Pro-gun poster girl shot by her own toddler

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Prestor Jon**

r_squared wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Smacks wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Smacks wrote:
It is not unreasonable to expect people operating dangerous machinery to be competent and trained, it is something that we usually insist on.
Hrm, yes and no. You need training and certification to drive a car on a public street, but not to drive one on private property. You can drive a racecar on a private track all day long without a license as far as the law is concerned. I can go out and buy a forklift, riding mower, etc and drive it around private property all I want without a license or training. I can buy and operate all sorts of heavy, dangerous machinery without any training or licensing, be it a wood chipper, tractor, forklift, etc.
I would use your own argument against you here, by saying that cars and forklifts are inherently easier to regulate in public. You can't, for example, hide a forklift down your pants, or drive one classroom to classroom around a school killing people.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then
Again, you are starting with the assumption that law enforcement knows about the guns, but without a registry there is no good reason to assume they would know anything. /discussion.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Canada attempted to create a national firearms registry spent millions on it and years later got rid of it before it was even completed or functional. And Canada had much easier logistical issues to overcome than we would if we tried to do the same registry.
Canada got rid of it because their conservative government always wanted to get rid of it from day 1, and years later got the opportunity when they attained power. The overwhelming response from law enforcement was that the registry was very useful.

So your argument is that we need a firearms registry because police departments are too inept to discover during the course of their investigation of serious felonies if the accused own guns?

The Canadian people chose to vote the conservative party into power and the conervative party carried out one of the campaign promises they made on an issue that they had taken a consistent stance on from day 1. That's how people exercise their will through the ballot box and affect the legislative process. The people of Canada chose to get rid of their registry and they don't even have the NRA up there and the conservative party isn't in power anymore and the registry isn't coming back.

Hang on, you state that for the Canadians, but didn't Barrack Obama have a stated intent to regulate gun laws and that has been frustrated at every step by republicans and others too feeble to stand up to special interest lobby groups?

In fact, I got piled on by a group for even suggesting that POTUS was unable, as an elected official carrying his mandate, to enact his stated aims.

Surely he too was elected, and reflected the will of the people of the US?

Presidents don't control the legislative process. If Barak Obama had enough support in Congress to pass a federal law mandated a federal firearms registry and that law withstood a constitutional challenge then we would have a national firearms registry because that's how the process works. Since there isn't a majority in Congress in favor of passing the level of regulation Obama campaigned on those laws aren't getting passed.

On October 25, 2011, the government introduced Bill C-19, legislation to scrap the Canadian Long-Gun Registry.[4] The bill was to repeal the requirement to register non-restricted firearms (long-guns) and mandate the destruction of all records pertaining to the registration of long-guns currently contained in the Canadian Firearms Registry and under the control of the chief firearms officers.[4] The bill passed second reading in the House of Commons (156 to 123).[38] On February 15, 2012, Bill C-19 was passed in the House of Commons (159 to 130) with support from the Conservatives and two NDP MPs. On April 4, 2012, Bill C-19 passed third reading in the Senate by a vote of 50-27 and received royal assent from the Governor General on April 5.[39]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

If the people of the US want to pass specific types of legislation then it needs to be popular enough that a majority of elected representatives choose to vote for it. It's much bigger than just picking one president and suddenly getting new laws.

**Smacks**

Prestor Jon wrote:
So your argument is that we need a firearms registry because police departments are too inept to discover during the course of their investigation of serious felonies if the accused own guns?

No that is not my argument. I know people throw around the term strawman a lot (sometimes incorrectly), but the kind of misrepresentation you just attempted is a textbook example.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The Canadian people chose to vote the conservative party into power and the conervative party carried out one of the campaign promises they made on an issue that they had taken a consistent stance on from day 1.

After the liberals introduced the gun registry, the Canadian people voted them into power again (twice) in the following general elections, and the conservatives did not obtain a majority until over a decade later, so it's fairly safe to assume the gun registry wasn't the major issue. It's normal for power to change hands during the almost two decades that the registry existed, it says very little about what the public actually wanted, and even less about what they needed.

Vaktathi wrote:
True, but my point was that they aren't. If you want to operate a motor vehicle on a public street, thats heavily regulated, and is relatively easy to regulate. Outside of that however, regulation is minimal or nonexistent and becomes increasingly difficult. Firearms dont have an equivalent of public road usage, theyre not consuming a public good in the way a car is, which makes regulation of the same type very difficult.

You always argue your points well Vaktathi, exalted. I feel that we can probably find a lot to agree on in all of this. Perhaps that analogies are helpful for explaining things, but they don't constitute logical arguments. These car analogies seem to appear on both sides of the debate however.

**feeder**

Smacks wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
So your argument is that we need a firearms registry because police departments are too inept to discover during the course of their investigation of serious felonies if the accused own guns?
No that is not my argument. I know people throw around the term strawman a lot (sometimes incorrectly), but the kind of misrepresentation you just attempted is a textbook example.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The Canadian people chose to vote the conservative party into power and the conervative party carried out one of the campaign promises they made on an issue that they had taken a consistent stance on from day 1.
After the liberals introduced the gun registry, the Canadian people voted them into power again (twice) in the following general elections, and the conservative did not obtain a majority until over a decade later, so It's fairly safe to assume the gun registry wasn't the major issue. It's normal for power to change hands during the almost two decades that the registry existed, it says very little about what the public actually wanted, and even less about what they needed.

The flawed Canadian election process gave the previous far right government a 100% mandate with barely a third of the popular vote, and the current centre right government also has 100% of the power with not much better numbers. It's not at all "the will of the people".

Back OT, does anyone in here think this woman should be keeping her guns? She has demonstrated she is a negligent gun owner.

**Prestor Jon**

Smacks wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
So your argument is that we need a firearms registry because police departments are too inept to discover during the course of their investigation of serious felonies if the accused own guns?
No that is not my argument. I know people throw around the term strawman a lot (sometimes incorrectly), but the kind of misrepresentation you just attempted is a textbook example.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The Canadian people chose to vote the conservative party into power and the conervative party carried out one of the campaign promises they made on an issue that they had taken a consistent stance on from day 1.
After the liberals introduced the gun registry, the Canadian people voted them into power again (twice) in the following general elections, and the conservatives did not obtain a majority until over a decade later, so it's fairly safe to assume the gun registry wasn't the major issue. It's normal for power to change hands during the almost two decades that the registry existed, it says very little about what the public actually wanted, and even less about what they needed.

Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you commit a crime that disqualifies you from owning firearms and law enforcement knows you own firearms or believes you own firearms then
Again, you are starting with the assumption that law enforcement knows about the guns, but without a registry there is no good reason to assume they would know anything. /discussion.

