ID Checks Are a “First Step” to More Gun Control
What’s wrong with an instant check?
Plenty. The first abuses under the Brady background check law were reported by the General Accounting Office in 1996 when it found that decent Americans were being illegitimately denied the ability to purchase firearms because of outstanding traffic tickets or administrative errors.
And not too long after that, the Clinton administration found a way to effectively shut down gun shows -- as the NICS computer system would “conveniently” crash or be shut down over several weekends, preventing many gun sales from occurring.
Of course, Clinton’s crowning anti-gun achievement was to illegally deny gun purchases -- again, using the instant background check -- to military veterans suffering from things like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a practice that has resulted in almost 150,000 veterans losing their gun rights.
That practice illegitimately continued for almost a decade until it was “legalized” earlier this year when President Bush signed the Veterans Disarmament Act, a bill that passed without a recorded vote in the House and the Senate.
Perhaps one of the most dangerous aspects of background checks is the potential for gun owner registration. Every time a gun owner submits to a background check, government officials have the potential to identify (and record) such person as a gun owner.
The problem with registration is that it can easily lead to gun confiscation -- something that has happened in many countries, as well as our own. Take the administration of Mayor David Dinkins in New York City.
In the mid-1960's officials in the city began registering long guns, and promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns.
In 1992, the Daily News reported that, “Police raided the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply with the city's tough ban on assault weapons, and seized an arsenal of firearms. . . . Spot checks are planned [for other homes].”
The sordid record of background checks is that they become a portal to drive through additional gun control restrictions, thus making people less safe.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
ATF abuse connected to U.S. guns "found" in Mexico.
The ATF took them there, and encourages border-area gun shops to make multiple sales to shady characters in order to pad trace statistics. In exchange, the gun shop's books won't fail to "pass inspection."
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/is-project-gunwalker-about-to-bust-wide-open
Anyone want to HELP these guys?
When homicides (murder OR self-defense) with weapons other than guns are factored in, those "safe" foreign countries' death rates approach ours.
NOT portrayed are the 300,000 times a year Americans defend themselves with guns NONlethally. They don't get in the news or the hospital body counts.
It's not a threat, it's a thought experiment.
Do you object to doing it? Why?
Because people can then know where to come in order to f--- with you?
NOW do you understand?
Along with people using gun control legislation to boost their political careers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE-jrJ-7Sek
If someone is convicted of gun violence, confiscating their guns is worth considering.
If someone has a restraining order (in Australia we call this an Apprehended Violence Order) against them, confiscating their guns is worth considering.
If someone has a history of violence related to drug abuse or mental illness, confiscating their guns is worth considering.
Allowing all and sundry to buy and keep guns inevitably means that:
*Those who have a record of gun violence can buy guns and ammunition easily.
*Those who have a history of violence towards their spouses or family can buy guns and ammunition easily.
*Those with a history of violence connected to drug abuse or mental illness can buy guns and ammunition easily.
*Criminals and terrorists can buy guns and ammunition easily.
I reckon that America might be just a little safer if criminals, terrorists, drug crazies, the violently mentally ill and others with a history of gun violence found it just a little more difficult to get guns and ammunition. Why should these people be offered guns and ammunition on a platter?
M. Glass
When I was speaking about confiscation, I was addressing it in the context of EVERYONE having their guns confiscated, not just career criminals.
Nonetheless, there is little evidence that confiscating guns from criminals actually stops them from using firearms in a crime: http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:MECiJ8ZufikJ: www.fff.org/freedom/0894c.asp +black+market+guns&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_9_46/ai_64259208
"Allowing all and sundry to buy and keep guns inevitably means that:
*Those who have a record of gun violence can buy guns and ammunition easily.
*Those who have a history of violence towards their spouses or family can buy guns and ammunition easily.
*Those with a history of violence connected to drug abuse or mental illness can buy guns and ammunition easily.
*Criminals and terrorists can buy guns and ammunition easily."
Right, but I think the above articles establish the fact that terrorists and criminals have their own sources of guns even if it's illegal for them to purchase and posses them in the first place.
"Why should these people be offered guns and ammunition on a platter?"
No one is saying they should, only that such laws don't stop them from achieving their ends.
When I was writing about confiscation, I was addressing several issues including domestic violence and other situations where guns may be in the hands of disturbed people. Even if gun confiscation had no influence on criminals, such laws might help to prevent some other gun murders, where disturbed individuals use guns.
However, there is another point to consider. Americans suffer from a disproportionate number of gun deaths compared with other advanced countries. Why, for instance, should gun deaths be so much more common in the United States than Canada? As other countries do better in this regard than the United States it is worthwhile considering what makes the difference.
M. Glass
Regarding taking guns away from those we KNOW have committed a crime, we might be able to have some effect on violence even if some criminals get something off the black market instead.
"Americans suffer from a disproportionate number of gun deaths compared with other advanced countries."
Not by a whole lot:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166
When adjusted for population differences, we see the gaps close significantly. But gun deaths alone aren't the only cause of crime, we would need to take into account a plethora of other factors such as whether or not deaths by other accessories to crime increase, or whether the lives saved by those who use them in self defense cancel out these numbers altogether (because who reports a crime that doesn't happen?).
"As other countries do better in this regard than the United States it is worthwhile considering what makes the difference."
I think it's a mostly cultural thing, but there could be extrinsic factors that we are unaware of that are causing the higher levels of guns deaths reported. I have yet to see a study from either side that details how other crimes or various laws affect gun violence in the US.
