Reducing Gun Violence

[Legacy Fan]

Re: straw buyers:

 

Every gun shop I've been in has a pretty explicit sticker on the door warning of the felony offense of purchasing for someone who can't buy a firearm legally. Sporting goods stores don't advertise that as bluntly, but they still try to follow the rules.

 

Tough to say how to stop this. Except throw the kid who bought Bishop the shotgun in the cell or electric chair with Bishop.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Evidence? An article was just posted saying that DHS ordered 7000 of them. The AR platform is an outstanding home/self defense weapon. That's the evidence.

 

I'm not really sure why you're putting effort (albeit less effort than Cysko) into making me appear like some Dirty Harry Hollywood vigilante. I mean, it's an easily debatable foe, so I understand. You're focusing on one hypothetical example of need vs want.

 

Irrelevant and rare stats aren't worth looking up to go tit for tat on assault rifle "good guy column vs bad guy column".

 

I think the number floated around is 1-2.5 mil instances of defensive gun uses annually. Most end in just brandishing. I think brandishing something that looks "intimidating & scary" is more effective right?

 

Yes, that number is often refuted because it's overinflated by including any case where someone claimed they deterred someone, even by mere possession. Another nationwide study found that violent gun crimes/offenses exceeded defensive uses by a factor of ten to one.

 

And the government's use of the weapon, or their belief in the quality of the weapon, isn't enough to convince me that the public should have one. I'm not making the case that they shouldn't, only that this doesn't convince me they should.

[Legacy Fan]

Here are several citations claiming your 10 to 1 stat isn't true.

 

 

 

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here are several citations claiming your 10 to 1 stat isn't true.

 

 

 

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

 

These numbers come from the same Gleck study you cited above. Check the footnotes. They're not new stats from another source. They're from the same source. And here's where the 10 to 1 stat comes from.

 

I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong. I don't have time to go through it all. And this is not my area of expertise anyway. I'm just saying that the proof that study A was right isn't another website using the numbers from study A.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Re: straw buyers:

 

Every gun shop I've been in has a pretty explicit sticker on the door warning of the felony offense of purchasing for someone who can't buy a firearm legally. Sporting goods stores don't advertise that as bluntly, but they still try to follow the rules.

 

Tough to say how to stop this. Except throw the kid who bought Bishop the shotgun in the cell or electric chair with Bishop.

 

The Obama plan would increase penalties for straw buyers. For instance, the teen in the Tampa case isn't being charged at all.

 

Additional tools to punish straw buyers should be somewhat useful in keeping people who can't get guns from getting them. When you know you're on the hook, you're less likely to buy one for that unstable friend who keeps asking you for one.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Enjoyed this story too.

[Westside Steve]

The Obama plan would increase penalties for straw buyers. For instance, the teen in the Tampa case isn't being charged at all.

 

Additional tools to punish straw buyers should be somewhat useful in keeping people who can't get guns from getting them. When you know you're on the hook, you're less likely to buy one for that unstable friend who keeps asking you for one.

Are there penalties for straw buying now and if so why wasn't the offender charged?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Read the article.

[Westside Steve]

Read the article.

I did. The question, of course, wes rhetorical.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

It doesn't make the point that you think you're making/ The Florida law doesn't work and has never been used, so it doesn't seem it can even apply here. The state prosecutors have no law to charge the kid with. The federal laws aren't much better. They can only charge him with lying on a form.

 

The point is that the laws need to be changed, not that prosecutors and defense attorneys conspire to do evil.

[Westside Steve]

It doesn't make the point that you think you're making/ The Florida law doesn't work and has never been used, so it doesn't seem it can even apply here. The state prosecutors have no law to charge the kid with. The federal laws aren't much better. They can only charge him with lying on a form.

 

The point is that the laws need to be changed, not that prosecutors and defense attorneys conspire to do evil.

Phrase it anyway you like. Too busy, to underfunded, too lazy, too short of time, too soft hearted, too understaffed, whatever you choose to enforce the laws that already exist.

There were, as I recall, over 7000 instances of falsifying applications. Only the tiniest fraction were followed up on whatsoever.

 

And even if they do not conspire to do evil, the end result is evil.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Nah, you're just trying to interject one of your seven opinions into a thread where you have nothing else to add.

 

Anyway, Leg, this seems to be another spot where the federal laws should change, especially since state laws are often useless, as is the case in Florida. If the straw buying of a firearm that results in its criminal use only carries a charge of lying on a form it's clearly insufficient. Especially if you can prove that the buyer knew of criminal histories or mental issues beforehand and still went through with the purchase, these should be pretty stiff penalties. Right now they're not.

 

You seem to agree, though I can't go with you on the electric chair bit. The kid is 18 and cooperating with authorities. I don't know what kind of deal he's made, so I can't sit on the sidelines with limited knowledge and say what should be done. But going forward, these prosecutors should have something on the books that they can use here.

[heckofajobbrownie]

A bipartisan group of senators are working on a proposal to expand background checks for gun purchases, USA Today reports. The group includes Republican Sens. Tom Coburn Oklahoma and Mark Kirk of Illinois and Democrats Chuck Schumer of New York and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Details on a potential bill so far are scarce.

 

Manchin said the senators "are just talking to everybody, that's all. Everybody's just trying to work together to find ... some common-sense movement, if you will."

 

Last weekend, Manchin told a West Virginia radio station he was working with Democratic and Republican senators, as well as the National Rifle Association, on something gun rights supporters could back. Such a bill, Manchin said, "basically says that if you're going to be a gun owner, you should be able to pass a background check."

[calfoxwc]

Nobody is against background checks. Most of these murders are by those who took other's guns.

 

Expanded background checks won't solve the problem.

 

But then, solving a problem isn't your forte', eh?

 

"Expanded background check", I'm sure, will give you libs the idea,

 

that you can just change the definition of the background check criteria to

 

eliminate gun purchases by...

 

tea party.

 

republicans.

 

Anybody who ever cried.

 

Anybody who ever broke a leg.

 

Anybody who was ever in a car accident.

 

Anybody who ever got a speeding ticket, who is fat, and therefore, irresponsible, anybody who was ever in the military,

 

has a family member who was in the military, or can spell "military".....

 

 

Of course, expanded background checks will have to be done every time to purchase ammo....

 

Then they can raise the cost of the expanded background check to...say, five hundred bucks, and make the ammo

 

and guns cost too much to buy... haha.

 

doesn't SOLVE the problem.

 

 

[Legacy Fan]

These numbers come from the same Gleck study you cited above. Check the footnotes. They're not new stats from another source. They're from the same source. And here's where the 10 to 1 stat comes from.

 

I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong. I don't have time to go through it all. And this is not my area of expertise anyway. I'm just saying that the proof that study A was right isn't another website using the numbers from study A.

 

 

I wasn't trying to say that a different webpage with study A's #s corroborates another webpage with study A's #s. The 2nd website had numbers broken out more.

 

Anyway, the Gleck study based its conclusions on collected evidence from reported incidents. Police reports, FBI reports, etc. The Bureau of Justice stats (that you provided, and I'm still sorting through) were collected by responses to a near 40-page survey. In the hierarchy of evidence, survey data sits right above case docs (essentially anecdotal evidence). For example - If I told you that the reason I chose the restorative material I was going to put in your tooth was because "another Dentist used it and it worked for him," I'd hope you would laugh me out of the room.

 

Again, the BoJ stats based it's conclusion (10 to 1) by including incidents that were not reported to the police yet were reported on a confidential survey (that didnt require responders to give their name/address etc.) Sorry, Ive been trained not to trust that kind of data because of it's near lack of reliability.

[Legacy Fan]

Nah, you're just trying to interject one of your seven opinions into a thread where you have nothing else to add.

 

Anyway, Leg, this seems to be another spot where the federal laws should change, especially since state laws are often useless, as is the case in Florida. If the straw buying of a firearm that results in its criminal use only carries a charge of lying on a form it's clearly insufficient. Especially if you can prove that the buyer knew of criminal histories or mental issues beforehand and still went through with the purchase, these should be pretty stiff penalties. Right now they're not.

 

You seem to agree, though I can't go with you on the electric chair bit. The kid is 18 and cooperating with authorities. I don't know what kind of deal he's made, so I can't sit on the sidelines with limited knowledge and say what should be done. But going forward, these prosecutors should have something on the books that they can use here.

I haven't really tested the limits of the state laws of VA regarding straw buying, but every "warning sign" I've seen on gun shops have included the f-e-l-o-n-y word on it which is good enough for me. Not sure about FL law, but something should be done fore sure. And yeah maybe the tandem electric chair was excessive but how about we replace the mandatory minimums of drug offenders and gift those sentences to these guys (straw buyers)?

[Westside Steve]

Nah, you're just trying to interject one of your seven opinions into a thread where you have nothing else to add.

Well that's at least 6 more than WWOD.

But no law does any good if it isn't enforced.

 

I suspect you'd rather just have the issue.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Legacy is exactly correct.

Let's have the mandatory sentences for those criminals who actually pose a threat to society.

 

But........

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

 

I suspect you'd rather just have the issue.

WSS

 

And there's another one of the seven.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I haven't really tested the limits of the state laws of VA regarding straw buying, but every "warning sign" I've seen on gun shops have included the f-e-l-o-n-y word on it which is good enough for me. Not sure about FL law, but something should be done fore sure. And yeah maybe the tandem electric chair was excessive but how about we replace the mandatory minimums of drug offenders and gift those sentences to these guys (straw buyers)?

 

I think here's what you're missing, and what Steve's missing, but he's hopeless: the sign on the door when you walk in a gun store can say whatever it wants. It can be as scary as you want to make it. It can say "felony" on it in big neon letters. Because guess what? It was a felony in Florida too. This kid might have passed the same exact signs in Florida as the ones you're used to seeing in Virginia. But signs aren't laws.

 

What matters is that the law itself works, that it's written in such a way that allows for actual enforcement. The Florida law isn't written that way, probably purposefully, because it sets a legal standard at "knowledge" - did the person know what the gun was to be used for before making the straw purchase, or did they know of the person's legal status before the straw purchase. It makes the crime very hard to prove, almost impossible. And this is why in Florida straw buying to evade background checks is a felony that carries jail time with it ...and has also never been used to successfully prosecute anyone. Not one person. Not even in this case, where the crime seems pretty clear, and the result was two dead people.

 

At the federal level, it doesn't seem to do much more. You can charge them with lying on a form. What kind of prison term do you think lying on a form carries? Do you think it's commensurate with the death of two innocent people?

 

So, if you want to see increased penalties for straw buyers, or mandatory minimums, then you're going to have to change the law. And you're probably not going to be able to wait for all 50 states to get their laws up to par. You're going to have to change the federal law. And this is exactly what's being proposed, though we don't know the details of it yet. You're going to have to make the law so that anyone who acts as a straw purchaser for a gun that's used in the commission of a crime also faces penalties.

 

I wouldn't agree with you on mandatory minimums, because I think allowing the judicial system flexibility to adapt to each individual case is a good thing.

 

Here's what you can't do: want increased penalties for straw purchasers, and then be against the people who try to change the law to make it so straw purchasers get increased penalties. I'm not saying you are doing this, but I can think of someone who is.

 

It's laughably incoherent. Yes, the people who are trying to change the law so it works don't want change; they just want the issue. We're with the people who don't want to change the laws at all, and just repeat the refrain that we should enforce the laws on the books we already have, even though they don't work, to do the things we claim we want to have done, but aren't. And those people, the people for doing nothing, aren't being political! They don't want the issue! They're benevolent and pure. Only the people who want to make actual changes I agree with want the issue! What assholes!

 

But let's leave Steve aside. He's hopeless. Also clueless.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'd add this, since this is a bit more in my area.

 

There are two ways you kill something you don't like in Washington, or in any state house. One is to defeat it legislatively. You round up more votes than the other party and you vote it down. Game over.

 

The side most people aren't aware of, and that most people don't see, is the side that doesn't really care what laws get proposed, or what headlines get reported. Because for 99.5% of America, the story is over then. For the other .5%, that's when the real work begins. If you haven't won the first round, you can just as easily - and often more easily - win the next round. And that's at the enforcement and rule-making stage of the game. That's when you can gut laws that were passed without anyone in the public really noticing.

 

So, take the assault weapons ban, which most people agree was filled with holes and not very effective, and easy to get around by altering a few cosmetic features. Now, some of this is due to the fact that the proponents crafted a crappy piece of legislation. But this is also by design. The headline was always going to be "Congress passes assault weapons ban." Politically, it mattered less what was actually in it. And it's not that there aren't people who don't care what's in it, and didn't want meaningful legislation. There are members who want that, who take their jobs seriously, who want to make a difference, and don't like passing empty bills for headlines. That's not what they go to Washington to do. But politically they're mostly covered.

 

Legislatively, when the bill is being drawn up, just a simple word here and there inserted into a bill can make any legislation virtually useless. (See: Florida law on straw buyers.) You can take a good piece of legislation about, say, clean air regulations, and insert a word like "deliberately" or "knowingly" in the right spot, or make the legal standard something like "intent," and make enforcement much more difficult. Did the firm violate the Clean Air Act? Yes. Did the management knowingly violate the Clean Air Act, with intent? Tougher to prove. And this is a crude example, but there are a million ways to do this.

 

But say you lose that battle. Trust me, this is not the end of the game for anyone who works in Washington. Then comes the enforcement fight. Take, for instance, the Dodd-Frank bill. That created a bunch of new positions in the SEC to police the financial industry. It required the SEC to hire a few hundred more agents, lawyers, accountants, etc. And that bill passed. Have any of those new positions been filled? No. Because the financial industry has successfully fought off the money the SEC would need to hire them, and therefore they can't enforce those provisions of Dodd-Frank. They've also been in a two-year battle to block the implementation of dozens of other parts of the bill. This is when lobbyists do their real work, and this is when industry really exerts its pressure. Don't like the person nominated to head a certain agency because they're likely to be tough on enforcement? Then make sure you get Congress to block their nomination, and push for someone more friendly to your industry. This is where the game is fought and won. It's not in the headlines. It's in the Post or the Times on page A14, if at all, and nobody reads it. Otherwise, it's nowhere. And that's the way, uh huh, uh huh, they like it, uh huh uh huh.

 

That's where these gun control battles will be fought. My guess is that nothing is going to pass other than background checks and straw buyer laws. And once those get run through the ringer, those won't be very effective either. It's not that they couldn't have been, or that we can't figure out how to do this stuff. We know how to do this stuff just fine. We just won't. Because it's too easy for moneyed interests to game the system. They own it. Not completely. Just mostly.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Let's use the example we were using before. Here's Florida's straw buyers law:

 

"Any person who knowingly acquires a firearm through purchase or transfer intended for the use of a person who is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing or receiving a firearm" commits a felony.

 

Now try it like this:

 

"Any person who acquires a firearm through purchase or transfer intended for the use of a person who is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing or receiving a firearm" commits a felony."

 

Which one works better?

[heckofajobbrownie]

And in other news:

 

 

A Latino man, aged 22, driving with his girlfriend and two other friends, pulled into a driveway in Lilburn, Georgia. Lilburn is a town of about 12,000 people, in Gwinett county, to the northeast of Atlanta. It's a town with a rising Latino population, up from about 13% to over 27% between the 2000 and 2010 Census.

 

The Latino man, Rodrigo Diaz, was said by his friends to have entered the driveway by mistake. They said was looking for the home of another friend.

 

Unfortunately for him, the driveway actually belonged to 69 year old Phillip Sailors. Sailors, a Vietnam vet, was armed. According to Diaz's brother, this is what happened next:

 

“The guy came outside and my brother’s girlfriend said he was screaming, ‘Get off my property!’ and he shot into the air. My brother was backing out fast because he was scared and he rolled down the window to say he was sorry and he was not doing anything wrong. Then the guy shot him in his head.”

 

Police report that Sailors believed that Diaz and his group intended to rob his house.

 

But what about the claim that Diaz was backing away when the older man shot and killed him?

 

Sailors' lawyer gave this answer to reporters:

 

He [sailors] fired a warning shot and then when the car was accelerated to go in reverse he perceived it differently.

 

“He’s an elderly man, he perceived the car going towards his house, towards him.”

 

Asked about the contention that the victim rolled the window down and said sorry and he wasn’t doing anything wrong, Puglise said he wasn’t aware of the statement.

 

“Each person in the situation perceived things differently,” he says. “He most certainly did not hear anything.”

[MLD Woody]

So many crotchety old white guy stereotypes... damn

[The Cysko Kid]

And in other news:

 

 

A Latino man, aged 22, driving with his girlfriend and two other friends, pulled into a driveway in Lilburn, Georgia. Lilburn is a town of about 12,000 people, in Gwinett county, to the northeast of Atlanta. It's a town with a rising Latino population, up from about 13% to over 27% between the 2000 and 2010 Census.

 

The Latino man, Rodrigo Diaz, was said by his friends to have entered the driveway by mistake. They said was looking for the home of another friend.

 

Unfortunately for him, the driveway actually belonged to 69 year old Phillip Sailors. Sailors, a Vietnam vet, was armed. According to Diaz's brother, this is what happened next:

 

“The guy came outside and my brother’s girlfriend said he was screaming, ‘Get off my property!’ and he shot into the air. My brother was backing out fast because he was scared and he rolled down the window to say he was sorry and he was not doing anything wrong. Then the guy shot him in his head.”

 

Police report that Sailors believed that Diaz and his group intended to rob his house.

 

But what about the claim that Diaz was backing away when the older man shot and killed him?

 

Sailors' lawyer gave this answer to reporters:

 

He [sailors] fired a warning shot and then when the car was accelerated to go in reverse he perceived it differently.

 

“He’s an elderly man, he perceived the car going towards his house, towards him.”

 

Asked about the contention that the victim rolled the window down and said sorry and he wasn’t doing anything wrong, Puglise said he wasn’t aware of the statement.

 

“Each person in the situation perceived things differently,” he says. “He most certainly did not hear anything.”

 

 

So he's old, he can't hear, and he can't tell the difference between towards and away, but he's aware enough to get a one shot headshot kill.

 

Doesn't add up.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Adds up just fine. The lawyer has to say that he thought the car was going forward because if the car is going backward he's attacking someone who is retreating and then he's in violation of the law. The whole case will be fought over whether or not this guy legitimately felt threatened when he fired the shot. Right now he's arrested and charged with murder because the cops don't think that was the case.

 

And that's what the trial is for.

 

And actually, Cysko, I'd think your line would work well coming out of the prosecutor's mouth.

[heckofajobbrownie]

So, now see if you know what Wayne LaPierre's game is here. Here's what he said before Congress: "Proposing more gun control laws, while failing to enforce the thousands we already have, is not a serious solution to reducing crime. Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals. Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families."

 

...Not a word of that makes sense in reality, but he knows his audience.

 

Let's take it apart:

 

"Proposing more gun control laws, while failing to enforce the thousands we already have, is not a serious solution to reducing crime." ...But what about where the laws are lax, like in the areas we've been pointing out? Surely that would help provide a deterrent to crime and increase penalties for those who violate our gun laws, no? So we can dispense with this argument.

 

"Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals." No one is asking them to. So we can dispense with that one too.

 

"Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families." Except that it already does. Obviously. We're debating to what extent. So we can dispense with this argument too.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

So, now see if you know what Wayne LaPierre's game is here. Here's what he said before Congress: "Proposing more gun control laws, while failing to enforce the thousands we already have, is not a serious solution to reducing crime. Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals. Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families."

 

...Not a word of that makes sense in reality, but he knows his audience.

 

Let's take it apart:

 

"Proposing more gun control laws, while failing to enforce the thousands we already have, is not a serious solution to reducing crime." ...But what about where the laws are lax, like in the areas we've been pointing out? Surely that would help provide a deterrent to crime and increase penalties for those who violate our gun laws, no? So we can dispense with this argument.

 

"Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals." No one is asking them to. So we can dispense with that one too.

 

"Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families." Except that it already does. Obviously. We're debating to what extent. So we can dispense with this argument too.

 

 

Why don't you and Cysco start a private chat.

 

 

[The Cysko Kid]

Why don't you and Cysco start a private chat.

 

Why don't you try and defend this guy's actions? I know you want to.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes, you can go back into the information bubble and have all of your pre-approved opinions recited back to you. It's done wonders for your Party. Keep it up!