Not seeing the strawman here. You said police wouldn't know if you owned guns without a registry. I pointed out that for crimes severe enough to disqualify you from owning guns the police will do their best to find out if you own guns during the course of their investigation. You don't need a registry for police to find out if you own guns.

The conservatives in Canada were able to put together a strong enough coalition of representatives to pass the bill that eliminated the gun registry. That means there was a majority of representatives who knew that voting for the bill wouldn't damage their political careers enough to dissuade them from voting yes. If subsequent sessions of the legislature can form coalitions of enough size to pass new legislation that recreates the gun registry they can pass such a bill. To date they haven't so it clearly isn't a high legislative priority. If there was enough popular pressure being applied to representatives to pass a new gun registry law then it would get passed but so far there isn't any evidence of that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:

Back OT, does anyone in here think this woman should be keeping her guns? She has demonstrated she is a negligent gun owner.

Depends on what charges are brought about by the local DA. These two seem to be the most applicable Florida statutes.

790.174 Safe storage of firearms required.—(1) A person who stores or leaves, on a premise under his or her control, a loaded firearm, as defined in s. 790.001, and who knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent or the person having charge of the minor, or without the supervision required by law, shall keep the firearm in a securely locked box or container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or shall secure it with a trigger lock, except when the person is carrying the firearm on his or her body or within such close proximity thereto that he or she can retrieve and use it as easily and quickly as if he or she carried it on his or her body.
(2) It is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, if a person violates subsection (1) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and as a result thereof a minor gains access to the firearm, without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent or the person having charge of the minor, and possesses or exhibits it, without the supervision required by law:
(a) In a public place; or
(b) In a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner in violation of s. 790.10.
This subsection does not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.

1(3) As used in this act, the term “minor” means any person under the age of 16.
History.—ss. 2, 7, ch. 89-534; s. 1216, ch. 97-102.
1Note.—Also published at s. 784.05(4).

790.15 Discharging firearm in public.—(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), any person who knowingly discharges a firearm in any public place or on the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or whosoever knowingly discharges any firearm over the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or over any occupied premises is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. This section does not apply to a person lawfully defending life or property or performing official duties requiring the discharge of a firearm or to a person discharging a firearm on public roads or properties expressly approved for hunting by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or Division of Forestry.
(2) Any occupant of any vehicle who knowingly and willfully discharges any firearm from the vehicle within 1,000 feet of any person commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Any driver or owner of any vehicle, whether or not the owner of the vehicle is occupying the vehicle, who knowingly directs any other person to discharge any firearm from the vehicle commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 1, ch. 3289, 1881; RS 2683; GS 3626; RGS 5557; CGL 7743; s. 1, ch. 61-334; s. 745, ch. 71-136; s. 1, ch. 78-17; s. 1, ch. 89-157; s. 229, ch. 99-245.

**Smacks**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Smacks wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
So your argument is that we need a firearms registry because police departments are too inept to discover during the course of their investigation of serious felonies if the accused own guns?
No that is not my argument. I know people throw around the term strawman a lot (sometimes incorrectly), but the kind of misrepresentation you just attempted is a textbook example.

Not seeing the strawman here. You said police wouldn't know if you owned guns without a registry. I pointed out that for crimes severe enough to disqualify you from owning guns the police will do their best to find out if you own guns during the course of their investigation. You don't need a registry for police to find out if you own guns.

Okay I'll break it down for you. Firstly, you summed up a part of an argument for a registry as the whole argument. Secondly, I never claimed police were "inept" that was a misrepresentation. Thirdly, the scope of the registry is not limited to "serious felonies".

The registry would help police determine if someone owns guns, how many guns they own, what the guns are, and if they have been lawfully passed on, without having to waste time and manpower tearing apart every place a person might have hidden guns, without any idea what they are looking for. Arguing that would help police (which is obviously true), is not the same as calling police "inept", which was the dishonest way you twisted it. If you can't see a strawman, then that's probably just more dishonesty on your part, but it should be fairly obvious to anyone else reading.

**Prestor Jon**

Smacks wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Smacks wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
So your argument is that we need a firearms registry because police departments are too inept to discover during the course of their investigation of serious felonies if the accused own guns?
No that is not my argument. I know people throw around the term strawman a lot (sometimes incorrectly), but the kind of misrepresentation you just attempted is a textbook example.

Not seeing the strawman here. You said police wouldn't know if you owned guns without a registry. I pointed out that for crimes severe enough to disqualify you from owning guns the police will do their best to find out if you own guns during the course of their investigation. You don't need a registry for police to find out if you own guns.
Okay I'll break it down for you. Firstly, you summed up a part of an argument for a registry as the whole argument. Secondly, I never claimed police were "inept" that was a misrepresentation. Thirdly, the scope of the registry is not limited to "serious felonies".

The registry would help police determine if someone owns guns, how many guns they own, what the guns are, and if they have been lawfully passed on, without having to waste time and manpower tearing apart every place a person might have hidden guns, without any idea what they are looking for. Arguing that would help police (which is obviously true), is not the same as calling police "inept", which was the dishonest way you twisted it. If you can't see a strawman, then that's probably just more dishonesty on your part, but it should be fairly obvious to anyone else reading.

Firstly, I never said it was your whole argument. It was a specific response to a specific point you argued that I quoted before I queried you about it. Secondly, it was a question not a declarative statement. I asked you if the point you were trying to make was consistent with my interpretation of what you were saying. Thirdly, the scope of the registry, to have the effect I believe you want it to have, would be all privately owned guns by every citizen that owned any. The utility of the gun registry for confiscatory actions by law enforcement would limited to people accused of crimes serious enough to disqualify them from owning firearms. Unless and until a gun owner commits a crime that disqualifies them from owning guns there's no reason for law enforcement to take them therefore no reason for law enforcement to consult the registry.

**Dark Severance**

Prestor Jon wrote:
the scope of the registry, to have the effect I believe you want it to have, would be all privately owned guns by every citizen that owned any. The utility of the gun registry for confiscatory actions by law enforcement would limited to people accused of crimes serious enough to disqualify them from owning firearms. Unless and until a gun owner commits a crime that disqualifies them from owning guns there's no reason for law enforcement to take them therefore no reason for law enforcement to consult the registry.

Why would you consult the registry for some other purpose? The only reason to consult it would be if owner had committed a crime and was found guilty, resulting in them no longer being able to own guns. Although personally I think making it a public resource could go a long way to also help deter crime in some cases, since people could see who owned what. I can also see how that may make them a target in some cases but I would think that wouldn't be a high amount, but honestly haven't researched that.

