|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Only half of the guns used to commit crimes in Alameda County last year were registered in California and less than 10% were registered to the person who committed the crime, according to a study released last week by District Attorney Nancy O’Malley.
The report by the District Attorney’s Office covers six years from 2012 to 2018, reviewing data on gun use, sales, possession and theft in the county and looking at every gun used in a crime that was prosecuted by its office in 2018.
Of the 862 guns used in Alameda County crimes last year, only 432, or 50.1%, were registered in California. Only 66 of those guns, or 7.6%, were registered to the person who was arrested for the crime.
In addition, the report found that an overwhelming majority of prosecuted gun cases in the county involved handguns, as opposed to rifles, shotguns or assault weapons.
The study reported that 372 of the 9,340 guns, or 4%, sold by a dealer and recorded as purchases in Alameda County were lost or stolen last year. That ratio is similar to the ratio in the previous five years.
Another key finding is that there are problems with how state and federal agencies maintain records on guns that are recovered during crime investigations.
“Due to data gathering and reporting gaps, identifying which firearms used in crimes are stolen is incredibly difficult and time prohibitive,” the report said.
The study said that problem kept researchers from determining whether any of the 862 guns used in Alameda County crimes last year were stolen or lost.
O’Malley said her office will work with the reporting authorities to find solutions to the gap in data collection, reporting and analysis.
In her introduction to the study, O’Malley wrote, “In creating this report, we aim to deepen our understanding of the epidemic of gun violence in Alameda County, in California and across the country.”
O’Malley wrote, “An in-depth and critical analysis of gun purchases, ownership, theft and use is vital to furthering the goal of reducing gun violence as well as accidental firearm related injuries and fatalities.”
By
By
Wait, wait, wait.. ..criminals dont follow the law?
I think we have more of a mental health issue and have made killing through movies and video games to be a non event. The other major issue we have is being soft on criminals and letting off and out too early. It’s coming out that yesterdays shooter in Texas had a lengthy criminal record and probably did not purchase his weapon the legal way. In my view, violent movies, video games, TV shows, facebook, instagram, and twitter should all be considered for censorship until such time as we mind out what is going on with the minds of our youth. If gun control was the answer California would never have a problem but obviously that is not the answer.
Putting Gun Death Statistics in Perspective
Gangs Remain Key Unaddressed Problem in Gun Debate
smalline
Print Friendly and PDF
By Dustin Hawkins, About.com Guide. March 2013
JPFO Homepage Stats Widget
There are roughly 32,000 gun deaths per year in the United States. Of those, around 60% are suicides. About 3% are accidental deaths (less than 1,000). About 34% of deaths (just over 11,000 in both 2010 and 2011) make up the remainder of gun deaths. Sometimes the 32,000 and 11,000 figures are used interchangeably by gun control advocates. Clearly, the 32,000 figure is a far more dramatic number and is often used for impact. These numbers are also regularly compared to other countries’ gun statistics. But are they true? Here, we will examine some of the most common gun control arguments used and put those figures into perspective.
Gang Violence Driving Force of Gun Violence
To hear gun control advocates speak, one would be led to believe that gun violence is a widespread problem whereby the mere existence of a gun is as much a problem as the person who intends to wield it. But the reality is that gun homicides are overwhelmingly tied to gang violence. In fact, a staggering 80% of gun homicides are gang-related. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011. That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 300 million people and 250 million guns.
Cities such as Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Cleveland, and New Orleans all have very high per-capita murder rates. Individual police estimates usually find at least 65% and often more than 80% of all murders in those cities are gang-related. Solve the problem of gang violence, and a huge chunk of the gun homicide and violence problem is solved. And what national gun control measures would slow the gang violence problem, when local gun control laws have failed in cities like Chicago? If politicians were really worried about gun deaths, wouldn’t they be specifically targeting where a majority of the problems exist?
2,200 Gun Homicides Per Year Beyond Gangs
The 2,200 figure is perhaps the most relevant of all gun statistics in the gun control debate given that the gun control laws are specifically targeted to this segment. If the government were interested in stopping gangs – and as a result also stopping the major contributor of gun violence – the gun laws would be more targeted. Yet most gun control legislation would do little-to-nothing to slow the growing gang problem. Most of the gun laws are aimed at a segment of the population that is mostly law-abiding and outside of the gang culture and would likely do little to stop any of the violence.
The United States is one of the most gun-friendly countries in the world. Roughly half of American households have a gun.
2200 non gang related murders per year out of a population of over 330,000,000 in not significant compared to other forms of murders.
Yes I do consider 2200 out of 330,000,000 to be statistically insignificantly especially when many more people are stabbed to death (should we outlaw knifes?).
Yes, do believe what is allowed in movies, TV, and social media needs to be controlled.
Columbine yes both shooter had a history of mental health and behavorial issues. Klebolds mother lectures saying she knew and should have done more
Sandy Hook, the kids was insane and his mother was trying to get him put away at the time he killed her and did the shooting.
