Chicago Gun Ban

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Seems to me that you make a very good case for having a more uniform set of laws.

Uniform? yes I can live with that. As restrictive as you would want? I dont think so

Do you actually know what I want?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Seems to me that you make a very good case for having a more uniform set of laws.

Uniform? yes I can live with that. As restrictive as you would want? I dont think so

Do you actually know what I want?

Not exactly, but I could guess.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Seems to me that you make a very good case for having a more uniform set of laws.

Uniform? yes I can live with that. As restrictive as you would want? I dont think so

Do you actually know what I want?

Not exactly, but I could guess.

I expect you'd be wrong.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Seems to me that you make a very good case for having a more uniform set of laws.

Uniform? yes I can live with that. As restrictive as you would want? I dont think so

Do you actually know what I want?

Not exactly, but I could guess.

I expect you'd be wrong.

Then please sir, enlighten us.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DJL 232]

Quote

Sure didn't lower the crime in DC.

The murder rate in DC has actually halved since the crack wars peaked in the late 80's. However, what DID lower the crime in DC was the effort that the city put into revitalizing neighborhoods. I used to go to little clubs in the area next to Chinatown and it was ramshakle and crime ridden. In came the city and brought the MCI (Verizon) Center and boom, bye bye crime. The same thing is going on in Southeast in places where no white man dared to go. My girlfriend lives in Columbia Heights which used to be a nasty nasty place. It now has mostly young professionals.

So what's the lesson? Improve the community and the crime will go away. Easy for a city with money on hand and a will to make the change but a ban definitely wasn't what changed the city.

Crime in Washington DC

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[DJL 232]

Quote

It's just a cop-out excuse for inaction.

That's still a little short-sighted to say that we can't get rid of crime without getting rid of guns; a bit of a cop-out in itself. I'm sure you have examples of where it has worked and where it has not worked. What ELSE worked? Any device can be misused and guns are just an easy way of doing it. So easy that it's difficult to control it. But of course we can't just say that since we can't stop it we shouldn't try.

See my wiki link in the post above. I think it's funny that within the article the major points are that gentrification and revitalization worked to get rid of crime and lower the murder rate and that nobody can conclusively say that gun control did anything.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

It's just a cop-out excuse for inaction.

That's still a little short-sighted to say that we can't get rid of crime without getting rid of guns; a bit of a cop-out in itself. I'm sure you have examples of where it has worked and where it has not worked. What ELSE worked? Any device can be misused and guns are just an easy way of doing it. So easy that it's difficult to control it. But of course we can't just say that since we can't stop it we shouldn't try.

See my wiki link in the post above. I think it's funny that within the article the major points are that gentrification and revitalization worked to get rid of crime and lower the murder rate and that nobody can conclusively say that gun control did anything.

Of course it didn't in DC. It was doomed from the beginning because it is so absurdly easy to circumvent.

Which is why the access to firearms should be uniform across the country, not a patchwork quilt of incompatible rules.

The current situation does NOT help truly law abiding gun enthusiasts because they are always on the defensive against rules like DC's, which arise out of frustration. If the law abiding gun owners would only come up with a reasonable, workable plan to stem the flow of guns into the criminal world (instead of whining about it), and stop stymying resonable rules, then we'sd ALL be better off.

Places to start:

Require better training in all aspects of firearm security as a condition of purchase. 300,000+ stolen guns every year should be embarrassing to gun enthusiasts.

Fix the "straw purchase" problem. Not hard to do if you're willing to put up with a bit of inconvenience.

After all, as mnealtx has shown us, the requirements for a CCW permit in TX have been very successful in preventing criminals and loonies from gettting permits. It CAN be done. It just takes a bit of effort.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's just a cop-out excuse for inaction.

That's still a little short-sighted to say that we can't get rid of crime without getting rid of guns; a bit of a cop-out in itself. I'm sure you have examples of where it has worked and where it has not worked. What ELSE worked? Any device can be misused and guns are just an easy way of doing it. So easy that it's difficult to control it. But of course we can't just say that since we can't stop it we shouldn't try.

See my wiki link in the post above. I think it's funny that within the article the major points are that gentrification and revitalization worked to get rid of crime and lower the murder rate and that nobody can conclusively say that gun control did anything.