Edit: Oh I re-read the other post and kind of understand what you meant by consulting it. It couldn't necessarily be used to determine if someone had legally sold the gun, until either they violated a crime requiring them to confiscate and didn't find them or the gun was found used as part of the crime. It would help them identify the initial owner and trace how the criminal got in possession of it, as well as possibly hold the owner accountable (if for example they got it because the owner simply loaned it to them).

**Prestor Jon**

Dark Severance wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
the scope of the registry, to have the effect I believe you want it to have, would be all privately owned guns by every citizen that owned any. The utility of the gun registry for confiscatory actions by law enforcement would limited to people accused of crimes serious enough to disqualify them from owning firearms. Unless and until a gun owner commits a crime that disqualifies them from owning guns there's no reason for law enforcement to take them therefore no reason for law enforcement to consult the registry.
Why would you consult the registry for some other purpose? The only reason to consult it would be if owner had committed a crime and was found guilty, resulting in them no longer being able to own guns. Although personally I think making it a public resource could go a long way to also help deter crime in some cases, since people could see who owned what. I can also see how that may make them a target in some cases but I would think that wouldn't be a high amount, but honestly haven't researched that.

Edit: Oh I re-read the other post and kind of understand what you meant by consulting it. It couldn't necessarily be used to determine if someone had legally sold the gun, until either they violated a crime requiring them to confiscate and didn't find them or the gun was found used as part of the crime. It would help them identify the initial owner and trace how the criminal got in possession of it, as well as possibly hold the owner accountable (if for example they got it because the owner simply loaned it to them).

Why should it be public? Other citizens don't have any right to see what you own and it could lead to descriminatory actions.

The gun tracing utility would be limited to tracing guns used by people who were already disqualified from owning them. I'm not sure how many prohibited people commit gun crimes or how difficult it is for police to trace guns in those instances currently.

**Dark Severance**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Why should it be public? Other citizens don't have any right to see what you own and it could lead to discriminatory actions.

The gun tracing utility would be limited to tracing guns used by people who were already disqualified from owning them. I'm not sure how many prohibited people commit gun crimes or how difficult it is for police to trace guns in those instances currently.

Depending on the state there are quite a few records that are public, although knowing how to access them isn't the same or easiest method. It is my opinion, although I would have to spend some real time and research the positives and negatives of it. Could it prevent home invasion, while directing thieves to other locations, possibly. Could it serve to stop person A from seeing Joe Smith having a gun, calling the police and having them show up to look into the issue because they reported Joe Smith as "suspicious"... which does happen, actually did happen to me at my own house of all places.

At the time a prohibited person committed the crime, they were "law abiding" until they did the crime, so it wouldn't have been prohibited person. There are quite a few times that the police can't trace guns that are used to their actual owners or place of origin, unless they happened to be military weapons. For example locally a person shot up at a mall with a AR-15. He stole the weapon from an 'acquaintance'. The only way they identified the weapon was the person stepped forward as that was his gun. It wasn't reported stolen, he didn't know it was missing. He could have not said anything and I doubt they would have found out who owned it. Depending on how it was stored, stolen, etc the owner should be held accountable in some instances for not being responsible with it. He didn't get charged though. There is another case where the rifles used at a shooting was borrowed from someone else. The gun was returned to the rightful owner and no charges were pressed.

**Smacks**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Firstly, I never said it was your whole argument.

I anticipated you would say that, and I don't believe you. I think you deliberately tried to infer that my whole argument was nonsense, by summing it up in one nonsense misrepresentation, which was your own construction. However, since you didn't explicitly say "whole argument" I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and concede the first point to you. (because I'm nice like that)

Prestor Jon wrote:
Secondly, it was a question not a declarative statement. I asked you if the point you were trying to make was consistent with my interpretation of what you were saying.

I believe the second point was that I called the police "inept". As a matter of fact, I didn't ever say that, did I? It only existed as part of your "interpretation", or to be more precise: your "construction". The fact that you phrased it as a sarcastic rhetorical question doesn't excuse it. It was a blatant attempt to misrepresent my argument.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Thirdly, the scope of the registry, to have the effect I believe you want it to have, would be all privately owned guns by every citizen that owned any. The utility of the gun registry for confiscatory actions by law enforcement would limited to people accused of crimes serious enough to disqualify them from owning firearms. Unless and until a gun owner commits a crime that disqualifies them from owning guns there's no reason for law enforcement to take them therefore no reason for law enforcement to consult the registry.

Now you are presenting a new argument, which may or may not be true (actually it's not true), but it was certainly not part of my original argument, and I didn't limit myself to powers of confiscation.

If officers are called to a disturbance, they might want to consult the registry as a safety precaution. Knowing for a fact that there is a weapon or multiple weapons associated with the address might be a valuable heads up, and is always preferable to going in blind. Canadian officers noted that it made them feel safer and more confident having that information. Someone might also want to consult the registry when guns are lost and found, which would help identify straw purchases and black market sales. It might be valuable for statics (finally shedding more light on these gun debates). It could also be used to solve crimes, if a specific type of weapon was used in a crime, the police would be able to establish a link between that weapon and the suspect, even if the suspect had since disposed of the gun. There might be many other reasons to consult the register which I haven't even thought of yet, and which aren't limited to confiscating guns after "serious felonies".

So to answer your question more absolutely: No, what you proposed was not an accurate representation of my argument, and was, in fact, inaccurate in every conceivable way.

I'm happy that we could clear that up.

**sebster**

cuda1179 wrote:
There was an effort a while back to homogenize the definition of "murder" to only include intentional killings. However, even this was met with some problems. Many countries still don't count killings by minors or the mentally ill to be "intentional". Also, some countries are still only listing their convictions, not actual killings.

And you're just repeating a thing that I'm telling you isn't true. Go look up intentional homicide rates. All those issues you claim aren't a problem. And those show a clearly higher rate of intentional homidice in the US than other countries.

There is also the fact that the US is one of the most racially and culturally diverse nations on the planet. For all the good there is in that studies have shown that the more diverse a location is the more violent it is, regardless of other factors.

Actually, the US is middle of the pack for developed countries outside of Europe. About 12 to 13% of the population of the US was born somewhere else. Canada, New Zealand and Australia are all higher.

And it's interesting you're now talking about violence. The US is actually no higher than other developed countries when it comes to violent crime. Your figures for muggings, assault and other violent crimes are on par. It's just murders where you spike to triple the rest of the developed world. You're not more violent. It's just that your violence results in murders more often. Because of the proliferation of a device that's really good at killing.

