Anonymous wrote:I just for the life of me do not understand in a civilized society, why anyone needs to carry around a gun. It’s so stupid. I have never and will never and my life is perfect and never in danger. So moronic.

Anonymous wrote:I just for the life of me do not understand in a civilized society, why anyone needs to carry around a gun. It’s so stupid. I have never and will never and my life is perfect and never in danger. So moronic.

Anonymous wrote:Gun laws already in place are more than sufficient to get and keep the criminal element off the street. Problem is lack of appropriate prosecution and length of sentence for those convicted of gun crimes.

As long as the justice system continues “catch and release”, which with the increase of codified cashless bail is only increasing then citizens have no choice but to arm themselves.

Police respond to crime, they don’t prevent crime. Police are responding even slower today and lack even a deterrence capability due to almost universal underfunding in major cities across the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Will help some

I doubt there is a single State that does not criminalize possession of firearms and/or ammunition by felons and other persons who would be prohibited under federal law; interstate firearm transfers; straw purchases and the like. This is the fundamental fraud of anti-firearm organizations. They cynically create the impression of an environment where firearms are a wholly unregulated free for all, when in fact there are multiple layers of duplicative federal and State regulation, covering many if not most or even all of the subjects they claim need still more regulation. Making criminal misconduct “more illegal-er” will not “help some.” It will not help at all, unless “help” is defined as moving the nation toward their goal of ultimately prohibiting private firearm ownership while ignoring the predations of criminals who already don’t obey the law, any law.

Anonymous wrote:^Will help some

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Switzerland, it appears both active and reserve while enrolled keep issue weapons at home. Some have ammunition, some don’t depending on duty assignments (e.g., airport guard duty). Rifles get full auto removed and are subject to ordinary restrictions upon leaving reserves.

But this entire line of reasoning ignores the vast cultural differences between Switzerland (and pretty much anyplace else) and the US. Switzerland is historically an extremely homogenous country, very conservative, with a great deal of emphasis on fitting in, being a productive part of society, getting along, etc. (although this is changing with more recent immigration).

The United States has a permanent (or at least highly persistent) frequently criminal, subculture that appears not to accept the values of the majority of society regarding many things, including criminal behavior and violence. Unlike many (most?) other countries, these crime prone individuals are not held to account and removed from society (by imprisonment, ostracism, or other means) but seem instead to be protected as a part of the political courting of larger groups to which they nominally might belong, but upon whom they frequently prey. The composition of this subculture is not static, but its existence seems to defy all efforts to move its members into productive social roles. Switzerland and Europe (and other places) may also have groups who traditionally engage in criminality, but nothing on the order of what is seen in the US.

It is a delusional fantasy to think that any set of laws (including the many ones that already exist but are not vigorously enforced) is going to attenuate the criminal violence that is the hallmark of such a subculture. People who obey laws don’t engage in psychopathic criminality. People who do engage in that don’t follow any laws, not even the requirement to pay for public transportation or goods from w store. And the underground/black market/drug and contraband infrastructure that already exists within the criminal subculture guarantees that attempting to disarm criminals by depriving decent people of their own rights is bound to fail, leaving the decent people without the means of self defense and the criminals likely even better armed than before.

There are certainly MANY things we can do to reduce gun violence that don't involve "depriving decent people of their own rights". The US has faced spiraling gun violence in the past and regulation (ie, National Firearms Act of 1934) has successfully reduced gun homicides.

Looking at which policies can effectively change gun violence:
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html

The National Firearms Act was aimed at violent bootlegging gangsters and bank robbers. The gangsters got sent to jail for tax evasion, put out of business by the repeal of prohibition, and learned to go underground to avoid attention. The bank robbers, well, ask Bonnie, Clyde, Baby Face Nelson about how they got handled. Not with kid gloves. Comparing the NFA to the preposterous patchwork of redundant confiscatory measures proposed today is ridiculous. And the NFA may well be unconstitutional. Read the posts on DCUM — people with an irrational fear of guns and their own interior rage and violence want to end private firearm ownership. They’ve just learned not to admit it outright.

