Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People

FredHayek wrote: Meme' is not argument. If President Obama had the House and Senate, he would be taking away guns. He doesn't have the power to do it, but he tries, last year, the ATF tried to ban 5.56mm ammunition with green tips, claiming it was armor piercing and needed to be taken off the streets. The GOP shot down this attempt but not before warehouses both here and overseas sold out of the round.

California has banned lead bullets for hunting due to environmental reasons, but the scientific ground is very shaky. Guns are pretty useless if you can't get ammunition for them.

Never said meme is an argument, Fred. I used it as an illustration of paranoia. Apparently, you missed the humor in it.

The reality is that Obama has NOT called for gun confiscation. He has, however, called for what he and others label reasonable, sensible laws to help address the issue of gun violence.

Suicide-by-firearm rates shift in two states after changes in state gun laws

"Although these laws were not designed to reduce suicides, many of the risk factors that disqualify someone from legal gun ownership - domestic violence, history of committing violent crimes, substance abuse, severe mental illness and adolescence - are also risk factors for suicide," says lead study author Cassandra Crifasi, PhD, MPH, an assistant scientist with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, part of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Interesting. While the findings do not actually indicate a clear causal relationship, the article kind of points in that direction.

More studies are needed.

I just got my tax stamp for a suppressor, only took me almost five months to get my trust approved.
Maybe you could do that for gun buys, you have to apply for a federal background check that normally takes four or five months to approve, a background check, or like a concealed carry permit which usually takes a few weeks to approve and has both a statewide background and also a FBI check.

This might have stopped a few shootings, but I doubt it would eliminate any of the gang murders.

FredHayek wrote: I just got my tax stamp for a suppressor, only took me almost five months to get my trust approved.
Maybe you could do that for gun buys, you have to apply for a federal background check that normally takes four or five months to approve, a background check, or like a concealed carry permit which usually takes a few weeks to approve and has both a statewide background and also a FBI check.

This might have stopped a few shootings, but I doubt it would eliminate any of the gang murders.

When you talk about doing that for gun buys, do you also include between private parties and/or over the Internet?

Personally, I think universal background checks might help some, but I don't believe they'll be the panacea that so many on the anti-gun side of the aisle really believe they will be. The issue of gun violence is simply too complex to be able to put all one's eggs in only one basket.

For example, the issue of gang murders: there is a pipeline of illegal guns that flows into Chicago and helps contribute to the very high gang murder numbers there in spite of the strict gun control laws enacted by Chicago. The city cannot logically be expected to have a reduction in gang violence if the surrounding communities and states aren't consistent with their laws, as well. So, when pro-gun advocates cite Chicago as a failure of gun control laws, to me it's a logical fallacy of epic proportions.

Also, when talking about a background check that takes four or five months to approve, are you being sarcastic or are you serious? The reason being that some pro-gun advocacy groups already complain about a three day waiting period. Can't imagine how they'd react to four or five months.

ZHawke wrote: Also, when talking about a background check that takes four or five months to approve, are you being sarcastic or are you serious? The reason being that some pro-gun advocacy groups already complain about a three day waiting period. Can't imagine how they'd react to four or five months.

No, this would not go over well, but I think you could start it in blue states and see how it goes, I would expect the NRA to take it to court.

Private party sales and background checks? This will always be hard to control. Personally I won't sell a gun unless it goes through a store background check, but some of my coworkers have been ignoring the law since it passed here in Colorado.

FredHayek wrote: I would expect the NRA to take it to court.

Why? I would think the NRA would be all for teaching them there "librul" folks in them there blue states a lesson, don't you? Or is the NRA going to acknowledge that them "libruls" also own guns and support the 2nd Amendment, perhaps not to the extent the NRA does, but supporting it never the less?

FredHayek wrote: Private party sales and background checks? This will always be hard to control. Personally I won't sell a gun unless it goes through a store background check, but some of my coworkers have been ignoring the law since it passed here in Colorado.

Interesting. Breaking the law by ignoring it. Kind of reminds me of several folks right here on MMT wondering why any new laws should be passed because they only punish the law abiding citizens among us.

I was taught by my very law abiding parents in my very law abiding community as I was growing up that anyone who ignores or breaks a law is not a law abiding citizen once they do so. Your "coworkers have been ignoring the law"? Kind of implies they are no longer law abiding citizens, doesn't it?

The courts in California look like they will overturn the current waiting period so even in blue states, the NRA can repeal laws they don't like.

Ignoring laws? There is a long tradition in America of civil disobedience, tens of millions probably break speeding laws every day.

FredHayek wrote: The courts in California look like they will overturn the current waiting period so even in blue states, the NRA can repeal laws they don't like.

Ignoring laws? There is a long tradition in America of civil disobedience, tens of millions probably break speeding laws every day.

On a technicality, the NRA cannot repeal any laws whatsoever. Even they must go through the legal process and have government do their bidding if those government officials are in their back pocket. That being said, my statement/question was more for rhetorical purposes than anything. Seems a bit hypocritical of the NRA if they were to do something like this. That's all.

Your point is taken on civil disobedience. However, where should the line be drawn on that? At what point does civil disobedience become a prosecutable offense? Only if caught? Or only if someone is injured or killed? How about only if someone participates in a protest? Westboro Baptist Church come to mind? There are plenty of examples we can throw out there of civil disobedience. Some have even paid the price of doing so with their lives (civil rights movement of the 60's as one example). Getting by with breaking the law because one doesn't get caught doesn't make it right. Nor does it absolve anyone of being a law breaking citizen, IMHO.

www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-t...in-america.html?_r=0

"End the Gun Epidemic in America
​It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.
By THE EDITORIAL BOARDDEC. 4, 2015"...