Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[styrgwillidar]

Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans do not want criminals to be able to freely by firearms. Something like 90% believe that one should undergo a background check to buy a gun.

Yes. I think that background checks have a lot of support, but the bill did much more. So, a simple poll asking a question- “Do you support background checks” without the specific details of a specific bill is meaningless relative to that bill. Even if you call the bill a ‘Background Check Bill’, in congress a lot more normally gets attached to it.

Here’s a little story that I think illustrates the point nicely:

thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/foghorn/why-gun-control-advocates-are-so-peeved-about-the-failed-background-check-bill/#more-222139

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans do not want criminals to be able to freely by firearms. Something like 90% believe that one should undergo a background check to buy a gun.

I posted a link to an article about that, somewhere in this thread. 9 out of 10 support background checks, and that was by owners of guns. It was just slightly higher by those who didn’t own any guns.

 

[scipio337]

I posted a link to an article about that, somewhere in this thread. 9 out of 10 support background checks, and that was by owners of guns. It was just slightly higher by those who didn’t own any guns.

And we currently HAVE a background check system, which I’ve gone through every time I’ve bought a gun, whether at a retail store, on the intrawebs, or in one of those horrific “gun shows”.

Meanwhile, 80% of gun crimes commited are with weapons from illegal straw purchases, or through guns purchased on the black market, which the proposed bill would not have addressed.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And we currently HAVE a background check system, which I’ve gone through every time I’ve bought a gun, whether at a retail store, on the intrawebs, or in one of those horrific “gun shows”.

Meanwhile, 80% of gun crimes commited are with weapons from illegal straw purchases, or through guns purchased on the black market, which the proposed bill would not have addressed.

I’ve bought and sold a few guns in private face to face sales, it’s a good way to buy or sell at prices without overhead being involved, and an intra-state sale is literally out of the feds domain.

The 80% it twice as much as the statistics from the Bureau of Justice, unless one groups family and friends along with illegal sources.

 

[scipio337]

The 80% it twice as much as the statistics from the Bureau of Justice, unless one groups family and friends along with illegal sources.

I did, which is also a form of “straw purchases”. Both are transactions that no amount of background checks will stop. We need current laws to be enforced, and people who break those laws prosecuted. Not to pick on the current administration, but it’s a sign of how sometimes things work:

“In any conversation about how to prevent future tragedies such as Sandy Hook, our focus should be on stopping criminals from obtaining guns,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in a statement late last week. “Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has failed to make this a priority—in 2010, out of more than 15,700 fugitives and felons who tried to illegally purchase a firearm, the Obama Justice Department prosecuted only 44. That is unacceptable.”

These remarks from Cruz capped a steady barrage of similar statements over the past month from Republicans, aiming to shift the media’s focus from the prospects of new gun laws to the failures of current ones. The apex of this GOP counteroffensive came in late February, when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., sent a letter to Obama, demanding answers for what he characterized as lax enforcement of existing gun laws.

According to Goodlatte, prosecutions following background checks that resulted in purchase denials are too low for the White House to argue that its Justice Department is adequately enforcing current law. In the letter, Goodlatte said that of 76,142 denials following an instant background check in 2010, 4,732 were referred to field offices for investigation. And of those, only 62 prosecutions resulted. “A prosecution rate this low is not indicative of a Department of Justice that takes the act of illegally attempting to acquire a firearm seriously," he wrote.

nationaljournal.com/daily/republicans-pushing-for-more-aggressive-enforcement-of-current-gun-laws-not-new-gun-control-20130403

The districts that contain Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City ranked last in terms of federal gun law enforcement in 2012, according to a new report from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which tracks federal data.

Federal gun crimes include illegal possession of a firearm in a school zone, illegal sale of a firearm to a juvenile, felon, or drug addict, and illegal transport of a firearm across state lines. In Chicago, the majority of gun charges last year were for firearms violations.

The districts of Eastern New York, Central California, and Northern Illinois ranked 88th, 89th and 90th, respectively, out of 90 districts, in prosecutions of federal weapons crimes per capita last year, but it wasn’t always this way. All three districts fell lower on the list than they had been in years past. In 2010, for example, Chicago was 78th in federal weapons prosecutions.

These cities also have some of the nation’s most restrictive gun laws, as well as the most active mayors in championing gun control. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa are all members of the national Mayors Against Illegal Guns campaign.

usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/03/28/chicago-los-angeles-new-york-prosecuted-fewest-federal-gun-crimes

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I did, which is also a form of “straw purchases”. Both are transactions that no amount of background checks will stop. We need current laws to be enforced, and people who break those laws prosecuted. Not to pick on the current administration, but it’s a sign of how sometimes things work:

Was the other poster I quoted with you participating in straw purchases?