Possession of firearms by felons and other prohibited persons; possession of ammunition by felons and other prohibited persons; interstate sales of handguns; straw purchases; sales to minors; theft of firearms; smuggling of firearms; and every form of criminal misuse of firearms — each and every one of these things is already unlawful at the federal level.

DC has at least the following gun laws:

1. All firearms must be registered.
2. Unlawful to possess unregistered firearm.
3. Unlawful to possess ammunition without registered firearm.
4. Lengthy list of banned long guns by name and/or characteristics.
5. Specified list of handguns allowed -- no "Saturday Night Specials."
6. Unlawful to carry firearm openly.
7. Unlawful to carry pistol without a license.
8. Training with actual target exam required for license.
9. Places where licensed pistol can be carried highly restricted.
10. No open carry.
11. No vehicular long gun carry.
12. No possession of firearms or ammunition by minors, prohibited persons (felons, drug users, violent mentally ill).
13. No private sale of firearms.
14. Prepurchase safety training.
15. Background check on all purchases.
16. Longstanding (at least the 1970's) limit to 10 round magazine capacity.
17. Negligent firearm use unlawful
18. Criminal firearm use unlawful.
19. Use of firearm in crime of violence, drug crime, etc., unlawful.

Oh “but the guns come from other places, so all those places need the same restrictions as DC!”

Balderdash. Trafficking firearms into DC is already unlawful. As is trafficking of illicit drugs — and there is no shortage of those, just as there will be no shortage of firearms in criminal hands as long as the focus is on inanimate objects and not the criminals who misuse them.

Not "balderdash" at all. Chicago also has horrific gun violence despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. The problem is that less than a half hour away from Chicago, Indiana has some of the weakest gun laws in the nation. A loose patchwork of local laws clearly does not work, because then criminals will just find the weakest link, like Chicago criminals going to Indiana or DC criminals going to Virginia. This is why we need stronger national laws.

For all your handwaving and impotent arguments of "balderdash" this really isn't rocket science.

Every single sale between Illinois and a Indiana that did not go through a federally licensed firearm dealer and/or was not conducted by the actual ultimate recipient, who was truthful in every way on the required declarations, was already a federal felony (indeed, probably multiple federal felonies, each of which is a slam-dunk case).

So for all your hand waving and impotent arguments of “common sense,” and “stronger national laws,” you’re right — it really isn’t rocket science — you can’t get much stronger than an absolute prohibition accompanied by two decades in federal prison for violation.

The big issue is that ATF isn’t willing or able to combat interstate gun trafficking.

And there you have it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Switzerland, it appears both active and reserve while enrolled keep issue weapons at home. Some have ammunition, some don’t depending on duty assignments (e.g., airport guard duty). Rifles get full auto removed and are subject to ordinary restrictions upon leaving reserves.

But this entire line of reasoning ignores the vast cultural differences between Switzerland (and pretty much anyplace else) and the US. Switzerland is historically an extremely homogenous country, very conservative, with a great deal of emphasis on fitting in, being a productive part of society, getting along, etc. (although this is changing with more recent immigration).

The United States has a permanent (or at least highly persistent) frequently criminal, subculture that appears not to accept the values of the majority of society regarding many things, including criminal behavior and violence. Unlike many (most?) other countries, these crime prone individuals are not held to account and removed from society (by imprisonment, ostracism, or other means) but seem instead to be protected as a part of the political courting of larger groups to which they nominally might belong, but upon whom they frequently prey. The composition of this subculture is not static, but its existence seems to defy all efforts to move its members into productive social roles. Switzerland and Europe (and other places) may also have groups who traditionally engage in criminality, but nothing on the order of what is seen in the US.

It is a delusional fantasy to think that any set of laws (including the many ones that already exist but are not vigorously enforced) is going to attenuate the criminal violence that is the hallmark of such a subculture. People who obey laws don’t engage in psychopathic criminality. People who do engage in that don’t follow any laws, not even the requirement to pay for public transportation or goods from w store. And the underground/black market/drug and contraband infrastructure that already exists within the criminal subculture guarantees that attempting to disarm criminals by depriving decent people of their own rights is bound to fail, leaving the decent people without the means of self defense and the criminals likely even better armed than before.