Virginia Tech the guy was also under mental health care and had told his doctor he wanted to kill people because they made fun of him.
The guy in Colorado who had purple hair had told his doctor he was going to kill people and she did nothing.
Everytime there is one of these shootings everyone knew after the fact that they were crazy.
Yes, I don’t believe normal people without mental health issues going around shooting innocent people. To think otherwise is insane.
Kathleen, I’m curious. What is your current understanding of background checks , vetting, and registration? What currently is in place?
So you don’t know. The standards are the same for purchases and background checks. Federal standard applies. Please do some research before you come on here.
BobB. Good idea. But how? There are estimated more than 400 million guns in the US. If we cannot find 11 million illegal aliens how do we find 400 million guns of which up to half are probably unregistered. No BS just explain how.
BobB Your comparisons aren’t even close. I said no BS just explain how.
Well for one it would start a civil war and secondly the police would refuse to do it. Police swear an oath to protect the constitution and not some liberal politician.
I have my FFL/FLC and LTC and when pulled over law enforcement actually thanks me for carrying because the know I have had to go through an FBI background check. Capable gun owners are a friend to the community.
So you’re saying that criminals don’t care about registering their (probably illegally purchased) guns?
No. Way.
Gun prohibitionists and Kathleen, hardest hit.
Seriously, how anyone can see this and say that more laws will help is living in fantasyland.
Their real goal is to take away all guns. Once they accomplish that, your 1st Amendment rights are gone because then they can punish you for all sorts of “wrong think”.
Don’t let them.
Dan
35 shot – 7 killed in the first half of labor day weekend in Chicago: https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2019/9/1/20841934/labor-day-weekend-shootings-gun-violence-homicide
I’m sure that most, if not all, of these shooting were committed by tax-paying citizens with guns that were registered with the state.
Yes, the above is dripping with contemptuous sarcasm towards those who have no idea how CULTURE is the issue and not inanimate GUNS.
Dan
The never ending gun debate. I understand both sides, and both sides have valid arguments. That being said, something has to be done. Gun violence is out of control, and nobody seems to have an effective solution. We’re all at risk, and it’s scary. What the heck every happened to society?
Kathleen,
“Broad generalizations are problematic.”
Actually no Kathleen, most gun crime occurs in cities that are run by democrats.
This is not” broad generalization”, this is fact.
If you took out the top 30 cities that have the highest gun crimes the US would rank pretty low in overall gun crimes WORLD-WIDE.
The fact that 99% of those cities are democrat controlled is not a coincidence.
Dan
“If they have been confiscated, they can’t be misused.”
And right there is the oft-hidden honesty of a typical liberal.
Finally.
“something has to be done.”
This is correct.
1.) More guns in law-abiding citizens hands with proper training thereof. 2.)Prosecute gun laws violations to the maximum extent of the law. 3.) reduce restrictive laws in the top 30 cities where gun violence is prevalent and allow law-abiding citizens to conceal carry.
This is a start.
Dan
Kathleen,
“More guns are just more guns. Conceal/carry as you propose sounds a lot like stand your ground. A little to vigilante?”
Vastly more illegally acquired guns used in crimes than legally purchased: https://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/
You see Kathleen, since you have to resort to a straw man argument (vigilantism) instead of going out and doing a simple web search, it wouldn’t be so darned satisfying in linking article that debunks your oft-used reasons to take away guns from EVERYONE.
The link should end this argument, but I know it won’t.
Dan
Kathleen,
“So helpful citizens can stop criminals?”
Yes ma’am.
“That is a vigilante.”
No ma’am, not when done during the commission of a crime that can result in bodily injury or in self-defense.
You’re just moving goal-posts now.
I take it you didn’t read the article…
Dan
@Pete wrote: “Yes I do consider 2200 out of 330,000,000 to be statistically insignificantly especially when many more people are stabbed to death (should we outlaw knifes?).“
That’s a completely false statement. FBI statistics show that many times more people are murdered in this country by guns than with knives. In 2017, over 11,000 people were murdered with guns while about 1,600 people were murdered by knives.
Statista, murders by weapons used: https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
. . . . .
Other countries are in awe of us. Another typical day in America:
“A 14-year-old confessed to killing all five of his family members in an Alabama home, authorities say”
“3 People Shot Outside Minnesota State Fair”
“Wisconsin Mother Shot Dead in Front of Son by Road Rage Drive after Driving Lesson Crash”
“Youth football coach shot, killed breaking up fight near the field”
Kathleen,
I’ve consistently said “law-abiding” citizen.
Geez.
@James Michael wrote “And from China…8 students killed on the first day of school in the LATEST attack on school children ”.
Yup. Good thing that he didn’t have access to a gun because then he would have used a gun instead of a knife and would have quickly killed many more children than he did. Thanks for making that point.
