So I'm guilty of what my children do? I'm guilty because of the sins of my father and his father before him? That's completely ridiculous.
You're completely missing the point. The point is that background checks are insufficient. The second point is that even if we efficiently prevent someone from buying guns on grounds of poor mental health, if their family members can procure the weapons, any kind of law or check is useless.
Why can't you? Well, for one it's not particularly entertaining, and secondly it's inherently dangerous. You don't need to pull the trigger for you or your family to fall over dead.
The same logic applies to guns. I like nukes. I like the way its dangerous and exudes power, so why should I not have one? You're only giving me a very flippant reaon not to own one. It's not entertaining? How dare you! You're not one to determine my interests. And whilst we're at it, why can't I have a vial of anthrax? It's my want, who cares about others if I'm a trained micro biologist and am responsible?
Petty and selfish? If you're so selfless and irresponsible, don't buy a gun. I have a gun, my family has many more. Many of my friends have yet more guns. I don't recall any instances where they've murdered a dozen people, but I do recall instances where they've stuck a gun in someone's face who was trying to harm them or their property.
There are no statistics to prove so. The magic 2.5 million pulled up all over the net was done by a single 1993 survey that called up 5000 particpipants, which is extrapolated to the whole country. Beside the poor methodoloy, other studies have failed to replicate and give widely different numbers to as low as 50,000.
Yes, it is selfish of you to want an assault rifle for no reason other than wants.
Such as?
Strengthening the force, nationwide gun control to prevent criminals from buying from laxer states, mental healthcare, prevention of straw purchases, stamping out on illegal sources of guns and the like.
I'd say getting checked by both the ATF and FBI, and cleared by agents within said organizations is good enough. The gun goes on the record and is subject to any seizure by police as any other property is. No matter how thick the red tape is, nobody is going to suspect a 21 year old medical student is going to mow down a movie theater. If the person is clean, there's literally nothing you can do to prevent them from buying a gun.
There will always be fish that slip out of the net, but not mending the bigger holes to prevent all fish from escaping is asinine.
Over my dead body. Police aren't stepping into my house with a warrant signed by a judge and a **** good reason for it. That would violate several constitutional amendments.
Then good luck with the shooting levels. Assault rifle owners are already required to be searched occasionally by law to check up every so often either way.
How do you prove responsibility? Well, they haven't shot anyone, held up convenience stores, mugged people, fired an AK through their neighbor's house, and for all we can tell, they're sane. Any of these things make it illegal for somebody to buy a gun, and gun dealers that sell them can look at decades behind bars themselves.
Strict, no nonsense background checks. We may claim that we have them already, but we do not. The number of guns sold illegally each year through legal buyers is astonishing. Cho was evaluated at a health center after his classmates complained about him, yet the next day, simply because a special justice approved outpatient treatment for Mr. Cho, not because he was declared mentally fit, which may explain why no red flags were raised by the stateâs background check system when he bought the weapons this year. This is plain irresponsibility and weakness in enforcement of checks.
People can buy guns easy if they're law abiding, sane individuals. That's how law abiding citizens do things, lawfully. How is making gun laws stricter going to help? All those guns, all those places. Outright banning them won't work, ever, there's too many guns. Restricting the sale of guns won't help, as all the people you'd be restricting the guns to are already restricted. The laws cannot get any tighter without pointlessly butting into people's business.
I only care about how non-law abiding individuals are getting their guns. Tougher background checks are needed, and examples have been provided to show you where.
Ignoring the stupidly tight gun laws in DC and it's massive murder rate, that's illegal and a federal crime. Federal prison. Normal people don't do that or need to do that. Making it more illegal isn't going to help, and restricting isn't going to take the guns off the street. Those criminals are just going to spend a few extra hours going through an illicit dealer, or just stealing themselves a gun.
In 2009, just ten states supplied nearly half - 49% â" of the guns that crossed state lines before being recovered in crimes. Together, these states accounted for nearly 21,000 interstate crime guns recovered in 2009. When controlling for population, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alaska, Alabama, South Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, and Georgia
export crime guns at the highest rates. These states export crime guns at more than seven times the rate of the ten states with the lowest crime gun export rates.
The District of Columbia and 16 states have an average export rate of 7.5 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants. In comparison, the 34 states that do not require background checks for all handgun sales at gun shows have an average export rate of 19.8 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, a rate more than two and a half times greater than the rate of states that do.
Even if it's illegal, it's certainly not enforced, which is an area that gun control needs to step in to. No more cross border purchase of guns if your state declares you mentally unfit.
As I like to point out in many arguments, America isn't Europe. America isn't China. America isn't Russia. We have always had guns, we always will. In every single ban on weapons or restriction, the crime rate almost never drops. Look at Detroit, Chicago, DC, New York City, Los Angeles, and compare to places like Atlanta, Memphis, or Houston. The gun laws are worlds different, yet crime is the same as anywhere. It's because criminals don't use legal weapons, or they wouldn't be criminals. Yes, there are a few that do, but they're the exception, not the rule. A 5% drop in crime is not worth pissing millions off and removing their ability to defend themselves or engage in sport as they please.
Then why is America trying to spread democracy? Why is America trying to have it's way all round the world? These nations are not America, so why is America doing so? If China is China, then why are Americans trying to force them to pay higher wages, or to spread democracy there?
What makes America stand out? Gun culture? Well, culture is never static, it is dynamic.
A 5% drop in crime is very much worth ''
issing those millions off'. Gun crime costs 100 billion a year [ Phillip J. Cook ]. Gun crime kills 12,000 people and injures 52000 others each year. A 5% drop is well worth your wants, because when it comes to a crunch, saving a life or satisfying your want which you do not require to continue living, the life is far more important.
Funny, gun laws a decade ago were stricter. Assault weapons bans, the Brady Bill, and whatnot. Crime stays the same, and isn't influenced by newer, crazier guns. It's influenced by newer, crazier ways to make money.
Because of weak mental checks, weak intra border checks. You're only going to be as strong as the weakest link.
Crime is always a problem. Banning or restricting guns isn't the solution.
It is, and half the world has already moved on.
And, I thought that all automatics were illegal.
No. The Fed Assault Ban only bans certain kinds of semi autos.