I'd also like to throw Japan's suicide rate of 26.1 into the discussion. That's well over twice that of the US. In fact, their suicide rate alone is higher than the US combined suicide/murder rate.

And anyone who claimed Japan didn't have problems would be completely wrong. If you want to start a thread on Japan we can talk about the impact of 20 years of economic stagnation if you want. But to claim that their problems means the US doesn't have a different problem is pretty weak.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dark Severance wrote:
Can you provide some information on where you are getting your data for spree killings? I can't find a lists of them that compares the US to other countries statistics, as it looks like the FBI classifies spree killings like that but other countries don't seperate out their murders as clearly. There is a listing of sources I can confirm at gunviolencearchive.org but not a large amount if looking at spree killings.

I'm sorry, are you refusing to take as a given the argument that the US has more spree killings than other developed countries per capita? Or rampage killings or mass killings or whatever term you want to use, it doesn't matter. Because honest to God, I know this is the internet and it's crazy to expect good faith argument, but this is really quite something.

Anyhow, from 2000 to 2014 there were 166 mass shootings in the US (four or more victims). The US had 133 of them. You're claiming to have some knowledge of this subject, but are playing dumb over the extremely US centric nature of this problem.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359

So there you go. You made me go and get a source for something we both already knew.

Honestly I figured you wouldn't take my word for it and would at least do some research on your own. I at least bothered to look and search for the information you provided to collaborate it. I'm also not claiming that all mass shootings are akin to riots. There is a sociology behind these people who aren't actually mentally ill as defined by current standards.

The expectation that people idea that people wander off looking to substantiate other poster's arguments is, as I said earlier, an amazing new way of debating. You make the claim, you make the case for it. If someone else is to be expected to go looking for information, it will be to support a counter.

Anyhow, thanks for the links. I can't watch the youtube links, but I did read the New Yorker piece, and it was very interesting. If true, though, it is still only useful in describing a very small portion of these killings. Despite the extra media attention, attacks on schools are not that common, they make up only a few of the 133 attacks in the US. And perhaps most tellingly the article contains this line "And, not surprisingly, given the ready availability of firearms in the United States, the phenomenon is overwhelmingly American."

The WaPo article had nothing to do with your argument. It talked about these kids often being at the social margins, then talked about what policies might help (security etc).

**Kilkrazy**

Japan of course has a long history of cultural approval of suicide, while the USA being a surprisingly Christian country, has a strong cultural bias against suicide.

If you want to look into suicide as a measure of gun problems, you need to look at cases where only one variable is changed.

Suicide dropped noticably in Switzerland when they changed their gun law to require the ammunition to be held at the local barracks. Prior to this people were taking advantage of their army issued pistols to kill themselves at home.

**Crispy78**

Dark Severance wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
the scope of the registry, to have the effect I believe you want it to have, would be all privately owned guns by every citizen that owned any. The utility of the gun registry for confiscatory actions by law enforcement would limited to people accused of crimes serious enough to disqualify them from owning firearms. Unless and until a gun owner commits a crime that disqualifies them from owning guns there's no reason for law enforcement to take them therefore no reason for law enforcement to consult the registry.
Why would you consult the registry for some other purpose? The only reason to consult it would be if owner had committed a crime and was found guilty, resulting in them no longer being able to own guns. Although personally I think making it a public resource could go a long way to also help deter crime in some cases, since people could see who owned what. I can also see how that may make them a target in some cases but I would think that wouldn't be a high amount, but honestly haven't researched that.

Edit: Oh I re-read the other post and kind of understand what you meant by consulting it. It couldn't necessarily be used to determine if someone had legally sold the gun, until either they violated a crime requiring them to confiscate and didn't find them or the gun was found used as part of the crime. It would help them identify the initial owner and trace how the criminal got in possession of it, as well as possibly hold the owner accountable (if for example they got it because the owner simply loaned it to them).

I'd guess it would be handy if you needed to call up this 'well regulated militia' I keep hearing about...

**djones520**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Japan of course has a long history of cultural approval of suicide, while the USA being a surprisingly Christian country, has a strong cultural bias against suicide.

If you want to look into suicide as a measure of gun problems, you need to look at cases where only one variable is changed.

Suicide dropped noticably in Switzerland when they changed their gun law to require the ammunition to be held at the local barracks. Prior to this people were taking advantage of their army issued pistols to kill themselves at home.

Switzerland had a lot more then just the 1 variable with that. I'd love to go into it more, but at work right now and can't really spend a half hour digging through various studies and the like on that topic.

**Dark Severance**

sebster wrote:
I'm sorry, are you refusing to take as a given the argument that the US has more spree killings than other developed countries per capita? Or rampage killings or mass killings or whatever term you want to use, it doesn't matter. Because honest to God, I know this is the internet and it's crazy to expect good faith argument, but this is really quite something.

Anyhow, from 2000 to 2014 there were 166 mass shootings in the US (four or more victims). The US had 133 of them. You're claiming to have some knowledge of this subject, but are playing dumb over the extremely US centric nature of this problem.

I'm not arguing anything, I was having a discussion. I'm not angry or heated about this discussion but it is a debate/conversion. Spree Killings and Mass Shootings are entirely two different things. They are mean and talk about two entirely different crimes and mindsets. Part of the discussions about guns don't understand that as there isn't a "one solution" because there are multiple causes. The real answer is to determine what is considered an acceptable loss as there is no way to resolve the crime 100% of the time and you can't simply take all the guns away. So the idea is to come up with solutions that impact the future moving forward given the current state of affairs. For that it is important that everyone is talking about the same thing.

The WSJ article will not let me view it unless I subscribe. I signed in but it still has the Join box over it and won't let me read the article so I can't look at what it using for its information. It however is talking about Mass Shootings, which I never denied and was what I was originally talking about... but then there was the focus on Spree Killings, which have a different cause and effect.

Spree Killings, Spree Killer, Killer Sprees are defined by the FBI as, "killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders". Mass Murders as defined by the FBI are, "mass shootings are defined by one incident, with no distinctive time period between the murder". One is two incidents while another is one incident. Mass Shootings are typically tracked as "if 4 or more people are actually killed, not including the perpetrator". That isn't always the case which is important to know when statistics are posted how they categorized them. The problem is statistics blur these. Some track Spree Killings as defined, others track just Mass Shootings separately, some only mix mass shootings and spree killing together, others include suicide gun related injuries in their stats and some will define them as 4 or more.

I never denied that the US is considered the highest is mass shootings. They are however not considered the highest in spree killings as I said the data for that tracking is blurred. I had thought maybe you would have some more information on it. I also never said that my belief isn't the sole reason behind things. I did say there is a sociology spread through social media, how the media hypes everything.