Why don’t you remind us all how many kids and adults were killed at the Sandy Hook school shooting?
Kathleen,
Ok, so you cherry picked some small nuggets that support your argument but you forgot the conclusion.
I’ll condense the entire article in 3 parts for you and other who refuse to recognize reality:
Question: Is most gun crime committed by those who illegally possess guns?
Thesis: Gun-control measures are useless because they target the wrong people. Laws that limit the rights of law-abiding gun owners don’t make sense because most gun crime is committed by those who illegally possess a gun.
Politifact Conclusion: Thesis is accurate. Rated mostly true.
Stop being disingenuous.
Dan
@James Michael
Nope, the point that you (unintentionally) made was that the number of deaths would have been much greater if this killer in China had access to guns.
Also, I note that you didn’t answer my question about how many kids and adults were killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting. (Hint: It was a LOT MORE than eight. Why? Because the killer had a GUN, not a knife.)
Kathleen wrote “Here is what I think is the key point: “gun ownership laws vary from state to state”. And they shouldn’t”
That’s right. It’s a ridiculous patchwork mess. “Pro-gun” advocates like to point out that gun violence in Chicago is high despite the strict gun control laws there BUT what they never ever ever mention is that gun control laws are actually very lax in nearby Indiana. So take a wild guess about where a lot of the guns used for crimes in Chicago come from?
@James Michael
No sophistry involved on my part, James. The simple fact is that the number of schoolchildren deaths in that massacre in China would have been much greater if the killer had a gun instead of a knife. Try directly looking at that cold, hard fact and dealing with it.
As for the number of deaths in the Sandy Hook massacre, I’ll answer the question since you don’t have the guts to. The total number of dead was 26 people. That included 20 elementary school students and 6 adults. Yes, guns are much more efficient killing tools than knives, aren’t they?
Kathleen,
“gun ownership laws vary from state to state”.
Ok, granted.
Let’s eliminate the laws that clearly (my article) put law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage to law-breakers by doing the following:
1.) Allow conceal carry for law-abiding citizens across state lines.
2.) Punish illegal sellers and buyers to the fullest extent of the law.
3.) Restrict gun ownership for anyone who has a documented history of mental incapacitation. This includes, but is not limited to depression and bi-polar disorder.
4.) Restrict gun ownership to anyone who is known to have advocated for mass shooting/killing in a social network. Must be documented and not word-of-mouth.
These are just a few off the top of my head.
I’m pretty passionate about #3 because I think that in order to be able to kill mass numbers of people, you must be mentally incapable of rational thought and behavior.
Dan
Kathleen,
I was pulled over for DWB (driving while black). Son and 2 son in laws were watching a UFC fight at BWW. When the fight was over they called for a ride so I drove over and waited in the parking lot for them to come out. They got in and I drove a block before being pulled over. Here is the entire exchange. I gave him my license and registration and he said “you know why I pulled you over?”, I said no idea and he said I thought you were swerving and I said no i was not. He said have you been drinking and I said I do not drink alcohol. He was fishing and I new this was a sausage pinch so real friendly he says mind if I look in your truck and I said yes I do. He said why and I said just exercising my rights. I asked if he had a warrant and he said no, I said do you have probable cause and he said no and I said well them I will be on my way. He went back to his car and came back and said “why didn’t you tell me you were former law enforcement and had a LTC?” I told him it was not part of the stop. This is how everything gets abused.
Regarding background checks. The Texas shooter failed the background check and was denied a purchased so he obtained is gun illegally. Regarding background checks all citizens are required minimally to submit to a background check when making a purchase. The purchase must be made to a company or individual holding a valid FFL (federal firearm license). The Indiana and Iowa examples are complete bs because you are required to be a resident of those states to purchase a firearm.
My point is we have laws on the books but they are not applied appropriately. If you want good guns laws then let the guns guys figure it out and not politicans nor individuals who don’t know anything about weapons.
Kathleen,
1. What laws can you break and still keep guns? I’m just looking for when you are no longer “law abiding.” I don’t think a traffic ticket, for instance. If you are at fault and kill someone in a traffic accident? Maybe? Rob a bank?
If you are convicted of any felony or misdemeanor domestic violence or dishonorable discharge you are prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Those are all checkable but what is not is mental health history.
2. Private sellers? Inheritance? And does the law extend far enough? Again, looking for the boundaries.
No such thing as a private sellers. All private sales are required to go through an FFL holder who must provide a background check before the purchase can go through
3. Restrict sounds like maybe to me. Do you mean prohibit? I could agree there.
4. I might argue this as not enough. I would hope word of mouth, actual notebooks, or drawings, are worth at least some investigation by local police. Anyone merely talking about (or smart enough not to be advocating on social media)–I’d hate to be missing catching someone before they escalate.
Can 5. be being 21 years old to purchase? For example, I can see a father (or mother even) teaching a child to hunt. Should there be some way the parent has to indicate they are doing that? I don’t have an answer. Just a hypothetical.
