The Usa Should Have More Gun Restrictions

[Jesus_lol]

And many gun owners agree with that, they would like to be able to make sure they arent selling to felons, but they arent going to settle for overbearing garbage like Manchin Toomey.

 

Which is why there was the Coburn Proposal, which didnt have many of the problematic areas of the other failed bill. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/

 

It actually had wide support from gun owners, unlike the completely panned Manchin Toomey. It would have passed but was scuttled by gun control advocates and democrats, i guess because it didnt have the pseudo registry requirement that they kept trying to downplay in M.T.

 

So when it comes down to it, a legit compromise gets scuttled because it isnt good enough. And we all know that even if Toomey was voted in, within a year they would be back at it, demanding it to be ratcheted even tighter, and adding new bans.

[Winchester]

One side of this debate is making a claim of ownership over the other.

 

I really don't think you can reason with people who believe they may own other people. You're spinning your wheels.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so yeah i was taught something.

 

but there are still a lot of sales that do not involve checks, that should.

 

i for once, rarely, concede to not having known something, but it appears it may have been premature.

 

i looked into the dates, and the 40% study was after the brady bill. the study was 1997, the brady bill was 1993.

 

http://www.nij.gov/publications/pages/publication-detail.aspx?ncjnumber=165476

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

 

what were you basing your argument on, that the brady bill came after the study?

 

i just took your word for it, that it did. clearly that was a mistake.

[Credo in Deum]

http://youtu.be/zJCJhdEPsOE

[dairygirl4u2c]

this fellow, who argued that the brady bill didn't have much effect on violent crime, notes the obvious. that it does effect crime at least to some degree.

"Of course this doesn't mean all persons denied purchases were prevented from obtaining a firearm by other means, or that they were stopped from committing a crime with a different or no weapon. However, surely a number of crimes were averted due to the under-motivation of some potential criminals. Even though the evidence suggests waiting periods and instant background checks are not statistically significant factors in reducing violent crime, they do appear to have merit since they will thwart some crime, and in most cases involve no practical infringement of law-abiding gun owners' rights."

 

and i'd add, even if it's not statistitically significant, which looks debateable on a google search... it is still significant in that 'some' murders are no longer happening.

 

even the above quoted pro gun rights fellow, couldn't deny the common sense, that so many here wish to ignore.

[Jesus_lol]

i for once, rarely, concede to not having known something, but it appears it may have been premature.

 

i looked into the dates, and the 40% study was after the brady bill. the study was 1997, the brady bill was 1993.

 

http://www.nij.gov/publications/pages/publication-detail.aspx?ncjnumber=165476

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

 

what were you basing your argument on, that the brady bill came after the study?

 

i just took your word for it, that it did. clearly that was a mistake.

 

 

"The original source of the 40 percent figure is a 1997 National Institute of Justice study by researchers Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago, who examined data from a 1994 telephone survey about gun ownership. The survey, which sampled 2,568 homes, asked owners an array of questions, including how many guns were in the house, what they were used for, how they were stored and how they were obtained.

But it’s important to note that of the 2,568 households surveyed, only 251 people answered the question about the origin of their gun.

But in those answers, Cook and Ludwig found that 35.7 percent of respondents reported obtaining their gun from somewhere other than a licensed dealer. (That has been rounded up to 40 percent.) Some people answered "probably" and "probably not" if they weren’t entirely sure whether the seller was a licensed dealer. In some cases, where the respondent skipped the question about whether the gun came from a licensed dealer, the researchers made a judgment call. Ludwig said in an email that they mined answers to other questions (such as whether the gun was a gift) to guide them."

 

 

The dubious statistic of guns that avoided background checks — which is actually 36 percent — comes from a small 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, very early in the Clinton administration. Most of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks in early 1994.

If that alone didn’t make the number invalid, the federal survey simply asked buyers if they thought they were buying from a licensed firearms dealer. While all Federal Firearm Licensees do background checks, only those perceived as being FFLs were counted. Yet, there is much evidence that survey respondents who went to the smallest FFLs, especially the “kitchen table” types, had no idea that the dealer was actually “licensed.” Many buyers seemed to think that only “brick and mortar” stores were licensed dealers, and so the survey underestimating the number of sales covered by the checks.

Another reason for the high number is that it includes guns transferred as inheritances or as gifts from family members. Even President Obama’s background proposal excludes almost all of those transfers.

 

 

If you look in the first link you provided, you will note that while the survey was published in 1997, it's data was collected using a rather limited phone survey that took place in 1994, only just barely after the Brady bill had been passed, and then later on implemented.

 

So of the people that actually answered the survey, they were asked about where they got their firearms, unless you think every single person only purchased firearms in the several months before the survey, then they are referring to guns they have bought and purchased before the Brady Bill was even passed, much less before it actually became implemented.

 

So again, you have a lot of strikes against the number you are using. 

 

First, It was never 40%. It was 35.7% and then rounded up for no reason whatsoever. This number was also attained from a 251 person phone survey, 20 years ago.

 

Second, it is asking about the origin of firearms and how many went through a background check at a time period when the vast majority of gun purchases would have happened before the background check system was even implemented. Even at the time of the survey, this major flaw would prevent it from being a fair look at the current background check system.

 

20 years later, the number is entirely meaningless. Which of course, hasnt prevented it from being used by politicians and people like you.

 

Though even Joe Biden had the wherewithal to admit that that number was likely out of date when he used it. Not that it was ever accurate to begin with.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Jesus_lol

[Winchester]

If you don't think you need permission to own guns, you should just move to Somalia.