For example this recent shooting where a man shot three people who didn't speak English. Most of the media reports it as "Trump's America is Close" or something similar. I had thought it happened at a rally or as a part of it or even near but found out it has nothing to do with that. This article probably is the best that gives the facts without directing it with an agenda. I am curious how it ends up because they are seeking a "mental competency" test. Current data only shows that less than 5% of gun homicides between 2001 and 2010 were committed by people with mental illness. All the other shooters have something else going on that isn't defined by todays definition of "mental illness". Just they start to diagnose new mental illness due to technology and social media, for example selfies are classified as a mental disorder now.

sebster wrote:
The WaPo article had nothing to do with your argument. It talked about these kids often being at the social margins, then talked about what policies might help (security etc).

I linked it because it is talking about the social aspects. There is a bit more in her book but it talks about the sociology of these people not connecting through normal means. They find a connection with these other shooters. It is why you have the manifesto, the similar posed pictures. The sociology which relates to mob/riot mentality due to thresholds that we have. The averange "normal" person one that we would probably say is normal at least wouldn't find a connection as their thresholds are higher and not effected by this. These people which may or not be mentally ill (can't investigate a dead person) are mostly normal because there is no analysis or understanding behind it except from sociology behavior. They don't fit a normal killer profile, they aren't violent, they don't have a criminal background, they didn't grow up in hard environments, etc.

**Kilkrazy**

djones520 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Japan of course has a long history of cultural approval of suicide, while the USA being a surprisingly Christian country, has a strong cultural bias against suicide.

If you want to look into suicide as a measure of gun problems, you need to look at cases where only one variable is changed.

Suicide dropped noticably in Switzerland when they changed their gun law to require the ammunition to be held at the local barracks. Prior to this people were taking advantage of their army issued pistols to kill themselves at home.

Switzerland had a lot more then just the 1 variable with that. I'd love to go into it more, but at work right now and can't really spend a half hour digging through various studies and the like on that topic.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23897090

**Prestor Jon**

After the shooting at Sandy Hook in 2012 the state of Connecticut and the state of New York passed new gun control laws. Both states passed laws that required gun owners to register "assault rifles" if they owned any. "Assault rifles" being AR or AK style rifles because those are scarier to some people than all the other types of semi automatic rifles. To date those registries have abysmal participation rates and local law enforcement aren't prioritizing their enforcement so the participation rate continues to be low.

http://www.forbes.com/sites#/sites/frankminiter/2015/06/24/nearly-one-million-new-yorkers-didnt-register-their-assault-weapons/#6f941b16bdf2

When the deadline for gun owners to register their “assault weapons” in Connecticut expired on December 31, 2013, Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance said he received 41,347 applications to register “assault weapons.” (I put “assault weapon” in quotes because the only way to define the term is according to what a particular gun-control law decides it means.) There was no process for registering the guns late, so any gun owner in Connecticut with an “assault weapon” had become a potential felon as of January 1, 2014.

This caused the media to wonder how many gun owners didn’t register their politically incorrect guns. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for firearms manufacturers, said at the time that it estimated there were likely 350,000 residents of Connecticut who had banned “assault weapons” as of late 2013. The media ran with this. Headlines announced that more than 300,000 residents of Connecticut opted not to register their “assault weapons.”

Many then asked New York State how many gun owners had registered their “assault weapons” by the April 2014 deadline set by New York’s SAFE Act (the SAFE Act also considers some shotguns to be “assault weapons”). New York State refused to answer the question, but the NSSF said it estimates that about one million residents of New York State had so-called “assault weapons” at the time of the ban.

The numbers of gun owners who might still have “assault weapons” are not guesses. The NSSF said, “The 350,000 number is a conservative estimate based upon numerous surveys, consumer purchases, NICS background check data and also private party transactions.” The NSSF used the same criteria to estimate that at least one million New York residents have firearms the state banned the sale of and demanded that owners register with the police.

When New York State wouldn’t give up the numbers, Paloma Capanna, an attorney from Rochester, New York, filed a request under the state’s Freedom of Information Law for her client Rochester radio host Bill Robinson. When that was refused, she sued. This suit finally forced the New York State Police to give up the numbers (not the names of the people who registered their guns).

According to the state just 23,847 people registered their so-called “assault weapons” since the 2013 law took effect. These people registered a total of 44,485 firearms. So, according to the NSSF’s estimate, some 976,153 New Yorkers didn’t register their “assault weapons.”

This means that nearly one million New York State residents might now be committing felonies—this has turned average, and presumably otherwise law-abiding citizens, into a class of people who are now living beyond the law.

On a personal note, I live in Dutchess County, New York. These just-released records say 731 people in my county registered their “assault weapons” with the New York State Police. I don’t know a single gun owner who admits they’ve registered any of their guns; actually, if any did, they likely wouldn’t admit it, as there is a profound social stigma among gun owners against registering these guns with the government.

I do know many people who have semiautomatic rifles and shotguns the state deems to be “assault weapons” they say they didn’t register. Most of these people continue to bring these guns to their local ranges to shoot with. When you ask them if the complied with the SAFE Act, they are quick to tell you that many municipalities and county sheriff departments have reported they won’t enforce the SAFE Act in their jurisdictions.

Given all this, did turning perhaps a million residents of New York State into lawbreakers solve anything? Instead of creating a new criminal class—and stoking anti-government feelings—wouldn’t it have been smarter for the governor and other elected officials to have worked with gun owners to find solutions?

http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/12/connecticut-pols-shocked-that-tens-of-th


Connecticut Pols Shocked That 'Tens of Thousands' of Gun Owners Defy Registration Laws

J.D. Tuccille|Feb. 12, 2014 4:24 pm

Earlier this month, I pointed to a 2011 Connecticut legislative report to make the point that anemic registration of "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines under a particularly stupid new state law demonstrated that gun owners were continuing a long and proud tradition of defying restrictions on weapons ownership. Now lawmakers and journalists in the state acknowledge the same phenomenon, and the mass scofflawry it represents, and wonder just what corner they've backed themselves into.

Three years ago, the Connecticut legislature estimated there were 372,000 rifles in the state of the sort that might be classified as "assault weapons," and two million plus high-capacity magazines. Many more have been sold in the gun-buying boom since then. But by the close of registration at the end of 2013, state officials received around 50,000 applications for "assault weapon" registrations, and 38,000 applications for magazines.

Ummm. Errr.

As Dan Haar writes for the Hartford Courant:

And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least 20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

"I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register," said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's public safety committee. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they don't follow them, then you have a real problem."