Of course it didn't in DC. It was doomed from the beginning because it is so absurdly easy to circumvent.

Which is why the access to firearms should be uniform across the country, not a patchwork quilt of incompatible rules.I will ask AGAIN, what do you mean here?????? What do you think will work?

The current situation does NOT help truly law abiding gun enthusiasts because they are always on the defensive against rules like DC's, which arise out of frustration. If the law abiding gun owners would only come up with a reasonable, workable plan to stem the flow of guns into the criminal world (instead of whining about it), and stop stymying resonable rules, then we'sd ALL be better off.One more time. What do you propose???

Places to start:

Require better training in all aspects of firearm security as a condition of purchase. 300,000+ stolen guns every year should be embarrassing to gun enthusiasts.And locking them up and making them useless is the solution?

Fix the "straw purchase" problem.This is a cop out not to say it does not happen but, how would you stop it. As it is already illeagal with heavy penalties Not hard to do if you're willing to put up with a bit of inconvenience.Here is your favorite (but does not mean anything) word

After all, as mnealtx has shown us, the requirements for a CCW permit in TX have been very successful in preventing criminals and loonies from gettting permits. It CAN be done. It just takes a bit of effort.

I do not feel people are against trying. It is the solution that is being debated. And it must and should be done withing the words of the constitution


The requirements here in Iowa are tought too. The problem here is local sheriffs make the call. Some allow all of those leagally able to get a CC license. Others will not give them out at all. Here is a patch work that does need fixed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

Fix the "straw purchase" problem. Not hard to do if you're willing to put up with a bit of inconvenience.

Very true. The problem would be finding a compromise between "enough" and "too much". All one has to do is read through some old threads here to see how much disparity there is among people over something as simple and easy as showing a sales receipt when leaving a store. Some see it as a complete violation of a person's rights, others see it as a simple solution to help keep theft to a minimum.
I, for one, would be unwilling to have a limit placed on how many firearms I could purchase in any given time frame. I have no problem with background checks and fully support them. I absolutely would support limits on the number of guns a person could SELL in a given time frame without notifying local authorities. (Notice I said "notify", not "get permission from") and extremely harsh sentences for those who do not abide by those laws.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Fix the "straw purchase" problem. Not hard to do if you're willing to put up with a bit of inconvenience.

Very true. The problem would be finding a compromise between "enough" and "too much". All one has to do is read through some old threads here to see how much disparity there is among people over something as simple and easy as showing a sales receipt when leaving a store.I have no problem with this but how would this help? If I were to buy for someone else (and I think when this is done the people know each other) I would not give them the weapon in the store Some see it as a complete violation of a person's rights, others see it as a simple solution to help keep theft to a minimum.Theft or are we talking about a straw purchase? You lost me here
I, for one, would be unwilling to have a limit placed on how many firearms I could purchase in any given time frame. I have no problem with background checks and fully support them.agreed I absolutely would support limits on the number of guns a person could SELL in a given time frame without notifying local authorities. (Notice I said "notify", not "get permission from")and what would this acomplish? (not being a smart ass) and extremely harsh sentences for those who do not abide by those laws.

These already exist in most (if not all) states and at the federal level

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Fix the "straw purchase" problem. Not hard to do if you're willing to put up with a bit of inconvenience.

Very true. The problem would be finding a compromise between "enough" and "too much". All one has to do is read through some old threads here to see how much disparity there is among people over something as simple and easy as showing a sales receipt when leaving a store.I have no problem with this but how would this help? If I were to buy for someone else (and I think when this is done the people know each other) I would not give them the weapon in the store Some see it as a complete violation of a person's rights, others see it as a simple solution to help keep theft to a minimum.Theft or are we talking about a straw purchase? You lost me here
I, for one, would be unwilling to have a limit placed on how many firearms I could purchase in any given time frame. I have no problem with background checks and fully support them.agreed I absolutely would support limits on the number of guns a person could SELL in a given time frame without notifying local authorities. (Notice I said "notify", not "get permission from")and what would this acomplish? (not being a smart ass) and extremely harsh sentences for those who do not abide by those laws.