Reality is, not all transactions require background checks.

It is something to witness the gun right ‘apologetics’ work.

 

[Geist]

It sounds like money becomes an important issue in the equation?

No, I’m well off but frugal. If I wish to purchase or sell a particular piece its sometimes easier to find someone selling or buying it privately rather than have it special ordered from a dealer. The often modest saving is just a bonus.

I suppose I’ve bought four guns and sold three in this fashion. I use my ffl03 for collectible pieces.

I lived in NY (very restrictive gun laws) and now I live in VA (not nearly as restrictive but there’s still room for improvement), even when you adjust for the population difference we still have much less gun crime than NY because gun laws simply do not work. If they did Chicago wouldn’t be more dangerous than Afghanistan now would it?

 

[Geist]

I posted a link to an article about that, somewhere in this thread. 9 out of 10 support background checks, and that was by owners of guns. It was just slightly higher by those who didn’t own any guns.

washingtonexaminer.com/five-sad-pictures-from-todays-anti-nra-march/article/2528129

I swung by the Stop the NRA March this afternoon to watch the protest and march against gun violence. I was late, but caught two of the speeches before the crowd started marching.

Participating organizations include Public Campaign, Occupy the NRA, CREDO, Every Child Matters, Moveon, United For Change, USA, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, The Other 98%, and We Act Radio.

As Buzzfeed’s Evan McMorris-Santoro noted earlier this morning, the event featured the debut of a new anti-NRA poster created by Shepard Fairey – the designer of the famous Obama ‘Hope’ poster.

A generous estimation of the crowd size would have been about 100 people, including members of the media.

less than 100 people. Guess all 90% of Americans showed up huh?

http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/r620-661bad6b7b390cd40907b0ef17f7c93c.jpg

I’d ask if the irony of an armed police escort was lost on the small crowd, but Marxists (as evident by the groups sponsoring the shindig) tend not to get irony.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, I’m well off but frugal. If I wish to purchase or sell a particular piece its sometimes easier to find someone selling or buying it privately rather than have it special ordered from a dealer. The often modest saving is just a bonus.

I suppose I’ve bought four guns and sold three in this fashion. I use my ffl03 for collectible pieces.

I lived in NY (very restrictive gun laws) and now I live in VA (not nearly as restrictive but there’s still room for improvement), even when you adjust for the population difference we still have much less gun crime than NY because gun laws simply do not work. If they did Chicago wouldn’t be more dangerous than Afghanistan now would it?

Geist,

It’s not money, but ‘easier?’ This is something of more importance than a contribution to the safety of others. I don’t see anymore than ‘minor inconveniences,’ with ‘modest savings,’ and then for only seven transactions.

One of the reasons Chicago is so dangerous is the easy access to guns, easier than in ‘war zone,’ as you point out. The real difference between the two is our access comes from ‘rights.’ Rights proclaimed by some who say they want to prevent guns in the hands of criminals.

 

[Geist]

Geist,

It’s not money, but ‘easier?’

You often make things more difficult for yourself than they need be? I like convenience. Must just be me.

This is something of more importance than a contribution to the safety of others. I don’t see anymore than ‘minor inconveniences,’ with ‘modest savings,’ and then for only seven transactions.

How are the safety of others impacted?

One of the reasons Chicago is so dangerous is the easy access to guns, easier than in ‘war zone,’ as you point out. The real difference between the two is our access comes from ‘rights.’

The level of cognitive dissonance required for you to praise gun laws and then state Chicago is dangerous due to easy access to guns is truly mind-boggling.

Rights proclaimed by some who say they want to prevent guns in the hands of criminals.

If criminals want guns, they will get guns. There is no stopping it. Chicago proves this amply no?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You often make things more difficult for yourself than they need be? I like convenience. Must just be me.

Easier access to guns for all.

How are the safety of others impacted?

Easier access to guns for all.

The level of cognitive dissonance required for you to praise gun laws and then state Chicago is dangerous due to easy access to guns is truly mind-boggling.

Easier access to guns for all.

If criminals want guns, they will get guns. There is no stopping it. Chicago proves this amply no?

Easier access to guns for all.

 

[Fairwinds]

Easier access to guns for all…

and thank God for that. I finally found the AR15 target rifle I wanted, now I can sell one of the others. Privately, of course.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

With the cost of a 3-D printer dropping below $2000, and using metal instead of ink, anyone can print a gun.