From a politicians' perspective, this is a problem. The sheep are refusing to be herded. But this was a completely predictable "problem." These laws always experience more defiance than compliance, in the United States and around the world. The reasons people resist restrictions on their ability to own weapons probably vary, but the empowerment that comes with owning arms probably plays a role, and government officials' eternal and consistent lying about why they want to know who is armed certainly does, too.

Of course, if you value liberty over government officials' whims, and consider government to be little more than a protection racket with better PR, this is hardly a problem at all.

Mike Lawlor, an undersecretary in the state Office of Policy and Management and leading mouthpiece for this legislative disaster, pretends the "problem" could be solved by ... writing letters.

The problem could explode if Connecticut officials decide to compare the list of people who underwent background checks to buy military-style rifles in the past, to the list of those who registered in 2013. Do they still own those guns? The state might want to know.

"A lot of it is just a question to ask, and I think the firearms unit would be looking at it," said Mike Lawlor, the state's top official in criminal justice. "They could send them a letter."

But those letters are unlikely to be terribly intimidating, because a background check isn't proof that somebody owns a forbidden rifle. They might have moved it out of state, destroyed it, lost it, or sold it privately in a transaction that won't be regulated under state law until April 2014.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/23/not-many-people-obeying-new-york-state-a



Not Many People Obeying New York State "Assault Weapon" Registration

SAFE Act widely ignored, New York state is forced to admit.

Brian Doherty|Jun. 23, 2015 2:09 pm

From the frontiers of futile gun regulation, this news today from the state of New York, via the Daily News, regarding the state's post-Newtown attempt to register so-called "assault weapons":

Fewer than 45,000 assault-style weapons have been registered in New York state since a landmark gun control act took effect in 2013...

In the years since Gov. Cuomo signed the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, otherwise known as the NY SAFE Act, a total of 23,847 people have applied to register their assault-style weapons with the state, according to statistics provided by the New York State Police....

By comparison, individuals in Connecticut, a state with roughly one-fifth the population of New York, registered more than 50,000 assault-style weapons after similar legislation was passed there in April 2013.

Law enforcement experts have estimated that there could be nearly 1 million assault-style weapon in circulation across the state, suggesting that many New Yorkers are ignoring what had been touted by gun control advocates as a milestone law.

Many, indeed. Sounds like about a less-than-five percent compliance rate. The Daily News has lots of breakdown of where in the state these pathbreaking, strange folk who decided to actually comply come from.

J.D. Tuccille has been on this unfolding story here at Reason for years now. Things to recall from his past coverage include the fact that governments themselves, by regularly following up registrations with confiscations, make citizens strongly inclined to violate such laws; and let's not forget the state's past attempts to keep us from having any idea how many people were complying. Now we know.

California set up a registry to help law enforcement go door to door and confiscate guns from anyone who wasn't legally allowed to own them anymore and they've been working on it for the past few years but now they've run out of money for the program and it's still not finished.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/17/confiscating-guns-more-costly-and-diffic

Confiscating Guns, More Costly and Difficult than Legislators Think

California's door-to-door gun confiscation program on the "prohibited" runs into funding problems.

Brian Doherty|Mar. 17, 2016 8:03 pm

Back in 2013, as I reported then, California launched a program to literally go door to door and confiscate guns owned by people whose legal right to own them had been superseded by some later action or declaration, such as criminal convictions, restraining orders, or being adjudicated mentally ill.

Turns out that kind of pretty arbitrary, in the overwhelming majority of times utterly unhelpful for public safety, action can cost big bucks.

In May, the last $24 million allocated for the program will run out, leaving nearly 12,000 Californians still owning their guns even though the state would rather take them, as Associated Press reports. The state's gun bureaucrats want to get that number down to 8,300 by next year.

Which means, again, nearly four thousand citizens getting that ol' knock on the door by the state coming to take their weapons away. And gun controllers wonder why some people are suspicious of any form of firearm ownership registration?

Attorney General of California Kamala Harris crowed about the law and the practice in a press release last month, in which she made some overblown claims:

During the past 30 months, the Bureau of Firearms has conducted over 18,608 APPS [Armed Prohibited Persons System] cases, and has taken 335 assault weapons, 4,549 handguns, 4,848 long-guns, and 43,246 rounds of ammunition off the streets from those who illegally possessed them....

“Removing firearms from dangerous and violent individuals makes our communities safer,” said Attorney General Harris.....

"Removing weapons from those on the Armed and Prohibited Persons list targets law breakers and makes our community a safer place," said Santa Barbara Sheriff Bill Brown.

The two above statements are very largely unproven, and it would be interesting for them to discuss how many of the people they took the weapons from had ever harmed or threatened anyone with them.

Unsurprisingly, regarding the funding issues discussed above, Attorney General Harris is proud that she:

sponsored SB 819 (Leno) to allow the Department of Justice to use existing regulatory fees collected by gun dealers (“DROS fees”) for purposes of regulatory and enforcement activities related to firearms, including management of APPS. This went into effect January 2012. In 2013, Attorney General Harris sponsored SB 140 (Leno) to appropriate $24 million in funding from the DROS Account to help support the APPS program; this urgency legislation went into effect immediately in May 2013. In 2015, Attorney General Harris submitted a letter urging the legislature to make funding to the APPS program permanent.

**Smacks**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Local law enforcement aren't prioritizing their enforcement so the participation rate continues to be low.

Hmmmm, I wonder why it isn't working then? ... Very mysterious.

Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance said he received 41,347 applications to register assault weapons ... Headlines announced that more than 300,000 residents of Connecticut opted not to register their assault weapons.

That data flies in the face of most gun owners being "law abiding", when over 80% fail to comply with the law.

In May, the last $24 million allocated for the program will run out, leaving nearly 12,000 Californians still owning their guns even though the state would rather take them, as Associated Press reports. The state's gun bureaucrats want to get that number down to 8,300 by next year.

Which means, again, nearly four thousand citizens getting that ol' knock on the door by the state coming to take their weapons away. And gun controllers wonder why some people are suspicious of any form of firearm ownership registration?

I like how people with "criminal convictions, restraining orders, adjudicated mental illness" are suddenly described as "citizens getting their weapons taken away". Those figures don't sound bad at all, if we could reduce carbon emissions by half in one year I'd be impressed. It can take a lot of time and money to fix social problems, so what? That doesn't mean we should ignore them, and pass them on to future generations.

**cuda1179**

I honestly thought door-to-door gun confiscation was never really going to happen. This was before I really started to collect anything more than my childhood 10-22 and Winchester 1300 shotgun.