There are certainly MANY things we can do to reduce gun violence that don't involve "depriving decent people of their own rights". The US has faced spiraling gun violence in the past and regulation (ie, National Firearms Act of 1934) has successfully reduced gun homicides.

Looking at which policies can effectively change gun violence:
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html

The National Firearms Act was aimed at violent bootlegging gangsters and bank robbers. The gangsters got sent to jail for tax evasion, put out of business by the repeal of prohibition, and learned to go underground to avoid attention. The bank robbers, well, ask Bonnie, Clyde, Baby Face Nelson about how they got handled. Not with kid gloves. Comparing the NFA to the preposterous patchwork of redundant confiscatory measures proposed today is ridiculous. And the NFA may well be unconstitutional. Read the posts on DCUM — people with an irrational fear of guns and their own interior rage and violence want to end private firearm ownership. They’ve just learned not to admit it outright.

Possession of firearms by felons and other prohibited persons; possession of ammunition by felons and other prohibited persons; interstate sales of handguns; straw purchases; sales to minors; theft of firearms; smuggling of firearms; and every form of criminal misuse of firearms — each and every one of these things is already unlawful at the federal level.

DC has at least the following gun laws:

1. All firearms must be registered.
2. Unlawful to possess unregistered firearm.
3. Unlawful to possess ammunition without registered firearm.
4. Lengthy list of banned long guns by name and/or characteristics.
5. Specified list of handguns allowed -- no "Saturday Night Specials."
6. Unlawful to carry firearm openly.
7. Unlawful to carry pistol without a license.
8. Training with actual target exam required for license.
9. Places where licensed pistol can be carried highly restricted.
10. No open carry.
11. No vehicular long gun carry.
12. No possession of firearms or ammunition by minors, prohibited persons (felons, drug users, violent mentally ill).
13. No private sale of firearms.
14. Prepurchase safety training.
15. Background check on all purchases.
16. Longstanding (at least the 1970's) limit to 10 round magazine capacity.
17. Negligent firearm use unlawful
18. Criminal firearm use unlawful.
19. Use of firearm in crime of violence, drug crime, etc., unlawful.

Oh “but the guns come from other places, so all those places need the same restrictions as DC!”

Balderdash. Trafficking firearms into DC is already unlawful. As is trafficking of illicit drugs — and there is no shortage of those, just as there will be no shortage of firearms in criminal hands as long as the focus is on inanimate objects and not the criminals who misuse them.

Not "balderdash" at all. Chicago also has horrific gun violence despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. The problem is that less than a half hour away from Chicago, Indiana has some of the weakest gun laws in the nation. A loose patchwork of local laws clearly does not work, because then criminals will just find the weakest link, like Chicago criminals going to Indiana or DC criminals going to Virginia. This is why we need stronger national laws.

For all your handwaving and impotent arguments of "balderdash" this really isn't rocket science.

Every single sale between Illinois and a Indiana that did not go through a federally licensed firearm dealer and/or was not conducted by the actual ultimate recipient, who was truthful in every way on the required declarations, was already a federal felony (indeed, probably multiple federal felonies, each of which is a slam-dunk case).

So for all your hand waving and impotent arguments of “common sense,” and “stronger national laws,” you’re right — it really isn’t rocket science — you can’t get much stronger than an absolute prohibition accompanied by two decades in federal prison for violation.

The big issue is that ATF isn’t willing or able to combat interstate gun trafficking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re Switzerland, it appears both active and reserve while enrolled keep issue weapons at home. Some have ammunition, some don’t depending on duty assignments (e.g., airport guard duty). Rifles get full auto removed and are subject to ordinary restrictions upon leaving reserves.

But this entire line of reasoning ignores the vast cultural differences between Switzerland (and pretty much anyplace else) and the US. Switzerland is historically an extremely homogenous country, very conservative, with a great deal of emphasis on fitting in, being a productive part of society, getting along, etc. (although this is changing with more recent immigration).

The United States has a permanent (or at least highly persistent) frequently criminal, subculture that appears not to accept the values of the majority of society regarding many things, including criminal behavior and violence. Unlike many (most?) other countries, these crime prone individuals are not held to account and removed from society (by imprisonment, ostracism, or other means) but seem instead to be protected as a part of the political courting of larger groups to which they nominally might belong, but upon whom they frequently prey. The composition of this subculture is not static, but its existence seems to defy all efforts to move its members into productive social roles. Switzerland and Europe (and other places) may also have groups who traditionally engage in criminality, but nothing on the order of what is seen in the US.

