Are current gun laws working?

The gunman, identified by NBC News as James von Brünn, started firing with a rifle as soon as he walked into the museum at 12.50pm, striking his victim at close range....They said he had connections with white supremacist and anti-government organisations and served time in prison after walking into the Federal Reserve in 1981 and attempting to take staff members hostage over high interest rates.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5498902/Eighty-nine-year-old-goes-on-shooting-spree-in-Washington-museum.html

Served time in a Federal Prison and yet still owned firearms. No, I'm not exploiting a recent crime for any agenda, asking that makes you look very stupid.

It's another crime committed with a rifle, they haven't said what kind yet but well, it's probably some sort of assault rifle type.

Please give your definition.

"Assault rifle" does have a specific definition. And, of course, "assault weapon" is not equal to "assault rifle".

It was a shotgun. But it was preliminary reporting so the facts may clear up later.

Shotguns are the most common long gun used in crimes. Assault weapons are the least common long gun. Playing by the statistics, you're guess of "assault rifle type" being the weapon used seems a poor prediction. IMO, if it were infact an assault rifle the fact would be plastered all over the headlines. Heck, the media often goes out of it's way to mistake firearms like the SKS and surplus bolt rifles as Assault Rifles... The fact that it has not been declared an assault rifle makes me think that the weapon was undeniably NOT an AK or assault rifle or assault weapon.

From the incoming reports, this crime was committed with a shotgun, which is a short range but extremely deadly in that range, depending on the shot load (from #9 shot to 0000 buck, or even solid slug). Depending on the environment, I'd prefer a shotgun to an assault rifle (but hey, what do I know, I'm a veteran).

The problem is not that there aren't enough gun laws. It is the fact that the existing ones are not enforced with the same vigor as say, minor traffic laws. Since this guy is a convicted felon, I'm startled that he even had a way to acquire this shotgun. Suffice to say, if this weapon came from a gun dealer, that dealer is an accessory to attempted murder and various other federal crimes and should be manacled in the dock next to this fruitcake.

I also favor making gun crimes capital offenses. I'm angry that the Operation Rescue terrorist isn't facing a capital penalty in Kansas (of all places). I favor prosecuting him just like Timothy McVeigh, and watch him die like a dog being put to sleep in the same chair.

start fixing the problems with gun sales at gun shows, until then gun laws mean nothing. Felons will always be able to purchase weapons.

I'm curious what people think the loophole is

And, so I'm not just a tease: the answer is none. Gun sale laws are no different at gun shows then they are anywhere else in the nation.

I wouldn't keep hearing about all these loopholes if they didn't exist.

No? Every group has their "buzz" terms I guess.

and sell their firearms.

I favor requiring all firearm sales to go through the NICS background check requirements.

For a REASONABLE fee, a private owner could finish his transaction through a dealer who would fill out the forms and conduct the check by phone or computer.

I would feel much more confident in selling a firearm if this procedure was required or voluntary.

Currently I only sell my firearms to:

1) Someone I know personally (not a casual acquaintance).

2) Who can show me his concealed carry license.

The buyer has to meet both requirements.

The weakness of my system is that he may be able to show me a current concealed carry permit, but it may have recently been revoked. And, of course, it limits the number of people I will sell a firearm to.

For those who follow the law and have no desire to murder someone.

NOW. How would it affect the illegal buyer? Not one bit.

I don't have any really great ideas of how to reduce illegal sales of firearms short of actually enforcing existing law.

We have have had a "War on Drugs" for many, many years that has proven a total failure.

they advertise fire arms for sale in the local newspaper. The idea of requiring a FFL dealer to handle the transaction for a private sale is probably the best one to deal with the situation.

Ban gun show bandwagon when you have no idea where the weapon came from.

which means it's most likely a squirrel rifle or similar. Something like this:



Of course, a lot of people call that an "assault weapon" so you could be right in a circular-reasoning sort of way...

and proclaim it an assault weapon when it was really a .22 rifle.

If the system is not working, can you propose a fix? He was obviously a felon and aquired the firearm illegally. Being hellbent on shooting people he had nothing but contempt for... I don't think any amount of firearm posession laws would have prevented this. He used a shotgun, from the reports I've heard - and those are not getting banned ANYTIME soon.

The ONLY conclusion I can draw from this is that firearms are not the problem... that criminals, misfits and loons are not detered by laws.

who are also associated hate groups to make sure they're not aquiring guns illegally?

Aside from thinking there's some sort privacy invasion involved in that proposal... the amount of money wasted on such an effort searching tens of thousands(?) of exconvicts would be nearly fruitless. Whose to say this weapon wasn't aqcuired mere days or weeks before he jumped off the deep-end?

If you comit a gun crime and are convicted, regular "piss tests" should be required, just like with drug offenders.

It's not a waste of money to prevent innocent people from being murdered.

Subjecting tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people to warrantless searches not based on any form of reasonable suspicion is not exactly what I consider a desirable solution to the problem.

Try again.

You are mistaken. If you don't like that, take it up with the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

Like the right own a gun, for example. I'm just saying, it does not seem to be an unheard-of concept.

I agree, warrentless searches of people who have served thier time seem unconstitutional.

Wait for them to commit murder?

I'm open for suggestions.

Do you honestly think it is a good idea to strip convicted felons of 4th Amendment protections for the rest of their lives? Do you have any idea what the practical effect of that would be?

He does however lose his right to own a gun based on the law because he's a convict.

I suppose he could still join a militia, but he can't own a gun.

We wait for them to brake the law. Or are you suggesting that we arrest people who may think about breaking the law?

If there are loopholes in that law that you know about then they need to be closed immediately.

That's not exactly a progressive position, my friend.

You very clearly want to do away with 4th Amendment protections for convicted felons. That's scary.