Then Hurricane Katrina happened. The local police were illegally entering peoples' homes and forcefully disarming them. They confiscated (illegally) thousands of firearms in the name of "public safety". These were legally owned weapons and not abused. They even managed to beat down a few elderly citizens in the process.

After a lawsuit the Federal Government ordered New Orleans police to not only stop, but return the guns. The Mayor and Police Chief denied it ever happened, until video, photographs, and multiple witnesses proved otherwise. Even after the cease and desist order they continued the confiscation until Federal officers arrived to force the situation.

The weapons were basically mistreated. They were not kept in climate controlled conditions, they were banged together, and shoddy records meant the citizens needed serial numbers of the weapons to retrieve them. To this day the police refuse to return some of them, or compensate for their value.

**Kilkrazy**

Was there no-one who resisted the police's illegal action at gunpoint?

**r_squared**

And, if they didn't want the state to come knocking to take away their firearms, then they could have quite simply registered them and forgot all about it.

I genuinely don't understand the resistance to registration. It's not stopping anyone owning anything, it just means that there is a mechanism to track the firearms, and to ensure that it is much harder for criminals to get hold of, or retain weapons.

What is the problem?
I don't get on board with the "slippery slope" claim, before someone pops that one up. Registering firearms in no way restricts ownership, it just regulates sales to ensure only legitimate, responsible, law abiding citizens can access the weapons.

**Grey Templar**

r_squared wrote:
And, if they didn't want the state to come knocking to take away their firearms, then they could have quite simply registered them and forgot all about it.

I genuinely don't understand the resistance to registration. It's not stopping anyone owning anything, it just means that there is a mechanism to track the firearms, and to ensure that it is much harder for criminals to get hold of, or retain weapons.

What is the problem?
I don't get on board with the "slippery slope" claim, before someone pops that one up. Registering firearms in no way restricts ownership, it just regulates sales to ensure only legitimate, responsible, law abiding citizens can access the weapons.

If your guns are on a registry it opens the door for confiscation.

I do not want the government to know how many and what kind of guns I own. It a violation of right to privacy and the existence of the registry also defeats the purpose of the 2nd amendment(a means to resist government tyranny shouldn't be something they are able to track)

**cuda1179**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Was there no-one who resisted the police's illegal action at gunpoint?

There were a couple people that did resist. Several were arrested, even for simply refusing to open their doors for the police. One elderly woman got the beating of her life and a shotgun butt to the chin and eye for demanding to see a warrant. No charges were ever filed on any officer. Apparently a number of the nicer weapons "disappeared" into the private collections of the officers themselves.

The one bright side to all of this was that the National Guard basically refused to help the local police in these actions. They realized that not only was it illegal, but a complete waste of time considering they had bigger issues to deal with.

**Kilkrazy**

Why didn't the people just shoot the police?

**cuda1179**

If the Government wants guns out of the hands of criminals I think there is one VERY easy solution even the most right-leaning NRA member would be open to.

Open up the criminal background check database to EVERYONE. Why is this thing limited to only those with an FFL license in the first place? If you want to do a private transfer and want to do a check on the guy you should be able to simple whip out your smartphone, log onto a website, and run a check, free of charge.

**Prestor Jon**

Smacks wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Local law enforcement aren't prioritizing their enforcement so the participation rate continues to be low.
Hmmmm, I wonder why it isn't working then? ... Very mysterious.

Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance said he received 41,347 applications to register assault weapons ... Headlines announced that more than 300,000 residents of Connecticut opted not to register their assault weapons.
That data flies in the face of most gun owners being "law abiding", when over 80% fail to comply with the law.

In May, the last $24 million allocated for the program will run out, leaving nearly 12,000 Californians still owning their guns even though the state would rather take them, as Associated Press reports. The state's gun bureaucrats want to get that number down to 8,300 by next year.

Which means, again, nearly four thousand citizens getting that ol' knock on the door by the state coming to take their weapons away. And gun controllers wonder why some people are suspicious of any form of firearm ownership registration?
I like how people with "criminal convictions, restraining orders, adjudicated mental illness" are suddenly described as "citizens getting their weapons taken away". Those figures don't sound bad at all, if we could reduce carbon emissions by half in one year I'd be impressed. It can take a lot of time and money to fix social problems, so what? That doesn't mean we should ignore them, and pass them on to future generations.

Not very mysterious, citizens don't want to comply and law enforcement doesn't want to enforce the laws. The result is are registries that don't accomlish anything and are largely ignored by everyone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-laws-on-gun-control.html?_r=0

GREELEY, Colo. — When Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County explains in speeches why he is not enforcing the state’s new gun laws, he holds up two 30-round magazines. One, he says, he had before July 1, when the law banning the possession, sale or transfer of the large-capacity magazines went into effect. The other, he “maybe” obtained afterward.

He shuffles the magazines, which look identical, and then challenges the audience to tell the difference.

“How is a deputy or an officer supposed to know which is which?” he asks.

Colorado’s package of gun laws, enacted this year after mass shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn., has been hailed as a victory by advocates of gun control. But if Sheriff Cooke and a majority of the other county sheriffs in Colorado offer any indication, the new laws — which mandate background checks for private gun transfers and outlaw magazines over 15 rounds — may prove nearly irrelevant across much of the state’s rural regions.

Some sheriffs, like Sheriff Cooke, are refusing to enforce the laws, saying that they are too vague and violate Second Amendment rights. Many more say that enforcement will be “a very low priority,” as several sheriffs put it. All but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.

The resistance of sheriffs in Colorado is playing out in other states, raising questions about whether tougher rules passed since Newtown will have a muted effect in parts of the American heartland, where gun ownership is common and grass-roots opposition to tighter restrictions is high.
In New York State, where Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed one of the toughest gun law packages in the nation last January, two sheriffs have said publicly they would not enforce the laws — inaction that Mr. Cuomo said would set “a dangerous and frightening precedent.” The sheriffs’ refusal is unlikely to have much effect in the state: According to the state’s Division of Criminal Justice Services, since 2010 sheriffs have filed less than 2 percent of the two most common felony gun charges. The vast majority of charges are filed by the state or local police.

In Liberty County, Fla., a jury in October acquitted a sheriff who had been suspended and charged with misconduct after he released a man arrested by a deputy on charges of carrying a concealed firearm. The sheriff, who was immediately reinstated by the governor, said he was protecting the man’s Second Amendment rights.

And in California, a delegation of sheriffs met with Gov. Jerry Brown this fall to try to persuade him to veto gun bills passed by the Legislature, including measures banning semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and lead ammunition for hunting (Mr. Brown signed the ammunition bill but vetoed the bill outlawing the rifles).