It is a delusional fantasy to think that any set of laws (including the many ones that already exist but are not vigorously enforced) is going to attenuate the criminal violence that is the hallmark of such a subculture. People who obey laws don’t engage in psychopathic criminality. People who do engage in that don’t follow any laws, not even the requirement to pay for public transportation or goods from w store. And the underground/black market/drug and contraband infrastructure that already exists within the criminal subculture guarantees that attempting to disarm criminals by depriving decent people of their own rights is bound to fail, leaving the decent people without the means of self defense and the criminals likely even better armed than before.

There are certainly MANY things we can do to reduce gun violence that don't involve "depriving decent people of their own rights". The US has faced spiraling gun violence in the past and regulation (ie, National Firearms Act of 1934) has successfully reduced gun homicides.

Looking at which policies can effectively change gun violence:
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/what-science-tells-us-about-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html

The National Firearms Act was aimed at violent bootlegging gangsters and bank robbers. The gangsters got sent to jail for tax evasion, put out of business by the repeal of prohibition, and learned to go underground to avoid attention. The bank robbers, well, ask Bonnie, Clyde, Baby Face Nelson about how they got handled. Not with kid gloves. Comparing the NFA to the preposterous patchwork of redundant confiscatory measures proposed today is ridiculous. And the NFA may well be unconstitutional. Read the posts on DCUM — people with an irrational fear of guns and their own interior rage and violence want to end private firearm ownership. They’ve just learned not to admit it outright.

Possession of firearms by felons and other prohibited persons; possession of ammunition by felons and other prohibited persons; interstate sales of handguns; straw purchases; sales to minors; theft of firearms; smuggling of firearms; and every form of criminal misuse of firearms — each and every one of these things is already unlawful at the federal level.

DC has at least the following gun laws:

1. All firearms must be registered.
2. Unlawful to possess unregistered firearm.
3. Unlawful to possess ammunition without registered firearm.
4. Lengthy list of banned long guns by name and/or characteristics.
5. Specified list of handguns allowed -- no "Saturday Night Specials."
6. Unlawful to carry firearm openly.
7. Unlawful to carry pistol without a license.
8. Training with actual target exam required for license.
9. Places where licensed pistol can be carried highly restricted.
10. No open carry.
11. No vehicular long gun carry.
12. No possession of firearms or ammunition by minors, prohibited persons (felons, drug users, violent mentally ill).
13. No private sale of firearms.
14. Prepurchase safety training.
15. Background check on all purchases.
16. Longstanding (at least the 1970's) limit to 10 round magazine capacity.
17. Negligent firearm use unlawful
18. Criminal firearm use unlawful.
19. Use of firearm in crime of violence, drug crime, etc., unlawful.

Oh “but the guns come from other places, so all those places need the same restrictions as DC!”

Balderdash. Trafficking firearms into DC is already unlawful. As is trafficking of illicit drugs — and there is no shortage of those, just as there will be no shortage of firearms in criminal hands as long as the focus is on inanimate objects and not the criminals who misuse them.

Not "balderdash" at all. Chicago also has horrific gun violence despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. The problem is that less than a half hour away from Chicago, Indiana has some of the weakest gun laws in the nation. A loose patchwork of local laws clearly does not work, because then criminals will just find the weakest link, like Chicago criminals going to Indiana or DC criminals going to Virginia. This is why we need stronger national laws.

For all your handwaving and impotent arguments of "balderdash" this really isn't rocket science.

Every single sale between Illinois and a Indiana that did not go through a federally licensed firearm dealer and/or was not conducted by the actual ultimate recipient, who was truthful in every way on the required declarations, was already a federal felony (indeed, probably multiple federal felonies, each of which is a slam-dunk case).

So for all your hand waving and impotent arguments of “common sense,” and “stronger national laws,” you’re right — it really isn’t rocket science — you can’t get much stronger than an absolute prohibition accompanied by two decades in federal prison for violation.