No gun has murdered anyone, it was the operator that pulled the trigger. The gun wasn't at fault. To blame the gun is like blaming the spoon for being fat.

Ted Nugent, what does that draft dodging, poaching POS know? Only sheeple follow him.

Sorry for bringing up ted nugent... Can you help me answer my questions now?

You mention California and laws that they have as an example of laws in place being enforced, and then state members of the forum disagree with the laws. Can you give me some examples of the California laws that are being enforced?

America was born out of revolution. The founders of this nation understood that the tools they needed to establish and defend the individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, were firearms. When drafting the Constitution, the founding fathers created an amendment that gave all citizens the right to have firearms. It wasn't to guarantee a man a rifle to hunt with, it was because they understood that man has to rise up against oppressive governments, and it is impossible to do so without the physical ability to fight. For that reason, America will never be willingly disarmed. A push to disarm America the likes of what was done in Australia will result in armed conflict.

We have all the firearm laws that we need. Felons, domestic violence offenders, people committed to mental institutions, and people addicted to drugs are not allowed to possess firearms. Read the ATF form that is filled out when purchasing a firearm. The form lists that these people may not purchase a firearm. When individuals that are not allowed to own a firearm procur a firearm, they have just committed another crime.

Let's look at Chicago. Some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, and a ridiculously high firearm murder rate. There is a violence epidemic, not a gun epidemic. In the 90's there was a horrific genocide committed in Rwanda. Well over 500,000 people were murdered. A very high amount of those murders were carried out by a machete. So, did Rwanda have a machete violence epidemic? Like the US is purportedly having a gun violence epidemic? Of course not. In Rwanda it was pure evil, and they used any tool necessary to accomplish the task. In America, there are roughly 315,000,000 people. In a population that large there will be a percentage of individuals that are evil. Those evil individuals will use whatever means necessary to accomplish their evil plans. Whether it's a knife, pipe, bat, ax, car, fire, or gun, they will find a tool to accomplish their plan. The evil in Rwanda is the same evioft hat is found in America or even Canada.

More gun laws simply create more barriers for the law abiding citizen to protect themselves from evil. That evil being from their neighbor or their government.

You keep mentioning gun homicide statistics. More than half of our gun homicides are a result of suicide (17 out of 30). Remove those 56% and you will see our actual gun violence is not as great as our liberal media protrays.

The US vs Canada suicide rate is approximately 12 per 100,000 vs 11.5 per 100,000 (in 2009). So Canadians kill themselves almost as much as US citizens do, but probably use another method besides a gun.

Lastly, how many pistols do you own?

one SPECIFIC example:

2002 beltway sniper attacks

Muhammad, who had a criminal record of domestic battery, and Malvo, a minor, were each legally prohibited from purchasing firearms. (law #1 not enforced)

Malvo arrived as an illegal alien in Miami 2001 and in December of that year, he and his mother were apprehended by the Border Patrol and released (law #2 not enforced)

Think it was reported, they also had plans of going to Canada

CP, the ultimate goal of the left here in the United States is NOT about gun control, it IS about people control. The tool the socialist liberal left uses best is something called INCREMENTALISM.

Although, it appears that gun owners are very stubborn and hard headed about not giving in even an inch, in reality we cannot afford to give in an inch. We know how they operate, once we allow them one restriction, they will come back in a year or so and demand another "small" restriction and keep repeating the process until we wind up like England, Australia, etc with a total gun ban, confiscation, etc.

Again, their anti gun agenda is not ultimately about gun control. Keep that train of thought and it makes sense.

In a lot of cases, I think people use "better enforcement" and "tougher penalties" as similes.

How many examples would it take to satisfy, the socialist liberals to the point where they admit, "Hey, all we have to do is start enforcing laws, A, B and C and then we can just forget about additional gun laws, restrictions, etc"?

First of all you cannot reason with these people, they are simply not interested in the facts, they are however very interested in accomplishing their socialist agenda. The way to deal with these people is not with reasonable discussion, we have to destroy them at the polls.