These already exist in most (if not all) states and at the federal level

You find it so easy to be negative. However, as Randy has posted in the past, the majority of ILLEGAL guns get into the hands of criminals through straw purchases. Texas's success with CCW permits shows us very clearly that it is perfectly possible to do a good job of vetting people. Why can't we do the same for gun purchase?

The next most common source is theft. So make gun owners responsible for the security of their weapons. Maybe then we won't have people leaving their guns lying around for nutters to take and use to commit mass shooting.

If you can't or won't accept responsibility for the security of your gun, why should anyone trust you with it?

If you don't like my ideas, give us some of your own to combat these issues.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DJL 232]

Quote

Of course it didn't in DC. It was doomed from the beginning because it is so absurdly easy to circumvent.

Which is why the access to firearms should be uniform across the country, not a patchwork quilt of incompatible rules.

The current situation does NOT help truly law abiding gun enthusiasts because they are always on the defensive against rules like DC's, which arise out of frustration. If the law abiding gun owners would only come up with a reasonable, workable plan to stem the flow of guns into the criminal world (instead of whining about it), and stop stymying resonable rules, then we'sd ALL be better off.

Places to start:

Require better training in all aspects of firearm security as a condition of purchase. 300,000+ stolen guns every year should be embarrassing to gun enthusiasts.

Fix the "straw purchase" problem. Not hard to do if you're willing to put up with a bit of inconvenience.

After all, as mnealtx has shown us, the requirements for a CCW permit in TX have been very successful in preventing criminals and loonies from gettting permits. It CAN be done. It just takes a bit of effort.

Amen. But at least DC tried. I'm still surprised at how easy it is to buy something that has a primary purpose of killing people. If that's the case in TX then the country should follow

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Fix the "straw purchase" problem. Not hard to do if you're willing to put up with a bit of inconvenience.

Very true. The problem would be finding a compromise between "enough" and "too much". All one has to do is read through some old threads here to see how much disparity there is among people over something as simple and easy as showing a sales receipt when leaving a store.I have no problem with this but how would this help? If I were to buy for someone else (and I think when this is done the people know each other) I would not give them the weapon in the store Some see it as a complete violation of a person's rights, others see it as a simple solution to help keep theft to a minimum.Theft or are we talking about a straw purchase? You lost me here
I, for one, would be unwilling to have a limit placed on how many firearms I could purchase in any given time frame. I have no problem with background checks and fully support them.agreed I absolutely would support limits on the number of guns a person could SELL in a given time frame without notifying local authorities. (Notice I said "notify", not "get permission from")and what would this acomplish? (not being a smart ass) and extremely harsh sentences for those who do not abide by those laws.

These already exist in most (if not all) states and at the federal level

You find it so easy to be negative. However, as Randy has posted in the past, the majority of ILLEGAL guns get into the hands of criminals through straw purchases. Texas's success with CCW permits shows us very clearly that it is perfectly possible to do a good job of vetting people. Why can't we do the same for gun purchase?

The next most common source is theft. So make gun owners responsible for the security of their weapons. Maybe then we won't have people leaving their guns lying around for nutters to take and use to commit mass shooting.

If you can't or won't accept responsibility for the security of your gun, why should anyone trust you with it?

If you don't like my ideas, give us some of your own to combat these issues.

For the most part I agree with what you post here. When specifics are givien you and I are not too far apart.

Thanks for the reply

Marc

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Are you willing to have those same requirements imposed on other rights?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Texas's success with CCW permits shows us very clearly that it is perfectly possible to do a good job of vetting people. Why can't we do the same for gun purchase?

There is ALREADY a federal background check done any time a gun is purchased from a dealer (only person to person sales are exempt) ....how much more do you want, and how many infringements on OTHER rights are you willing to take to do it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[warpedskydiver 0]

Straw purchases are illegal and a felony, including being a federal weapons violation.

So there is a crime committed when this occurs, why would anyone propose more laws to restrict others when the criminal is the one who needs to be prosecuted?

The only reason straw purchases are not vehemently prosecuted is the fact that politicians and LEO's would prefer to take away everyones rights, so in fact the criminals are doing their bidding.

If the laws were enforced we would not have these debates.

The only solution is to follow the constitution to the letter, and prosecute those who violate it, or commit other crimes such as murder, etc.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Texas's success with CCW permits shows us very clearly that it is perfectly possible to do a good job of vetting people. Why can't we do the same for gun purchase?

