Detroit Man Saves Himself and His Wife from Home Invaders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AUGH! Why can't there be a rational discussion about gun control without the so called defenders of the Constitution scream about taking away their guns.

I just want something that makes it more difficult for people to get a gun. Everyone should have a license, mandatory background checks, eliminate automatic weapons, etc.

Ummm...they already have background checks. Automatic weapons are banned.

Not for all guns in all places.

If you go into a gun store, you will get a background check. End of story.

In every state for every gun? Gun shows? Private sales?

Have you been to a gun show? I'm betting you haven't. Yes, you have background checks. Don't believe me, go to one and try to buy a gun.

Maybe I'll send my kid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIFiJdw0uME

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Have you been to a gun show? I'm betting you haven't. Yes, you have background checks. Don't believe me, go to one and try to buy a gun.

You may want to check your facts.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law clearly defined private sellers as anyone who sold no more than four firearms per year. But the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act lifted that restriction and loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood.

In fact only 11 states require background checks for all purchases, 7 states only require background checks for handgun sales. So 32 states have no requirements for background checks and 7 states allow purchases for non-handguns without background checks.

In addition, this isn't just a small problem. The sheer volume of purchases done "privately" is quite large:

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/

The most dangerous gap in federal firearms laws today is the “private sale” loophole. Although federal law requires licensed firearms dealers to perform background checks on prospective purchasers and maintain records of all gun sales, it does not require unlicensed “private” sellers to do so. An estimated 40% of all firearms transferred in the U.S. are transferred by unlicensed individuals.

[...]

According the U.S. Department of Justice, because federal law does not require universal background checks, “individuals prohibited by law from possessing guns can easily obtain them from private sellers and do so without any federal records of the transactions.” “The private-party gun market,” one study observed, “has long been recognized as a leading source of guns used in crimes.” Although the private sale loophole is frequently referred to as the “gun show” loophole (because of the particular problems associated with gun shows), it applies to all private firearm sales, regardless of where they occur.

The growth of the Internet has significantly increased the ability of individuals prohibited from possessing firearms to find sellers willing to transfer firearms to them without background checks.

As of September 2013, about 67,000 firearms were listed for sale online from private, unlicensed sellers.

29% of ads by private sellers on Armslist.com (a popular website for firearm sales) were posted by high-volume private sellers who posted five or more ads over an eight-week period.

According to an undercover investigation conducted by the City of New York, 62% of private online firearm sellers agreed to sell a firearm to a buyer even after the buyer had told the seller that he or she probably could not pass a background check.

This second article has a lot of additional information, such as how a huge volume of illegal gun activity is generated by the private sales loophole. By cutting off the private sales loophole, you will cut down significantly on criminal access to guns. Lawful gun owners can still get their guns via gun shops and gun shows with a background check, but you can cut down the sheer volume of guns going to criminals and illegal gun users.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I really would like for you to answer this question. Why do you feel this story is more significant than all of the accidental gun deaths...which occur daily? Seriously, please tell me why THIS is the gun story you chose to call our attention to.

PP, I really would like for you to answer this question. Why do you feel accidental gun death stories is more significant than all of the accidental car deaths...which occur far more frequently daily. Seriously, please tell me why THIS is the accidental death story you chose to call our attention to.

That is a stupid analogy and you know it. If half of the country were advocating for the right of every american to drive a car, without being accountable for that car, with no questions asked...then I would in fact be pointing out the senseless deaths where toddlers would be killing toddlers with cars on a regular basis.

It's not the same thing. We all agree that we shouldn't leave kids unattended in a car with the ignition running, even if we've attempted to teach tham car safety. But millions of Americans will leave them in a home with an unsecure g

You are aware there is no federal registry of car owners, right? Many states also does not require vehicle registration if the vehicle is only operated on private land. The title itself is most often a bearer document: it's not rendered invalid when transferred. So one private individual could sign the title over to another private individual without ever being required to let the state know of the transfer.

Yet we don't have a call on a federal car owner registry as a way to combat car accidents or vehicular crimes.

If my car is used in a crime, it will easily be traced back to me. I am held accountable for the car. I'm not going to sell my car to some dude without taking the proper steps to turn ownership over to him Because if that car is used in a crime, I will need to prove that I was no longer in possession of it.