And, another thing, probably 90% of the homicides committed in the United States are gang bangers killing each other over drug deals, turf wars, drive by shootings, etc.

If the parents of the thugs would have raised them properly, they would not be out gangbanging, they would be a productive member of society.

66% of homicides are committed with firearms. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/13/us-deaths-usa-idUSTRE64C53R20100513
To me that pretty well says the elimination of weapons isn't going to have a big influence on the number of killings we have in the USA. No gun, no problem they will use another weapon.

As to the 90% of gangbangers and drugs involved in murders, I read somewhere drug gang murders were number 4 of the listed reasons for killing someone. Number one reason for murders was because of failures in personal relationships.

First of all I want to thank you guys for allowing this discussion to get back on track... As I said at the beginning, I know how sensitive an issue it is, and how easy it would be to just pass me off as one of the crazy lefties ready to take away all your guns.

Great point here Firegator "When drafting the Constitution, the founding fathers created an amendment that gave all citizens the right to have firearms. It wasn't to guarantee a man a rifle to hunt with, it was because they understood that man has to rise up against oppressive governments, and it is impossible to do so without the physical ability to fight."

Very clear summary of the importance of firearms in the American culture and one that I will definitely reiterate in some of the debates I find myself in.

In response to some of your questions.

Firegator, the laws in California I was referring to are found in the following article. They basically state that if someone is INVOLUNTARY checked into a mental health institution or for any other reason loses their right to possess a gun (the rights basically echo the ones you stated to me), the state, by law, can remove their firearms or any they have access to (i.e. their roommate/husband/wife)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12...html?cmpid=yhoo

Thanks again for providing some of the laws I was asking for. You mention some of the scenarios that result in someone's loss of the right to bare arms and point out that people like that are no longer allowed to purchase firearms. I have two questions for you:

1) How does the THF user selling his gun on the trading post (or on the bulletin board at the local grocery store) know whether or not the purchaser falls into one of the categories you just described?

2) You mention that the current status quo prevents someone from PURCHASING a firearm. What happens if the person does something to lose the right to bare arms AFTER they already possess them?

Regarding the first question, I'm sure you wouldn't want to sell your gun to a mentally unstable person or a felon but, as things stand, how would you figure that out?

Regarding the second, it seems that's the issue they are trying to address in Cali.

You mention the murder problem in Chicago and compare it to Rwanda and say that people who want to murder will murder. Period. I don't disagree with this point, guns are a tool much like a machete. The problem is that guns are far more efficient tools for killing than machetes. To illustrate my point I'll give you the choice between two life and death scenarios:

1) a guy 20 feet away points his pistol at a crowd and starts pulling the trigger?
2) a guy 20 feet away from a crowd takes a swing (or throws) his machete at the crowd?

Which one would you choose? Obviously the guy with the gun can do a lot more damage... The question is, how can we get the gun out of HIS hand and keep it in yours (assuming, of course, that you're one of the good guys . Accomplish this and your murder rate will drop.

Dry fire:

Great point about suicides and one that does bring our two countries violent crime statistics closer together since only about 16% of suicides in Canada are done with guns. That means that the firearms homicide rate in the USA, after subtracting suicides, is about 3.6x the rate in Canada compared to 7x... Still MUCH higher though.

I don't own any hand guns, but that's only because I don't really have an interest in owning one. In Canada we CAN purchase hand guns.

talkturkey:

If that sniper had purchased his guns prior to his "history" what happened? If he purchased the gun used, how did the seller know about his history?

DCS: you talk about the left (of which I am not a member... By American standards I am more of centrist which seems to be a rare breed down there) and the difficulty of having a reasonable discussion with "them". I'm here trying to have a reasonable, non-antagonistic conversation about the issue with mostly the right and I am having a tough time doing that. If responsible gun owners can't present clear and viable solutions to reducing the murder rate (which includes firearms), then the pro-gun movement will have very little "ammunition" to rally the support from swing voters that is needed to do any "crushing" at the polls...

As I mentioned before. I'm trying to have this discussion so that I can have good discussions with people and provide evidence as to why "guns aren't the issue, people are" but so far I've received precious little of that "ammunition"...