There is ALREADY a federal background check done any time a gun is purchased from a dealer (only person to person sales are exempt) ....how much more do you want, and how many infringements on OTHER rights are you willing to take to do it?

It was you, I think, who pointed out the success of Texas's CCW permit check. It CAN be done.

The current check is clearly a farce if so many straw purchases get by. Since a check is already required, having one that actually works is no more an infringement than you currently have.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Texas's success with CCW permits shows us very clearly that it is perfectly possible to do a good job of vetting people. Why can't we do the same for gun purchase?

There is ALREADY a federal background check done any time a gun is purchased from a dealer (only person to person sales are exempt) ....how much more do you want, and how many infringements on OTHER rights are you willing to take to do it?

It was you, I think, who pointed out the success of Texas's CCW permit check. It CAN be done.

The current check is clearly a farce if so many straw purchases get by. Since a check is already required, having one that actually works is no more an infringement than you currently have.

I disagree, for reasons I stated above.
Also - please recall that the EXTRA checks that are done for CCW are, in all honesty, no more stringent and are probably the exact same records check as what are currently done for the initial purchase from a dealer.

There is absolutely NO way to know if the person buying the gun is going to walk down to the street corner and sell it off to someone else, so please describe HOW you are going to prevent that rather than parroting the "straw purchase" line.

FWIW, I'd *LOVE* to see a "compromise" that actually required someone OTHER than legal gun owners to change their position or give something up, just once.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

See my wiki link in the post above. I think it's funny that within the article the major points are that gentrification and revitalization worked to get rid of crime and lower the murder rate and that nobody can conclusively say that gun control did anything.

but does gentrification eliminate crime, or just export it elsewhere?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

See my wiki link in the post above. I think it's funny that within the article the major points are that gentrification and revitalization worked to get rid of crime and lower the murder rate and that nobody can conclusively say that gun control did anything.

but does gentrification eliminate crime, or just export it elsewhere?

That's a very good question...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[dannydan 0]

Quote

The next most common source is theft. So make gun owners responsible for the security of their weapons. Maybe then we won't have people leaving their guns lying around for nutters to take and use to commit mass shooting.

NO NO NO and NO.... Why should I be held responsible for a criminals action(s)? I absolutely hate telling my wife to put/hide Her purse away/behind the couch or in our safe etc etc within our own house so that a passerby wont see it and get an evil idea if he/she hasn't already had that premeditated thought????

Same with MY firearm(s) in MY CASTLE or in MY vehicle!!! However, since I know that the evil thugs has intent to commit a crime by STEALING my stuff, then I choose to lock up my weapons and or lock up my vehicle...

NOPE, don't blame me for someone elses action!

[warpedskydiver 0]

Well then, if someone were to steal a plane and use it for some nefarious purpose we should also charge the owner of the plane for not having it guarded and locked up in an underground hardened shelter.

[DJL 232]

Quote

but does gentrification eliminate crime, or just export it elsewhere?

In the cited example the crime decreased over the entire city. Sure you could say they moved to Baltimore but if the scene is not ripe for criminal activity then it won't flourish.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Well then, if someone were to steal a plane and use it for some nefarious purpose we should also charge the owner of the plane for not having it guarded and locked up in an underground hardened shelter.

Many jurisdictions are now requiring double locking and hold airplane owners responsible if they don't do it.

If you can't be responsible for the security of your guns, you shouldn't have them. After all - you DO claim you need a gun for security.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dannydan 0]

Quote

Quote

Well then, if someone were to steal a plane and use it for some nefarious purpose we should also charge the owner of the plane for not having it guarded and locked up in an underground hardened shelter.

Many jurisdictions are now requiring double locking and hold airplane owners responsible if they don't do it.

If you can't be responsible for the security of your guns, you shouldn't have them. After all - you DO claim you need a gun for security.

Will this be the same for Slick Willie when the Chinese nuke us with the SECRETS that the former POS oops I mean POTUS sold/traded them??

Impeachment HELL! He should have been EXECUTED as a TRAITOR! and to so NO bias, GWB isnt that great either... There! there should be no question where I stand with politics..

oops again, off topic