While it is true that gun deaths in the United States are not much more prevalent than in Mexico and Brazil, a very different picture emerges when you compare the United States with other English-speaking countries. Here are some figures from the source that you quoted:
Selected gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:
U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Northern Ireland 6.63
Canada 4.31
Australia 2.65
New Zealand 2.38
Ireland 0.97
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
If you look at Brazil and Mexico you can say that the United States doesn't look too bad. However, when you compare the American experience with the experience of other English-speaking countries the difference is quite stark. Why should the United States have more than three times the rate of gun deaths as Canada? Why should the US have more than five times the rate of gun deaths of Australia, more than 14 times the rate of gun deaths of Ireland and more than 34 times the rate of gun deaths of England and Wales? Even Northern Ireland, with all its troubles had less than half the rate of gun deaths as the United States.
I think it is worth asking why there should be such large differences between countries in their rates of gun deaths. After all, if the United States could only bring down its rate of gun deaths to that of Canada, the death rate would be slashed by more than two thirds. Surely this would be a worthwhile saving of human life.
M. Glass
Using 1994 gun death statisics is simply the wrong ruler, 1994 was close to the worse years of gun deaths & violents deaths period) on record and also when the gun laws were much tighter. The murder rate has been going down since ( I think) 1991 and is now very low from a historical standpoint. Also the proper statisic to use is "violent deaths". It makes no difference to anyone (except gun control minded people) if you are killed from a shovel or a gun, certainly not to the victim. How about the statisics that show a reduction in violent crime in every state that enacted shall issue concealed carry laws after those laws took effect. The whole "gunshow" thing is smoke and mirrors. If you are a gun dealer you have to do background checks, if you are a private citizen you can sell you property including your guns to another citizen. What a gun show law does is tell you you cant sell your gun to your friend, brother, ect. The gun control lobby is very carefull to lie about this and try to convince people a gun show is full of "gun dealers" selling guns in a venue to circumvent a background check. When the antigun lobby starts to be even a little bit honest in their tactics and claims and simply proclaims that they dont like guns and think I shouldnt own one I will welcome their imput on legislation. They are allowed to have their opinion (even when wrong) but They never ever tell the whole truth and knowingly engage in shamefull propaganda. Like many issues if the average person would take the time to find out the facts they would find their opinon changed
C'mon, Northern Ireland has only 7 gun deaths per 100,000 people?
"Selected gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:
U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Northern Ireland 6.63
Canada 4.31
Australia 2.65
New Zealand 2.38
Ireland 0.97
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41"
Now what would happen if we factored in self-defense?
Regarding that first paragraph afterward...
Pretty sure "gun-free" zones, unemployment, and other various contributions to crime can cause a spike to all this.
"I think it is worth asking why there should be such large differences between countries in their rates of gun deaths. After all, if the United States could only bring down its rate of gun deaths to that of Canada, the death rate would be slashed by more than two thirds. Surely this would be a worthwhile saving of human life."
Which isn't achieved through gun control legislation.
Pointed Sticks
Clubs
Knifes
Cars/Trucks
Drugs
Poision
Strangulation
Blunt Objects
Animals
Suicide by Cop ( which is a violent crime against the Officer(s) involved without question )
People never seem to take into account the psychology used and ignorned on both sides of the issue.
Parents screamed and hollored about Violent Video Games a few years back. My son was 17 when 9/11 took place. He entered the service a few months later. I remeber watching the news and seeing Chris Mathews going from University to University asking the same question over and over.
1: Do you support the war , raise your hands if you do. Standing ovations, cat calls, whistles and hands raised high all in support of it.
2. Who is going to go down to the Recruiters office wirt me in the morning to sigh up? Total SILIENCE.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW: When you get on an Airliner and happen to sit in a seat in front of an emergency exit you are asked if you are able to do what is needed ensuring others can exscape in time of need. If you can't your moved and they find someone who can. You learn not to sit in that seat once you are asked and find you can't. Don't complain and whine about, don't sit in the seat, just don't piss and moan about anyone who will and does sit in that seat or everyone else is screwed...
Let's look at those differences in gun related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994:
U.S.A. 14.24
Northern Ireland 6.63
Canada 4.31
Australia 2.65
New Zealand 2.38
Ireland 0.97
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
Obviously there are huge disparities in the rates of gun deaths, even between English-speaking countries outside the United States. One difference may be different levels of civil unrest (Northern Ireland vs Ireland and the others) and it is clear that ex-British colonies have higher rates of gun death than England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
However, none of those countries, not even Northern Ireland, have a rate of gun death that is anywhere near that of the United States. Now we may factor in self-defence, we may sneer at the figures as freakanomics, we may declare that gun control legislation won't achieve this outcome in the United States. However, there is still this stark difference in gun deaths to account for:
The USA has
more than twice the rate of gun deaths of Northern Ireland
more than three times the rate of gun deaths of Canada
more than five times the rate of gun deaths of Australia and New Zealand
more than 14 times the rate of gun deaths of Ireland
more than 26 times the rate of gun deaths of Scotland
more than 34 times the rate of gun deaths of England and Wales
How do you account for this stark difference?
M. Glass
It's a cultural thing. What do you think?
Yes, the stark difference between the United States and other English-speaking countries in gun deaths is cultural. However, the carnage should not be dismissed with a flippant one-liner.
If people dismiss this cultural difference as something that cannot be remedied, the United States really does have an intractable problem. However, it surely isn't impossible to modify the cultural factors to reduce the death rate.
M. Glass