So this is a place to begin, assuming you agree to standards for every state. I think that means some kind of vetting/licensing.
Another thought on conceal/carry across state lines is states’ ability to share information if a crime is committed. I don’t want a person in Florida coming to California to murder someone without some way for California being able to figure that out. I’m not saying that very well, but you get the idea.
40 states honor other states concealed weapon permits. States like California, New York, New Jersey, Ill, Oregoon, Washington, Mass do not honor anyones permits………states with most gun crime don’t honor states which don’t makes no sense.
Those are the facts and laws. You want the best state to model then choose Texas. In order get concealed license permit it requires 8 hours of classroom testing, mental test, psych test, hands on test, FBI background check, retinal scanning, fingerprinting, goes in all federal data bases etc and if you caught with a weapon without one concealed it is a felony. I California if you are caught with a concealed weapon its a misdemeanor. Makes zero sense.
Kathleen,
Pete ably answered everything.
“I would hope word of mouth, …I’d hate to be missing catching someone before they escalate.”
I said “documented”. If it were “word of mouth” we’d have all sorts of he/she said occurrences with no basis in fact.
For instance, say that I loathe my Pleasanton neighbor for whatever reason. I’ll just call the police and tell them that he is a violent psychopath that has threatened me and my children and needs to have his guns confiscated and his head examined.
The above is “word of mouth” and I think we can both agree that this is not the way we want to take things.
Same goes for group word of mouth.
Dan
You might be right but the Texas standard is very high much higher than California. Did you know that in California dependent upon which county you live in they have different standards or no standard. As an example in Kern County you apply for a concealed weapon permit in writing and then submit to an interview (almost everyone passes) and then are issued a permit which is valid anywhere in the state? Thats insane. I asked an Alameda County Sheriff why the penalty for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit was a misdemeanor he told me politics. Texas is probably the best example of the way it should work.
Pete wrote “40 states honor other states concealed weapon permits. States like California, New York, New Jersey, Ill, Oregoon, Washington, Mass do not honor anyones permits………states with most gun crime don’t honor states which don’t makes no sense.”
Time for a fact check. You named seven states (CA, NY, NJ, IL, OR, WA, and MA) as being states with the “most gun crime”. Is this true? Let’s check….
According to FBI statistics of murder rates including gun murder rates, the seven states with the highest per capita gun murder rates are:
1. Louisiana
2. Missouri
3. Maryland
4. South Carolina
5. Delaware
6. Michigan
7. Mississippi
No overlap between the seven states that Pete claimed have the “most gun crime” and FBI statistics. Pete’s factual accuracy score is 0 out of 7.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
Wombat,
I did not say anything about per capita, I said gun crime period. I’ll make it simple for you. California with maybe 40,000,000 people has more gun crime than Mississippi with a population of 3,500,000.
So you do some whistle stuff and go racial. Those states you pick have a high African American population so your saying blacks are criminal. I see through stuff. Go back to your KKK meeting.
@Pete wrote “I did not say anything about per capita, I said gun crime period. I’ll make it simple for you. California with maybe 40,000,000 people has more gun crime than Mississippi….”
Too simple. I was giving you too much credit. So when you wrote “states with most gun crime”, you just really meant to point out the fact that those states have relatively large populations? That’s really pretty sneaky and deceptive.
Kathleen, hard to explain but as a person of color I have been going through this my whole life and its just nonsense.
If you or anyone of reason wants to discuss the laws and facts around guns I’m available. I will not respond anymore to racial dog whisles as its beneath contempt.
Now if you really want to discuss gun safety from shootings we need to consider the following;
The church shooter in Texas was dishonorabily discharged from the military so should have been barred from the purchase but because of a paperwork snafu it was never entered in the database and hence he purchased the gun.
El Paso shooter purchased his gun the proper way and passed the background checks. Purchased from FFL who performed the background check.
Odessa shooter tried to purchase a firearm and when conducting the background check he was denied due to a criminal conviction history. He obviously stole or purchased a gun from another criminal.
I still go back to mental health because what is the common thread? white, under 30 or so, living at home, not married or long term relationships, many from broken homes but that is pretty common today, not accomplished or an outcast/loners. I am not an profiler but have been around them and that is an interesting story above there.
Pete wrote “So you do some whistle stuff and go racial. Those states you pick have a high African American population so your saying blacks are criminal. I see through stuff. Go back to your KKK meeting.”
@Kathleen
Trying to have a civil, rational discussion with a person like that above is futile. The way that he tried pulling out the race card in the middle of an exchange that had nothing to do with race was bizarre and crazy.
And so ends the dialogue
Here is a compromise I would support. Universal background checks on all gun purchases and a federal government issued ID to vote! I’m sure we can all get behind that.
“O’Malley wrote, “An in-depth and critical analysis of gun purchases, ownership, theft and use is vital to furthering the goal of reducing gun violence as well as accidental firearm related injuries and fatalities.”