Thankfully I have finally been provided with some existing laws, now I'm looking to hear how they can actually be enforced in such a way that would satisfy you and other pro-firearm advocates so that fewer guns end up in the hands of "bad guys [and girls]".

You talk about gang bangers and drive buys... Take the gun out of his hands and how many "drive by" knifings would we see?

Here is why we have the 2ND Amendment, as explained by experts.

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/2nd-amendment.html#sthash.Yics0eXi.dpbs

They already use knives, hatchets, axes, baseball bats and numerous other things as weapons to kill their "enemies". Taking away guns won't matter to them, I doubt if any of them will turn in their guns.

No, they definitely would not be turning them in... The cat is WAY out of of the proverbial bag. But over DECADES, I would hope that there would be a way to reduce access to those who have lost their right to firearms possession, while still preserving the access enshrined in the 2nd amendment to those who maintain that right. "There's nothing we can do about it" isn't going to save the lives of the innocents or even the guilty (who are people too), and its not going to satisfy the big chunk of public opinion that says "guns are bad".

Yes, it is very easy to pass you off as one of the crazy lefties, and actually, a crazy lefty politician in Washington.

Your initial question was "who can give me some examples of the laws people are talking about that are not being enforced now", and the example shows two laws that are not being enforced now. So add even more laws that are not enforced, which would simply accomplish more job security for the 'law makers' in Washington.

According to the reports, one of the snipers, Muhamad, ineligibility would have shown up during the Brady background check that gun stores are required to run on potential buyers, IF the current law was enforced.

The 2nd, younger sniper, Malvo, if border patrol would have deported him, instead of releasing him, would not have been part of the equation. Again, IF the current law was enforced.

Or do we just make the laws and then get to pick and choose which we will/won't enforce? Again, job security for the law makers in Washington?

You seem to want to compare Canada to the US, that's like comparing apples to oranges, particularly the issue of population density. Not an accurate comparison. Have you ever witnessed an over crowded chicken coop?

Laws are only made for the law abiding, and if I had to guess, Muhammade and Malvo probably would not have fallen into the category of law abiding. You think?

There are thousands of folks that legally cannot possess firearms in the US that the background checks catch - but we almost never prosecute them for the crime of trying to purchase a firearm.

Throw the book at them and anyone that commits a violent crime with a firearm - just quit adding laws to us law abiding firearm owners.

JR

talkturkey...

That is a good example, and it is a good one. I looked up some of the stats and it appears as though illegals are causing a disproportionate amount of crime, so greater enforcement of immigration laws and/or better management of the illegal population in general may be helpful.

Here are the scenarios I'm asking clarification for:

Step 1) X person buys gun.
Step 2) X person does something that makes them ineligible to purchase new gun
Step 3) X person commits crime with gun purchased in step 1 (before he/she was deemed ineligible to purchase firearm)

What is done after step 2 to prevent step 3?

Step a) person does something to render them ineligible for firearms purchase
step b) Person buys gun off of a classified ad (not a new firearm).
step c) Person commits crime with firearm purchased in step B

How can the law be applied such that the person trying to sell the used firearm doesn't accidentally sell to someone, who legally is ineligible for the purchase? What if Muhamad bought his gun this way? Is anything being done to prevent step B so we don't get to Step C?

I understand how the system works for NEW firearms purchases and I think its good.

As for comparing Canada and the US and the population density... I'm sorry, but that's not accurate. The region I'm from (southern Ontario) is more densely populated than anywhere in Texas and most of the US... Toronto is now the 4th biggest city in North America, having just passed Chicago, and yet the crime stats are nowhere near the same.

According to reports, the gun used by Muhamad originated at a gun shop that had no record of selling the weapon. Was it stolen, was it poor record keeping, was it a cover up, should it have been further investigated? Wish I knew.

I now have a question for you, cpwrestler. Why does a government continue to create more laws, when it would seem, they are not capable of enforcing current laws? What purpose does that accomplish? Just curious and it would seem, you might have an agenda (so to speak).