“Our way of life means nothing to these politicians, and our interests are not being promoted in the legislative halls of Sacramento or Washington, D.C.,” said Jon E. Lopey, the sheriff of Siskiyou County, Calif., one of those who met with Governor Brown. He said enforcing gun laws was not a priority for him, and he added that residents of his rural region near the Oregon border are equally frustrated by regulations imposed by the federal Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency.

This year, the new gun laws in Colorado have become political flash points. Two state senators who supported the legislation were recalled in elections in September; a third resigned last month rather than face a recall. Efforts to repeal the statutes are already in the works.

Countering the elected sheriffs are some police chiefs, especially in urban areas, and state officials who say that the laws are not only enforceable but that they are already having an effect. Most gun stores have stopped selling the high-capacity magazines for personal use, although one sheriff acknowledged that some stores continued to sell them illegally. Some people who are selling or otherwise transferring guns privately are seeking background checks.

Eric Brown, a spokesman for Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado, said, “Particularly on background checks, the numbers show the law is working.” The Colorado Bureau of Investigation has run 3,445 checks on private sales since the law went into effect, he said, and has denied gun sales to 70 people.

A Federal District Court judge last month ruled against a claim in the sheriffs’ lawsuit that one part of the magazine law was unconstitutionally vague. The judge also ruled that while the sheriffs could sue as individuals, they had no standing to sue in their official capacity.

Still, the state’s top law enforcement officials acknowledged that sheriffs had wide discretion in enforcing state laws.

“We’re not in the position of telling sheriffs and chiefs what to do or not to do,” said Lance Clem, a spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Safety. “We have people calling us all the time, thinking they’ve got an issue with their sheriff, and we tell them we don’t have the authority to intervene.”

Sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws around the country are in the minority, though no statistics exist. In Colorado, though, sheriffs like Joe Pelle of Boulder County, who support the laws and have more liberal constituencies that back them, are outnumbered.

“A lot of sheriffs are claiming the Constitution, saying that they’re not going to enforce this because they personally believe it violates the Second Amendment,” Sheriff Pelle said. “But that stance in and of itself violates the Constitution.”

Even Sheriff W. Pete Palmer of Chaffee County, one of the seven sheriffs who declined to join the federal lawsuit because he felt duty-bound to carry out the laws, said he was unlikely to aggressively enforce them. He said enforcement poses “huge practical difficulties,” and besides, he has neither the resources nor the pressure from his constituents to make active enforcement a high priority. Violations of the laws are misdemeanors.

“All law enforcement agencies consider the community standards — what is it that our community wishes us to focus on — and I can tell you our community is not worried one whit about background checks or high-capacity magazines,” he said.

At their extreme, the views of sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun laws echo the stand of Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff and the author of “The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope.” Mr. Mack has argued that county sheriffs are the ultimate arbiters of what is constitutional and what is not. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, founded by Mr. Mack, is an organization of sheriffs and other officers who support his views.

“The Supreme Court does not run my office,” Mr. Mack said in an interview. “Just because they allow something doesn’t mean that a good constitutional sheriff is going to do it.” He said that 250 sheriffs from around the country attended the association’s recent convention.

Matthew J. Parlow, a law professor at Marquette University, said that some states, including New York, had laws that allowed the governor in some circumstances to investigate and remove public officials who engaged in egregious misconduct — laws that in theory might allow the removal of sheriffs who failed to enforce state statutes.

But, he said, many governors could be reluctant to use such powers. And in most cases, any penalty for a sheriff who chose not to enforce state law would have to come from voters.

Sheriff Cooke, for his part, said that he was entitled to use discretion in enforcement, especially when he believed the laws were wrong or unenforceable.

“In my oath it says I’ll uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado,” he said, as he posed for campaign photos in his office — he is running for the State Senate in 2014. “It doesn’t say I have to uphold every law passed by the Legislature.”

https://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/

PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives

Never before has such a comprehensive survey of law enforcement officers’ opinions on gun control, gun violence, and gun rights been conducted

Apr 8, 2013

In March, PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation's attention in recent weeks: gun control.

More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility.

Totaling just shy of 30 questions, the survey allowed officers across the United States to share their perspectives on issues spanning from gun control and gun violence to gun rights.

Top Line Takeaways

Breaking down the results, it's important to note that 70 percent of respondents are field-level law enforcers — those who are face-to-face in the fight against violent crime on a daily basis — not office-bound, non-sworn administrators or perpetually-campaigning elected officials.

1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.

3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.

4.) Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.

5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).

6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.

8.) More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.

9.) More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.

10.) When asked whether citizens should be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun, about 43 percent of officers say it should not be required. About 42 percent say it should be required for all weapons, with the remainder favoring training classes for certain weapons.

11.) While some officers say gun violence in the United States stems from violent movies and video games (14 percent), early release and short sentencing for violent offenders (14 percent) and poor identification/treatments of mentally-ill individuals (10 percent), the majority (38 percent) blame a decline in parenting and family values.

**CptJake**

r_squared wrote:
And, if they didn't want the state to come knocking to take away their firearms, then they could have quite simply registered them and forgot all about it.

I genuinely don't understand the resistance to registration. It's not stopping anyone owning anything, it just means that there is a mechanism to track the firearms, and to ensure that it is much harder for criminals to get hold of, or retain weapons.

What is the problem?
I don't get on board with the "slippery slope" claim, before someone pops that one up. Registering firearms in no way restricts ownership, it just regulates sales to ensure only legitimate, responsible, law abiding citizens can access the weapons.

Legal sales are already regulated to only legitimate responsible law abiding citizens.

The gov't has no right nor legitimate reason to track my property.

A nationwide registry would be expensive and raise the cost of legal gun ownership.

A registry would not solve any of the perceived problems. What is the problem you think a registry solves? And does the cost justify a registry as a solution?

If you want to restrict a constitutionally protected right, you had better have a great damned reason.

**cuda1179**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Why didn't the people just shoot the police?

It's a tiny bit intimidating when a dozen officers show up at your place at 1 in the morning with weapons drawn.

**CptJake**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Why didn't the people just shoot the police?

Because many people have trouble crossing the line of capping an authority figure.

**Prestor Jon**

cuda1179 wrote:
If the Government wants guns out of the hands of criminals I think there is one VERY easy solution even the most right-leaning NRA member would be open to.

Open up the criminal background check database to EVERYONE. Why is this thing limited to only those with an FFL license in the first place? If you want to do a private transfer and want to do a check on the guy you should be able to simple whip out your smartphone, log onto a website, and run a check, free of charge.

Agreed. The federal govt already has NICS set up and could open it up to the public tomorrow if they wanted to and it would have the effect they claim to want.