After Sandy Hook, DH gave all his guns away. They were family heirlooms. He gave them to a relative who has a farm, and therefore has a need for a gun. But it seemed absurd to us that he had been in possession of those guns since middle school, but had no legal ties to them. If they were used in a crime, they could never be traced back to him. It was too easy to just hand them over in our driveway in a 30 second transaction.

I think you are confused. If your car is used in a crime, you are not necessarily accountable unless you are responsible or an accessory to the crime. There is no way you can force someone who buys your car to obtain a new title and registration for the car you sold him. The fact that most people do retitle and register the cars they buy is beside the point. There are numerous cases where people under financial stress buys a car, and simply drive it around with stolen plates, uninsured, and without proper registration. Fact remains, if your car is used in a crime, your ownership registration does not make it any easier to catch the criminal.

Your DH's fears about his guns are irrational. Responsible adults act in responsible ways. It's theoretically possible for your husband to lend any criminal his car to do a bank robbery, and just claim that it was stolen. It's just too easy. Why isn't he giving away his car to relatives on a farm, who also has a need for a car. Ride a bike instead. No one ever robs a bank on bikes, right? I mean why do you *NEED* a car?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Have you been to a gun show? I'm betting you haven't. Yes, you have background checks. Don't believe me, go to one and try to buy a gun.

You may want to check your facts.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law clearly defined private sellers as anyone who sold no more than four firearms per year. But the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act lifted that restriction and loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood.

In fact only 11 states require background checks for all purchases, 7 states only require background checks for handgun sales. So 32 states have no requirements for background checks and 7 states allow purchases for non-handguns without background checks.

In addition, this isn't just a small problem. The sheer volume of purchases done "privately" is quite large:

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/

The most dangerous gap in federal firearms laws today is the “private sale” loophole. Although federal law requires licensed firearms dealers to perform background checks on prospective purchasers and maintain records of all gun sales, it does not require unlicensed “private” sellers to do so. An estimated 40% of all firearms transferred in the U.S. are transferred by unlicensed individuals.

[...]

According the U.S. Department of Justice, because federal law does not require universal background checks, “individuals prohibited by law from possessing guns can easily obtain them from private sellers and do so without any federal records of the transactions.” “The private-party gun market,” one study observed, “has long been recognized as a leading source of guns used in crimes.” Although the private sale loophole is frequently referred to as the “gun show” loophole (because of the particular problems associated with gun shows), it applies to all private firearm sales, regardless of where they occur.

The growth of the Internet has significantly increased the ability of individuals prohibited from possessing firearms to find sellers willing to transfer firearms to them without background checks.

As of September 2013, about 67,000 firearms were listed for sale online from private, unlicensed sellers.

29% of ads by private sellers on Armslist.com (a popular website for firearm sales) were posted by high-volume private sellers who posted five or more ads over an eight-week period.

According to an undercover investigation conducted by the City of New York, 62% of private online firearm sellers agreed to sell a firearm to a buyer even after the buyer had told the seller that he or she probably could not pass a background check.

This second article has a lot of additional information, such as how a huge volume of illegal gun activity is generated by the private sales loophole. By cutting off the private sales loophole, you will cut down significantly on criminal access to guns. Lawful gun owners can still get their guns via gun shops and gun shows with a background check, but you can cut down the sheer volume of guns going to criminals and illegal gun users.

Actually...the Brady Bill did just that, cut off the private and interstate sale of guns. It did nothing:
http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2003_spr/cook.htm

It did help suicides somewhat. The waiting period made people reconsider because of the extra day or to. Murders didn't decrease.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

Along with an official study that stated assualt weapons bans have little effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is a gun the only way to defend yourself? There are plenty of other options.

My husband was a baseball player and keeps a bat at the ready in our bedroom.

Who said gun is the only way to defend themselves? It's an effective way, but definitely not the only one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AUGH! Why can't there be a rational discussion about gun control without the so called defenders of the Constitution scream about taking away their guns.

I just want something that makes it more difficult for people to get a gun. Everyone should have a license, mandatory background checks, eliminate automatic weapons, etc.