We don't have a "gun" problem. As stated before, its homicides in general. If you take into account that most murders are "crimes of passion", the firearm is a tool. If there was a knife readily available, then the TOOL used in the murder would have been a knife. Or a baseball bat, club, axe, etc.

Read the below article which I find very insightful. It actually speaks to the fact that our violent crime rate in the US is actually decreasing. I know it has here in Houston (although burgluaries are on the rise).

AWB Not Needed

Sounds like there was a definite mistake and possibly even criminal activity in the case of Muhammad, but I purposely left his name out of my scenarios because the issue is bigger than Mo and you ignored those scenarios.

I've already said I'm just fine with conceding that there are enough laws in place. As you said, there appears to be a problem enforcing current laws. I have had some of the laws explained to me which I am appreciative for. Now I'm asking for some more practical ways of enforcing these laws.

Clearly you think I'm trying to advance some agenda... I'm not and even if I was, I couldn't do anything about it, I'm not even American (although I have thought about moving there)! I'm trying to ask for an honest opinion on solutions to the problem at hand. The problem being guys like Mo getting guns when they shouldn't be allowed to. Why is it that I can't ask some questions without constantly fighting off an us vs. them attitude? Surely you must not like seeing people get killed either. Why can't I ask what can be done to stop it from happening without it being insinuated that I am some Washington based lawmaker?!

Given that the overwhelming stance is "greater enforcement of current laws" I thought it was a fair and healthy topic to discuss what that might look like. That's all I want to know... I have no agenda other than that.

Cephus,

Great article!

Very interesting article and good to read those stats! I'm against an AWB. I think that's ridiculous.

That said, a decreasing problem is still a problem. I agree that new laws are not the answer so lets hear some constructive suggestions for enforcing current laws... What might that look like? I gave a couple of scenarios previously that appear to contribute to guns in the wrong hands but haven't heard a suggestion on how to prevent them.

I've also asked why the same crowd who is calling for greater enforcement of current laws is crying foul when current laws are being applied over on the other thread found below.

http://www.texashuntingforum.com/forum/u...ins#Post4116687

CPW....respectfully, your wasting your time with stupid what if scenarios! Here are some facts:
To answer your question, finally, about why some say enforce existing laws then turn around and preach the sky is falling regarding the CA gun confiscation story is simple....a law abiding citizen that was NOT mentally challenged had HIS rights stripped and guns take. Without due process all because his wife spent two days in a psyc ward. Yes Cali does say this is a law, but as far as I am concerned its a huge violation of the 2amendment, my right to own a gun should not be compromised due to another person...be it wife, child, drug thug, or mass murderer! Does he have an even larger responsibility to keep the guns safely secured for his crazy wife, absolutely!
Regarding gun control, aka people control, only about 300 of all gun murders here were committed with rifles, ALL the rest were with everyday pistols and I would venture to safely guess in most all cases less than 5 rounds were required. YET, our idiot politician and liberal loving nuts are pushing for AR15 and mag bans. Even IF (huge huge if that is so huge it is NOT reality) a law against both passed and immediately prevented a single murder by AR15 or "mass murders" from ever happening again, the facts show that it would only stop a tiny fraction of gun crimes! Proving that this is nothing more than an attempt to disarm a FREE people from our right, not privilege.

How many of your murders with guns (as "few" as they may be) are committed by people that are "licensed"?

Why in the HE#% do you thing a license will stop a criminal from committing a crime??????.?.??????????

If the numbers were boiled down to remove suiside, and gang on gang murder, I bet you anything our gun murder rate becomes lower per capita or at least very similar to yours.

A final thought, as a freedom loving, gun owning, Texan, I would MUCH rather live with the dangers of a truly free society than lived enslaved and safe!

"Anyone who would trade their freedom for safety
deserves neither freedom or safety." Ben Franklin

Rumors have been circulated... that hasn't stopped 'others'.

Sorry, you walked into that one!

My vote goes to getting back to the basics, starting with prayer.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/...s-mentally-ill/