Democratic Party has been beaten over the head with a clue-by-four bearing the words “If not for the gun control issue, Al Gore would be president”.
I don’t think that argument would fly, given that this argument doesn’t seem to help avoid tax evasion charges if you fail to report illegal income.
Oh please. You cannot make simplistic comparisons like that. There are hundreds of factors that influence the crime rate.
The best you can do is look at what happens to the crime rate after changes in gun policy across similar states. And even then, your data is likely to be corrupted by other factors.
People are becoming more stupid and more violent. Because only stupid people think that violence solves problems. There have been death threats against Cho’s family. :mad: