Let's talk 'sensible' gun laws

[etrain16]

Well of course, but to think the govenment, and my extension the corporate owned media will ever tell the truth is truly delusional. The truth will come from the people when they wake up and search for it and not until

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies". -Ron Paul

I would never suggest the government nor the media are the ones to tell the truth. It's up to us as individuals to spread the word. This is part of the reason our daughter is home-schooled.

 

[Just Jim]

This country used to have the best education in the public schools that really made you think. They taught you to question everything and recognize differences. There would be no doubt as to what sensible gun control is. Today's education is indoctrination which gives a debate on a subject with them choosing the words you can use. There is no truth to anything they say when it comes to gun control and many other subjects.

 

[IronMonster]

They used to teach us how to think, now they teach us what to think.

 

[tiggers97]

Ok, slightly off-topic and long winded, but still related: Evidence that gun-laws work (or not).
For background checks the gun-control crowd seems to only point to denials as their measure of success after a law passes. But they tout crime reduction as the justification prior. So shouldn't they be able to point to successes (crime reduction) or how it wold have effected prior years?

Example: 2000 Oregon gun-show background check ballot Measure 5. I've been looking at historical trends and noticed that just before passage the homicide rate (gun and other) was decreasing very rapidly. In fact, 2001 (the first year 2000 background check law went into effect) was the last data point for the decline. (see attachment). After that, almost flat, but still declining. Sen. Burdick was quoted as claiming this was to combat crime. That gun shows were for family-Sunday afternoon outings and criminals to get their guns, but now it was just one of those things (she never emphasized which...). In 2007 there was also a push to enact a similar law in WA, with the claim from Burdick that if they didn't pass it she was concerned criminals would be going to WA to bring back guns to OR. Looking at the ATF website, there is a net total of firearm traced from crime scenes originating FROM OR to WA from 2006-2013!

But her claims didn't pan out, and I've found nothing yet to support them. No government reports, police reports, newspaper article: nothing. And now I'm hearing the same language as I am reading back in 1999/2000. If I were to use "gun-sense" logic, the gun-show loophole closure caused crime to stop falling as rapidly..... What gun-show loophole? What worked so great last time to justify expansion now?

Anyways, with the claim that the private seller loophole is supposedly being used now to supply criminals, I thought: shouldn't we be able to see the expected effect on the crime rate by looking at past years and the sources of firearms then? i.e. in 2013 there were 54 gun related homicides. How many guns in 2013 were from criminal getting their gun from a private seller before the crime vs other sources (legally bought, lend, stolen, etc)? If it is a small percentage (as I believe) I think that would be a big blow to the background check proponents as it is further hard proof the law has no impact on crime. But short of spending a few days google-searching news stories, is there a better way to find the data?

Trivia I've gotten from the ATF.gov statistics website on gun tracing:
(in California, 2013, 89% of guns recovered at crime scenes were traced from... California)
(Oregon, 2013, 69% traced from Oregon. California being the largest supplier of out of state guns...)
(The top 5 states in 2013 with crime guns recovered/sourced from within their own state are (in order): California, Maryland, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska. Minnesota and Michigan are real close (~0.3% lower) to NE. Minnesota and Louisiana are the only two states without background checks for all gun purchases).

 

[Gator Monroe]

Exactly! If they can't be trusted with a gun they can't be trusted.

We ALL know people whom we would not trust with "Our Children" "Our Money" "Our Vintage Muscle Car or Knucklehead Harley" our Wife" "Our Daughter" "Our Grandmother" ... so it's not a stretch to not trust them with an Uzi ...

 

[CWOUSCG]

We ALL know people whom we would not trust with "Our Children" "Our Money" "Our Vintage Muscle Car or Knucklehead Harley" our Wife" "Our Daughter" "Our Grandmother" ... so it's not a stretch to not trust them with an Uzi ...

Sure but are they convicted felons?

My point is if they are a felon and can not be trusted with a gun why let them out?

 

[Gator Monroe]

Sure but are they convicted felons?

My point is if they are a felon and can not be trusted with a gun why let them out?

Dude we live in a society of bleeding heart quasi Socialist Progressives who want no death panalty, easing of jail overcrowding forced by law, Crack/Meth/smack addicts let out of jail or not jailed at all and given rehab ...

 

[Just Jim]

Ok, slightly off-topic and long winded, but still related: Evidence that gun-laws work (or not).
For background checks the gun-control crowd seems to only point to denials as their measure of success after a law passes. But they tout crime reduction as the justification prior. So shouldn't they be able to point to successes (crime reduction) or how it wold have effected prior years?

Example: 2000 Oregon gun-show background check ballot Measure 5. I've been looking at historical trends and noticed that just before passage the homicide rate (gun and other) was decreasing very rapidly. In fact, 2001 (the first year 2000 background check law went into effect) was the last data point for the decline. (see attachment). After that, almost flat, but still declining. Sen. Burdick was quoted as claiming this was to combat crime. That gun shows were for family-Sunday afternoon outings and criminals to get their guns, but now it was just one of those things (she never emphasized which...). In 2007 there was also a push to enact a similar law in WA, with the claim from Burdick that if they didn't pass it she was concerned criminals would be going to WA to bring back guns to OR. Looking at the ATF website, there is a net total of firearm traced from crime scenes originating FROM OR to WA from 2006-2013!

But her claims didn't pan out, and I've found nothing yet to support them. No government reports, police reports, newspaper article: nothing. And now I'm hearing the same language as I am reading back in 1999/2000. If I were to use "gun-sense" logic, the gun-show loophole closure caused crime to stop falling as rapidly..... What gun-show loophole? What worked so great last time to justify expansion now?

Anyways, with the claim that the private seller loophole is supposedly being used now to supply criminals, I thought: shouldn't we be able to see the expected effect on the crime rate by looking at past years and the sources of firearms then? i.e. in 2013 there were 54 gun related homicides. How many guns in 2013 were from criminal getting their gun from a private seller before the crime vs other sources (legally bought, lend, stolen, etc)? If it is a small percentage (as I believe) I think that would be a big blow to the background check proponents as it is further hard proof the law has no impact on crime. But short of spending a few days google-searching news stories, is there a better way to find the data?

Trivia I've gotten from the ATF.gov statistics website on gun tracing:
(in California, 2013, 89% of guns recovered at crime scenes were traced from... California)
(Oregon, 2013, 69% traced from Oregon. California being the largest supplier of out of state guns...)
(The top 5 states in 2013 with crime guns recovered/sourced from within their own state are (in order): California, Maryland, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska. Minnesota and Michigan are real close (~0.3% lower) to NE. Minnesota and Louisiana are the only two states without background checks for all gun purchases).
View attachment 212698

Numbers and charts are wonderful things but they never include the whole story. For instance there is no mention as to how many guns have been added to those in the hands of the public. More guns can mean less crime... unless it's government selling guns to the cartells.

 

[tiggers97]

Numbers and charts are wonderful things but they never include the whole story. For instance there is no mention as to how many guns have been added to those in the hands of the public. More guns can mean less crime... unless it's government selling guns to the cartells.

Here you go Or at least the best graph/estimate I've seen so far. But you do have a point. Besides NCIS checks for Oregon, there really isn't a good way/source that I know of to judge the amount of new firearms in Oregon.

<broken link removed>