Sorry, but someone using the term “gun violence” and claiming it is an “epidemic” has no business telling others about the need for “an in-depth and critical analysis”. Firearms do not commit acts of violence, they are not “germs” that cause/transmit disease, only a small percentage of them in circulation are ever misused, and accidental firearm related injuries and fatalities have nothing to do with why people are currently being shot/killed on the streets of our cities.
Like other so called “progressives”, O’Malley is trying to shift the blame/debate regarding abuse of firearms (already against the law) away from the actual perpetrators and on to society (guns, legal owners, etc.) for supposedly causing it (the “epidemic”) to take place. Just what we do not need to be hearing from a district attorney – people abusing guns are somehow unwilling participants or victims.
What a surprise, I’m just in awe. She got paid for this report? Guns don’t create violence, people do.
You can find the full downloadable report, which seems like a good place to start, here: https://www.alcoda.org/resources/gun_safety
“You can find the full downloadable report, which seems like a good place to start”
Go to the link, scroll down the page, and you see the following: “In June 2017, the DA’s Office partnered with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence…”
Nothing “good” about this. The DA “partnering” with a left wing special interest organization trying to erode the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution/legal gun ownership. Maybe it’s time for someone who spends more time going after criminals instead?
Nice try Michael B. Full text: In June 2017, the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office partnered with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the American Academy of Pediatrics in the ASK (Asking Save Kids) Gun Safety Campaign. The intent of this campaign is to raise awareness surrounding the issue of children and adults being placed at risk for serious injury or death from unsecured firearms. This campaign is designed to disseminate important statistical information regarding the problem and consequences of improper storage of a firearm in a residence.
The report, on the other hand: The data collected for this project is primarily from two different sources. The first source is the criminal cases that have been or are currently being prosecuted by the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office. . . . The second source of general information was collected from the California Department of Justice (DOJ) – Bureau of Firearms. The statistical data from the California Department of Justice – Bureau of Firearms is collective data for all law enforcement agencies within Alameda County and the State of California for comparison purposes. The statistical data obtained from the California Department of Justice – Bureau of Firearms was narrowed to the number of firearms entered into the Automated Firearms System under Crime Guns, Stolen, Lost, Recovered and Dealer Record of Sales, from 2012 through 2018 in Alameda County.
The campaign is separate from the analyzed statistics of the report.
Nice try Kathleen. Doesn’t change what the Brady Center does and is – a special interest organization lobbying for more gun control measures/bans for the law abiding while at the same time portraying deliberate misuse of firearms as a “public health” problem and/or the “fault” of our society.
Why do you suppose the DA would want to be associated with them? Why not just do an “awareness” campaign on her own/from her office without them being involved?
Speaking of awareness, exactly how many people are injured/killed as a result “unsecured/improperly stored firearms in a residence” vs. what happens daily with criminals obtaining guns illegally and injuring/killing others on the streets of Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, etc? Should resources be directed to where we actually have problems – or should we just engage in endless “what if” and “sky is falling” scenarios from gun control groups (that are being used to continue shut down the legal process to own/use guns in this state)? These are the same people/organizations who still promote the false accusation/claim that more states issuing permits to carry guns will inevitably cause “wild west shootouts” – but none have taken place.
I imagine that once the report was completed, and some problems noted, that you partner with organizations that have the money for a campaign and a goal of finding solutions. Not nefarious. We have the report, an article, and thus the awareness. And the report points out the problems faced trying to do the report. Even tracking lost and stolen guns is a problem.
Would you have looked for the report? And even if you did, how many others would look, let alone read 50 pages. The report wasn’t even linked in the article.
I still think national requirements for licensing/registration are needed and then states can do more, or not. Then keep your guns, even the ones I think are ridiculous.
Another study: “Mass shootings still represent just one-half of 1% of the more than 14,000 firearm-caused homicides per year in the United States, ***but while the number of homicides overall has declined in recent years, the number of mass shootings continues to surge***.” LA Times. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-01/mass-shooting-data-odessa-midland-increase
“I imagine that once the report was completed, and some problems noted, that you partner with organizations that have the money for a campaign and a goal of finding solutions. Not nefarious. We have the report, an article, and thus the awareness.”
I imagine you would not feel the same if the organization being partnered with was the NRA or some other 2nd Amendment group. The “solution” being offered here is isn’t one. It is just par for the course for left wing organizations like the Brady Center when confronted with street violence in our cities – those legally owning guns/not part of the problem/doing nothing wrong are just “not safe enough” or are “collectively guilty” of it taking place.
Despite guns being around/legal to own in our nation for years, no one wants to go near the failure of progressive policies that blame society for violence and treat the perpetrators of it as victims. Just pass more nefarious gun laws/bans/turn in programs for the law abiding.
“I still think national requirements for licensing/registration are needed and then states can do more, or not. Then keep your guns, even the ones I think are ridiculous.”