You know why there can't be a rational discussion? Because one side has people like you, who think automatic weapons are a problem in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Have you been to a gun show? I'm betting you haven't. Yes, you have background checks. Don't believe me, go to one and try to buy a gun.

You may want to check your facts.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law clearly defined private sellers as anyone who sold no more than four firearms per year. But the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act lifted that restriction and loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood.

In fact only 11 states require background checks for all purchases, 7 states only require background checks for handgun sales. So 32 states have no requirements for background checks and 7 states allow purchases for non-handguns without background checks.

In addition, this isn't just a small problem. The sheer volume of purchases done "privately" is quite large:

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/

The most dangerous gap in federal firearms laws today is the “private sale” loophole. Although federal law requires licensed firearms dealers to perform background checks on prospective purchasers and maintain records of all gun sales, it does not require unlicensed “private” sellers to do so. An estimated 40% of all firearms transferred in the U.S. are transferred by unlicensed individuals.

[...]

According the U.S. Department of Justice, because federal law does not require universal background checks, “individuals prohibited by law from possessing guns can easily obtain them from private sellers and do so without any federal records of the transactions.” “The private-party gun market,” one study observed, “has long been recognized as a leading source of guns used in crimes.” Although the private sale loophole is frequently referred to as the “gun show” loophole (because of the particular problems associated with gun shows), it applies to all private firearm sales, regardless of where they occur.

The growth of the Internet has significantly increased the ability of individuals prohibited from possessing firearms to find sellers willing to transfer firearms to them without background checks.

As of September 2013, about 67,000 firearms were listed for sale online from private, unlicensed sellers.

29% of ads by private sellers on Armslist.com (a popular website for firearm sales) were posted by high-volume private sellers who posted five or more ads over an eight-week period.

According to an undercover investigation conducted by the City of New York, 62% of private online firearm sellers agreed to sell a firearm to a buyer even after the buyer had told the seller that he or she probably could not pass a background check.

This second article has a lot of additional information, such as how a huge volume of illegal gun activity is generated by the private sales loophole. By cutting off the private sales loophole, you will cut down significantly on criminal access to guns. Lawful gun owners can still get their guns via gun shops and gun shows with a background check, but you can cut down the sheer volume of guns going to criminals and illegal gun users.

Actually...the Brady Bill did just that, cut off the private and interstate sale of guns. It did nothing:
http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2003_spr/cook.htm

Quoting from your own article:

The Brady Bill had two iterations, Cook explained, but in each the law applies only to handgun sales by federally licensed gun dealers.

As I quoted from my citation above, 40% of all gun sales were done by private sales. Only 18 states (36%) required background checks for purchases of handguns. Plus, the article I cited, says that a majority of guns used in crime plus guns used by persons who would fail background checks were purchased by private sales that would not be covered by the Brady bill. I think that the sheer volume of guns purchased outside the restrictions of the Brady bill lend credence to the argument that you can't judge anything by the effects of a bill that over covers well less than 50% of gun sales and virtually none of the gun sales by the most likely abusers of guns (criminals and those who would fail background checks).

It did help suicides somewhat. The waiting period made people reconsider because of the extra day or to. Murders didn't decrease.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

Again, quoting from your own article:

And most fundamentally, the authors wrote, “because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on gun murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically with only one year of post-ban crime data.” The two later major studies of the ban included more years of analysis and concluded with an “updated assessment” that was published in 2004.

It's hard to conclude that the Brady bill was at all a salient data point for any conclusion about its effect on murders. The point is that the majority of murders are conducted by criminals and others who would fail a background check and who purchase their guns through private sales, hence are not covered by the Brady bill which only restricts license gun dealers. There is a far bigger loophole to close and that is requiring background checks for private sales as well as license dealer sales.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

Along with an official study that stated assualt weapons bans have little effect.



I think you are selectively reading just a few conclusions without the reasoning why they came to those conclusions. From your article:

Title XI, Subtitle A of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 imposed a 10-year ban on the “manufacture, transfer, and possession” of certain semiautomatic firearms designated as assault weapons (AWs).

[...]