There are now more than 100,000 freeware programs for 3-D printers.

OR, you could just use a laser scanner and make your own software for your 3-D printer.

Like it or not, you can’t stuff the genie back into the bottle.

Banning guns or requiring gun registration or requiring background checks is pointless.

Violent criminals and nutjobs ALWAYS get all the guns they want. [The Boston bombers were under FBI and other LEO observation, and they not only built or obtained (not sure which) sophisticated bombs, but also FOUR illegal guns … in one of the most restrictive cities in the country … they weren’t even slowed down by gun laws. And the law abiding disarmed residents of the area were forced to cower in their homes.]

Restrictions only apply to the law-abiding.

Restrictions ONLY create more unarmed helpless victims waiting to be preyed upon.

So, take down those “gun free zone” signs, that merely advertise an unlimited supply of unarmed targets. And let school systems and other groups offer free firearms training. With certificates suitable for framing.

Easier access to guns for all … equal opportunity for all …

There is no merit in being a victim for predators.

If you want everyone to trust in G*d, that’s fine … so let us disband our fire departments and our air-sea rescue helicopter units.

 

[Fairwinds]

…So, take down those “gun free zone” signs,…

“gun free zone” signs… every gun grabber should have one prominently posted in his or her yard.

 

[pnewton]

Guess all 90% of Americans showed up huh?

You said the group that sponsored this was Marxist. Taking one rally from a fringe group and showing how pitiful it is does nothing to refute the fact that 9 out of 10 Americans want a background check on gun sales. Most sales already fall under some state statute requiring background sale already. On one side we have life safety, Maybe it helps, maybe not. On the other side we have inconvenience for gun buye.s. Again, maybe it is, maybe not. Since these issues are debatable, I simply can not fathom why anyone would balance possible loss of life against a possible inconvenience.

Now if someone can show me how their having a criminal background check somehow makes their family more vunerable, then that would be a feat.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

You said the group that sponsored this was Marxist. Taking one rally from a fringe group and showing how pitiful it is does nothing to refute the fact that 9 out of 10 Americans want a background check on gun sales. Most sales already fall under some state statute requiring background sale already. On one side we have life safety, Maybe it helps, maybe not. On the other side we have inconvenience for gun buye.s. Again, maybe it is, maybe not. Since these issues are debatable, I simply can not fathom why anyone would balance possible loss of life against a possible inconvenience.

Now if someone can show me how their having a criminal background check somehow makes their family more vunerable, then that would be a feat.

nine out of ten in a miniscule sampling with slanted sets of wording.

everybody also wants peace as well … and also win the lottery.

ask people if they want their kids to be unprotected victims.

OR THIS … put a “gun free zone” sign on the front of your house.

lead the way; show us how it’s done.

 

[pnewton]

OR THIS … put a “gun free zone” sign on the front of your house.

lead the way; show us how it’s done.

Why would anyone want to lead the way into stupidity?

Just because one does not mind the background check does not mean one does not guns sold or available for sale.

 

[Morwenna]

“gun free zone” signs… every gun grabber should have one prominently posted in his or her yard.

Strangely enough, a number of them didn’t want one, even when offered to them for free youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wt1Zy_ASNyA

 

[Geist]

Easier access to guns for all.

Easier access to guns for all.

Easier access to guns for all.

Easier access to guns for all.

Now you’re getting it!

 

[Geist]

I simply can not fathom why anyone would balance possible loss of life against a possible inconvenience.

Ah, the ever present nebulous “possible”.

Did you know it is possible for a meteor or piece of aircraft to fall from the sky, crash through your roof, and crush you to death in your sleep?

Will you be interested in purchasing a steel reinforced roof and walls to withstand the impact?

It is possible after all. Don’t tell me the inconvenience of shelling out the cash for the modification to your home is too much to protect against the possible?

Now if someone can show me how their having a criminal background check somehow makes their family more vunerable, then that would be a feat.

How does not having one make anyone more vulnerable?

Of all the mass shootings a NICS check either did not prevent it (say, in the case of VA Tech-guns purchased perfectly legally from a dealer with a check) or would not have (Sandy Hook-stolen guns).

I can’t name people made more vulnerable by the NICS, but I can name people killed by waiting periods. All were women who knew they were facing danger from a psycho ex who acted before the waiting period was over leaving the women defenseless.

Gun control only kills (ahem, inconveniences) innocents.