Ridiculous to assume criminals would bother with getting licenses to own guns in the first place and then be stopped from committing crimes afterward.
No benefit to doing this other than furthering the agenda of politicians/activists who don’t want people legally owning guns. You will not be able to “keep your guns” if the process is deliberately made prohibitive as is the case in New York State with handgun possession and that the leadership of a major political party wants to replicate gun laws in other nations where guns have already been confiscated and there is no “right” to do/own anything – except ask permission.
Michael, making it difficult to own guns legally is acceptable to me. If it’s a hurdle for those with an interest in protection or sport or hobby, it will be really difficult for those with criminal intent. Notice, not impossible.
We do things like this when it is in the interest of the many. I want to drive. Vehicles, at thousands of pounds, can be lethal. I have to be licensed and, in this case, proven capable of driving—in every state and elsewhere when I leave the US. I have to obey the rules of the road because millions of others want to drive too. Do accidents occur? Do people drive illegally? Do people hurt and kill others? Do people steal automobiles? Do people steal cars and then use them in other criminal acts? Certainly. But I would never say the percentage of any of those cases is small enough that the licensing and rules aren’t necessary. You may have the right to own guns, but not without some rules that protects the rights of others—even when the rules can’t protect us against every possible infraction.
Pete, it is a disservice to those with mental health challenges to write this off to mental health. There are multiple solutions possible and maybe necessary. As to games and movies, they can desensitize. The answer may have more to do with what parents allow.
So tell me Pete, you want games and movies regulated because of their often violent nature training young minds, yet you seem to believe 2,200 non gang deaths is nothing to worry about? Any death at the end of a gun is a problem. Read the report that states mass shootings are on the rise. Dying or being wounded at the hands of a shooter aiming at a group or aiming at a single person is a bad day for those who are shot. Tightening the rules we can that still allows legal guns to be owned should be a goal.
May it never be someone you care for.
Games and movies are regulated with rating systems.
Signifigance of purple hair? None. The doctor, the mothers–plenty to regret.
Las Vegas? No clear motive was ever determined. Odessa seems to have been triggered by a traffic stop. Is every case a mental health issue . . . nope. Sure, we like to say they have to be crazed because it doesn’t seem normal. It’s possible to seem normal right up until you pull the trigger.
Without some kind of vetting and licensing/registration, you can’t catch those who should not be allowed access to weapons.
I posted links on the other thread to the rules in every state. Their is no uniformity with everything from completely lax (Arizona) to stricter limitations (California). I believe Dan posted information about national requirements for certain weapons.
Does anyone really understand that violent people don’t care about background checks or lax or strict limitations on gun or ammo purchases. They simply go to the underground economy.
If we confiscate the guns from both the crooks and the law abiding people, then no one will have guns. And don’t give me any of that second (or fourth) amendment BS.
Confiscate the guns. Get rid of the second amendment!
BobB, I think you are living in fantasyland. There aren’t enough police or military to carry out that mission and you can never get rid of the Second. It’s not the weapon…it’s the violent individual and it’s time to accept that as fact. You stand a better chance of surviving a bullet than you would someone wielding a Ka-Bar.
Won’t happen instantly or quickly. People used to say that you couldn’t get rid of slavery in the US or that women would never get the vote.
“If we confiscate the guns from both the crooks and the law abiding people, then no one will have guns. And don’t give me any of that second (or fourth) amendment BS.Confiscate the guns.”
Time for some people to grow up.
Amazing that guns, which have been around and legal to own for years in our nation, are now suddenly the “cause” of violence according to “progressive” BS. Crooks don’t care about or comply with laws either.
“It’s not the weapon…it’s the violent individual and it’s time to accept that as fact. You stand a better chance of surviving a bullet than you would someone wielding a Ka-Bar.”
BobB and others will never understand this. They think guns are icky, just “do things”, and the people misusing them are just bystanders/victims. If you are a law abiding adult legally owning one you are just as “guilty” as the thugs on the streets abusing them.
“Michael, making it difficult to own guns legally is acceptable to me. If it’s a hurdle for those with an interest in protection or sport or hobby, it will be really difficult for those with criminal intent. Notice, not impossible.”
So let’s ignore the Constitution, the actual problems we are having with guns, and make it as difficult as possible for a law abiding person to defend themselves to make it “acceptable” to you. Sounds like a great idea.
Actually, it’s not. It will not be “really difficult” for those with criminal intent because they can do what they wish illegally.
“In some states the firearms laws can be much less restrictive than federal laws. However, individuals are not exempt from federal laws just because the state laws are less restrictive. In most cases it is left to the discretion of local law enforcement as to whether they will enforce federal laws. The Supreme court has ruled in Printz v United States that **local law enforcement are not obligated to enforce federal firearms laws**.” https://www.gunstocarry.com/gun-laws-state/ There is a list of laws by state at the link provided.