The ban also prohibits most ammunition feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition (referred to as large capacity magazines, or LCMs). An LCM is arguably the most functionally important feature of most AWs, many of which have magazines holding 30 or more rounds. The LCM ban’s reach is broader than that of the AW ban because many non-banned semiautomatics accept LCMs. Approximately 18% of civilian-owned firearms and 21% of civilian-owned handguns were equipped with LCMs as of 1994.

[...]

AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles.

LCMs are used in crime much more often than AWs and accounted for 14% to 26% of guns used in crime prior to the ban.

AWs and other guns equipped with LCMs tend to account for a higher share of guns used in murders of police and mass public shootings, though such incidents are very rare.

[...]

Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AW declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study

[...]

The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.

[...]

However, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs in jurisdictions studied (Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Anchorage). The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines, which has been enhanced by recent imports.

The article says that the lack of effect is due to the fact that there are sufficient non-banned weapons with large capacity magazines that people can switch to. So, basically, we have just switched what weapons are used. The ban did have an effect. And if you were to ban other LCM weapons, and introduce background checks to reduce the number of criminals and other individuals that would fail background checks, you could significantly reduce the number of crime committing individuals.

Background checks still allow law abiding citizens who want to own guns to have those guns. Closing the private sale loophole and instigating background checks only restricts the 2nd amendment for criminals that those with terrorist ties. Those who want to defend their homes, can still do so.

Why are gun advocates so afraid of closing background check loopholes? Who do you think you're protecting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is a gun the only way to defend yourself? There are plenty of other options.

My husband was a baseball player and keeps a bat at the ready in our bedroom.

Who said gun is the only way to defend themselves? It's an effective way, but definitely not the only one.

The person who called anyone without a gun in their home for protection cowards.

[Anonymous]

gun advocates so afraid of closing background check loopholes? Who do you think you're protecting?

[Anonymous]

gun advocates so afraid of closing background check loopholes? Who do you think you're protecting?

Excellent question.

[Anonymous]

So why are gun advocates against universal background checks? Hiding something?

[Anonymous]

DC area homeowner using his gun to protect his front yard from local ruffians. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senior-navy-official-karnig-ohannessian-caught-on-camera-threatening-young-men-with-a-gun/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC area homeowner using his gun to protect his front yard from local ruffians. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senior-navy-official-karnig-ohannessian-caught-on-camera-threatening-young-men-with-a-gun/

You wouldn't know from DCUM that there were any "local ruffians" in Burke!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why are gun advocates against universal background checks? Hiding something?

I am a gun advocate, I am in favor of universal background checks. It makes a lot of sense. I believe most gun owners are also in favor of universal background checks, it's a very popular position. I believe the issue here is with implementation - how do you enable/enforce private-party sale of firearms on this requirement. I don't know what the answer is. A lot of firearm is gifted, inherited, or sold between good friends who know each other. Cars mostly drive on public roads, triggering the requirement for proper title and registration. But most firearms are held in a private home, or conceal-carried on a person, there is no easy enforcement point.

I own 3 guns, all bought from shops in VA, and I went through a background check each time.

Maybe gun shops can provide this service for a nominal fee? Like the annual VA car safety inspection done at gas stations. Buyer/seller can show up at a gun shop to do a background check. The seller/buyer can choose to keep the sale itself private or record it with the state. If a crime is commited with the gun within 1/3/5 years of a sale, the seller must be able to produce proof of the sale, either kept on record with the state, or produce a copy of a signed private sales agreement, and proof of a background check. Otherwise, the seller loses the right to posses guns, and must pay a fine equivalent to the market value of the gun sold.

Keep in mind, this does nothing to prevent straw purchases, where there is a intent for someone to buy a gun and give it to someone they know is going to use it in a crime. However, lets hope that there's far fewer of this type of people and will therefore make it tougher for criminals and mentally unstable people to obtain guns.

[Anonymous]

I just listened to a radio story this morning that was discussing (in part) the Los Angeles gun sale requirements. I missed some of the details, but I gather that LA started sending letters to people who had started the gun buying process, warning them that straw purchases are illegal and will be prosecuted. Very quickly, LA found that 40% of prospective gun buyers never returned to complete the buying process. This only works because there is a waiting period and background check process.