“The enactment of laws relating to gun permits is mostly left up to each individual state. Federal law does not mandate that a person must carry a firearm and nor does it deny them the right to carry. **There are also no rules under Federal law for concealed carry firearms permits or licenses for US citizens**. The only area Federal law affects state law is on who a permit to carry a concealed weapon can be issued to.” https://www.gunstocarry.com/federal-gun-laws/
I’ll say this again: You may have the right to own guns, but not without some rules that protect the rights of others—even when the rules can’t protect us against every possible infraction. I gave you a good example with being licensed to drive. We make these laws and rules to protect the many. It isn’t ignoring the Constitution. The second amendment’s first three words: A well regulated . . .
Pete, the real question is what was happening that you got pulled over in the first place?
Not my goal Dan. Broad generalizations are problematic.
We already covered gun purchases in Wisconsin and Indiana. Short drive and you can be the next statistic as perp and victim.
@MichaelB,
“So let’s ignore the Constitution”
No, let’s fix the constitution.
“They think guns are icky”
They aren’t “icky”. They are cold machines, until they become hot when they are doing their terrible work of killing and maiming.
“and the people misusing them ”
If they have been confiscated, they can’t be misused.
@Pete,
” Police swear an oath to protect the constitution ”
Of course you pass an amendment to the constitution eliminating the second amendment. Then the police are upholding the constitution when they confiscate guns.
@HOW,
All currently registered guns would need to be accounted for. From there it would be involuntary confiscation. There would need to be mass mobilization with lots of government funding and a new federal bureaucracy. It would not be left up to individual states. Guns illegally held would eventually be confiscated as possessors die. There would be no gun inheritance. That 400 million would eventually become a very small number (perhaps smaller than other countries, why not?).
A start—the wrong one. More guns are just more guns. Conceal/carry as you propose sounds a lot like stand your ground. A little to vigilante?
“A start—the wrong one. More guns are just more guns. Conceal/carry as you propose sounds a lot like stand your ground. A little to vigilante?”
A little too much exposure to your real position Kathleen? You can own guns but there’s “too many” so I guess people really can’t own them after all once your “magic number” is reached – regardless of their willingness to be licensed? Sounds familiar.
“Shall issue” conceal/carry is currently the law in 40+ states. Only a handful of left wing holdouts (including California)won’t do it claiming “wild west shootouts” are inevitable.
“Gun violence is out of control, and nobody seems to have an effective solution. We’re all at risk, and it’s scary. What the heck every happened to society?”
What happened? Progressives. Everyone is victim of something, if it feels good do it, you are entitled, society is to blame, standards of behavior/codes of conduct are “too judgmental”, etc. Thanks to BobB and others we now have to have a debate when someone deliberately abuses a gun whether it was really his/her fault – or someone’s grandfather with a gun collection/the gun show at a fairgrounds that “made” him/her do it. Just plain silly.
Nothing will change until people who think like this are exposed as failures/voted out of office.
I wonder just how many of the more gun control/confiscate people have ever received weapons training? I’ll bet not many because after the draft ended most of the “progressives” just laughed and went off to have a victory smoke. You will NEVER forget your military training and how to safely and responsibly handle a weapon. You all seem to be afraid of something you have no real knowledge of…and don’t thank me for my service, that’s just a hollow phrase now.
“Does anyone really understand that violent people don’t care about background checks or lax or strict limitations on gun or ammo purchases. They simply go to the underground economy.”
Some do, but so called “progressives” do not.
To them, people doing this (and breaking the law in the process) are just victims of a “backward” society that allows private gun ownership. Despite Nikolas Cruz’ warning signs, making threats, numerous contacts with law enforcement, and law enforcement not acting appropriately, the entire Parkland incident was blamed on “assault weapons” and the NRA.
@James Michael,
Are you sure I’ve never had any weapons training? I’ll admit that I’ve probably done more shooting and enjoyed more shooting than I probably should have.
I don’t currently own any guns but certainly have in the past. I was raised around guns and also raised my kids to use and respect guns (boy scouts are good for this).
But I think that as a society we need to move on from widespread gun ownership. It is a net negative. It is time to move on.
Dan/Michael, I have said I wouldn’t limit how many guns. Two of Dan’s suggestions are more guns and more conceal/carry. For what purpose? So helpful citizens can stop criminals? That is a vigilante.
From your article Dan.
“The data is hard to track because gun ownership laws vary from state to state. New York state has universal background checks, for example. All gun sales have to go through a federally licensed dealer. A state like Mississippi, meanwhile, does not require background checks outside of gun shops.
“New York state also prohibits people convicted of several violent misdemeanors from buying or owning a gun. Many other states do not, Webster said.”
I’ve pointed to the issue of no standard being set for all states.
“‘What people don’t really appreciate is that the standards for gun ownership are so that you can be a legal gun owner but not so much law abiding,’ Webster said.”
Sure, more guns in the hands of “not so much law abiding.”
More:
But there are caveats to the data, experts warned.
• Some gun crimes are never solved, so it’s impossible to know whether the gun was obtained illegally.
• The national data is more than a decade old. The prison population of 2004 may be different from today’s inmates.
• The data also varies between states. An illegal gun sale in one state may be legal in another. Someone can legally sell a gun to their friend without a background check in Mississippi, but not New York.
I provided a link somewhere above also indicating murder rates are down, but mass shootings are increasing rapidly.
And from China…8 students killed on the first day of school in the LATEST attack on school children (that means its not the first time, folks).
And since “China tightly restricts private gun ownership, making knives and homemade explosives the most common weapons in violent crimes (CBS:9-3-19)” then I would be surprised if a gun was involved. And even if a gun was involved if a violent person can get a gun in that restrictive society then they can get one anywhere.
A violent individual WILL find a weapon. Its not the gun or society…it is the individual.
I don’t like to respond to people who don’t register and support this site, but in the case of Wombit I will.
The “point”, which you obviously missed was: A violent individual WILL find a way to spread the violence.
Caught a piece of Michael Krasny this morning, enough to know they were talking about guns and the second amendment in that few minutes. I’ll listen to the whole hour and see who was on and what is said, but others may wish to listen.
The clips I used are most of the article; nothing disingenuous about it. The data is old, but *as of that point*, “mostly true”. Here is the LA Times article again. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-01/mass-shooting-data-odessa-midland-increase
Here is what I think is the key point: “gun ownership laws vary from state to state”. And they shouldn’t; and the general public may benefit from a cohesive set of rules; and as long as there is that potential, to protect more people—whatever that number may be—there is little reason not to do it. And I will go off my usual attempts to be civil. The reason we appear not to have a cohesive set of rules is a bunch of cry babies who don’t want to do it; who hide behind the second amendment, but only the part that suits them; who skip the first three words, A well regulated; who really hate the next word in the sentence, militia.
If I, at least, can agree you can have guns, even the overpowered ones that are not for protection or sport, then you can take one step forward and agree to a standard for all 50 states. You already have stricter laws in California, so what’s the big deal? And saying, “no you’ll just want no guns” is not a reasonable answer. I’m not interested in taking your guns.
Maybe if two people could agree, then four, then six—reasonable minds could prevail.
I know what I wrote, Womby, read it any way you want. Convoluted logic or misdirection to support your argument or sophistry…have a nice day :>)
1. What laws can you break and still keep guns? I’m just looking for when you are no longer “law abiding.” I don’t think a traffic ticket, for instance. If you are at fault and kill someone in a traffic accident? Maybe? Rob a bank?
2. Private sellers? Inheritance? And does the law extend far enough? Again, looking for the boundaries.
3. Restrict sounds like maybe to me. Do you mean prohibit? I could agree there.
4. I might argue this as not enough. I would hope word of mouth, actual notebooks, or drawings, are worth at least some investigation by local police. Anyone merely talking about (or smart enough not to be advocating on social media)–I’d hate to be missing catching someone before they escalate.
Can 5. be being 21 years old to purchase? For example, I can see a father (or mother even) teaching a child to hunt. Should there be some way the parent has to indicate they are doing that? I don’t have an answer. Just a hypothetical.
So this is a place to begin, assuming you agree to standards for every state. I think that means some kind of vetting/licensing.
Another thought on conceal/carry across state lines is states’ ability to share information if a crime is committed. I don’t want a person in Florida coming to California to murder someone without some way for California being able to figure that out. I’m not saying that very well, but you get the idea.
Pete, sorry to hear about the stop. Perhaps sorrier that you were not seen as a person until identified as former law enforcement.
You examples were very helpful. Yeah for Texas! I doubt most would agree those would be reasonable national standards. A felony in Texas and is a misdemeanor in California does make zero sense.
I was thinking mostly about teens who act out or hide through lots of age appropriate behaviors. But there is an underground . . . students hear things. I just hope an adult is listening too.
Okay, Steve is right, no end in sight, so we all need to say goodnight.
For a brief moment we actually had some constructive agreement.
I asked why Pete was pulled over; he responded. So I don’t think he pulled a race card; just identified his story.
As to statistics: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Sadly, they are flexible enough to be bent to one direction or another depending on the point. For me, simplest to say there are a lot of states with problems and on a variety of topics; I’m thinking all of them.
So if all we can do is point and accuse each other, then there is no reasoned discussion. So could either of you have said, when you look at the states from this set of data “name that data set,” then this is what the numbers say. And then the other person could say, well from “this data set” I find whatever.
When I decided to post with my full name, it was because I wanted to try my darndest to be accountable and credible. It doesn’t always work. But I dislike pointing to political bent or any other definer because it’s just a rallying cry to bad behavior. I don’t care if people are anonymous or why they choose to be, but speak from a place of trying to understand. Topics like guns are hot enough without being combative to boot.