I've never even mentioned it.

whether or not there is any reasonable suspicion of a crime.

What do you think the 4th Amendment says about that?

Not necessarily searched.

We obviously have to do something, because the honor system failed.

What do you envision that consisting of?

Do you?

Monitoring of convicted felons is already the law.

The system you are now proposing already exists.

you need a warrant - you alluded to searching every felons house and possessions for weapons to make sure they don't have any. IF they have satisfied their parole and you just go in and search you have violated their 4th amendment.
for felons who have not completed their parole requirement - parole officers can already search their houses and possessions.

please let me know how you would check if a felon who has completed his parole has a firearm?

they are often supposed to turn any firearms they own over to the sheriff's department.

All too often, the key word is "supposed".

That "answer" isn't really applicable.

you are suggesting searching these people - you don't suggest his home? well where then his car?, his dog house? cavity searches? (excuse me is that an AK or are you just happy to see me)

you made a knee jerk statement - you chose your words poorly - got caught up in it, it happens, no big deal just man up it and lets move on.

i don't think it would be as easy as it looks. while you can get easy access to who is/was a felon if they have completed their parole you have to have a warrant to search their property. those on parole are already subject to search, so no problem there. Any felon who is found with a firearm already gets a free ride to jail and some additional time at club fed. the other issue i see is that i don't know to many hate groups that will hand over a complete and accurate list of their members. and trying to forcibly legislate that issue will have so many constitutional implications.

Wiretaps, surveillance, hacking ito their computers? Sounds like some previous administrations.

would be where I would start.

Or any evidence that this asshole bought his gun at a gun show?

I carry the burden here. So I'll ask again: what percentage of gun crime is committed using guns purchased at gun shows?

to argue numbers we both assume? What are your numbers?

I am merely trying to inquire as to whether you have any factual basis to support that need. Its pretty clear that you have none.

Do you understand? If you want to increase regulation on some activity, it is up to you to demonstrate why that increased regulation is necessary.

background checks at gun shows?

for any purchase from a FFL (federal firearms licensee / gun dealer) to any person buying a firearm. its a felony (i think) not to do this.

i clearly said FFL to individuals - didn't i

here is your quote about individual to individual
"These states do not require personal gun sellers, who are authorized to hawk their own firearms at gun shows, to conduct a background check on buyers of the guns."

if you want to make a blanket statement like no background investigations are being done - then get your facts straight.

You know it is a private sale loophole, not a gun show loophole. Give the private seller the ability to to use the NICS system for every gun sale that is made, whether at a gun show, in his home, in his back yard or anywhere.

A private seller has to observe the same rules whether he's selling a shotgun at a gun show or out of his garage. A gun dealer has to follow the same rules whether he's selling a shotgun at a gun show or out of his store.

And you have yet to substantiate *why* increasing controls at gun shows would have any appreciable affect on gun crime.

Allowing private sellers some access to NICS would be an interesting idea, if we can work out the privacy problems, which I would bet we can.

I'm willing to be shown wrong, if you can point out any difference.

see i can type a one word question too.

Doing what is the problem. I've heard that guns don't kil people, people kill people. But if a potential murderer could not easly obtain a firearm would that particlar murder would have occured? I need to look up gun crime stats of countries with sticter gun laws compare to those of the US. I'm thinking that the countries with sticter laws may hae a lower percentage of incidents. This is just my guess but I'll look into it. I remember doing term paper on gun control years ago but the stats that I used are far out of date by now.

...than Canadians kill with guns, despite the fact that Canada's gun ownership rate is roughly on par with ours. We're a more violent country. End the war on drugs, get universal health care including mental health, and give people jobs. That's how to reduce violence.

At a gun show, just as through a classified ad or at a garage sale, a private seller is forbidden from accessing the national background check system.

What do gun shows have to do with that?

The "loophole" referred to in your link is the same laws applying at a gun show as apply anywhere else. At least be honest/informed about what you're advocating: you aren't for closing a "loophole," you're for changing the rules for private sellers of firearms.

if you had a complete ban on guns such as england and australia then you would be so much safer right - oops

Headline :US Gun Homicide Rate 39 Times That of England, 13 Times Australia's

but wait england and australia have outlawed guns - so there should be no gun crime whatsoever- yet there it is

australia population - 21,000,000 - Australia's homicide rate is lower than the homicide rate in the US and there has been little variation in Australia's homicide rate since their gun buyback
http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/

did you catch the little variation since the guy buyback -- nice try though -

That is your reasoning behind wanting to close the "gunshow loophole"?

It is a private seller loophole, not a gun show loophole. Provide the private seller the ability to use the NICS system for all private sales.

Those crazy gun nuts at the Department of Justice.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm
Retail Store 8.3%
Pawnshop 3.8%
Flea market 1.0%
Gun show 0.7%
Friend/Family 39.6%
Street/illegal 39.2%

So essentially 80% of guns used in crime come from friends, family or illegal sources.

Remember some of those retail, pawnshop, flea market & gunshops involve background checks.
The survey includes first time felons. So prior to their felony they could legally purchase a firearm.

On April 20, 1999, in the deadliest high school shooting in US history, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold procured two shotguns, an assault rifle, and a TEC-9 assault pistol and shot 26 students in Littleton, Colo., killing 13 before killing themselves. An ATF investigation found that all four weapons had been purchased from private sellers at gun shows.

On Sept. 10, 2001, just one day before the devastating attacks against the United States, Ali Boumelhem was convicted in Michigan on a variety of weapons violations plus conspiracy to ship weapons to the terrorist organization Hezbollah. He and his brother Mohamed had purchased an arsenal weapons from Michigan gun shows without undergoing background checks.

In Texas, Muhammad Asrar was arrested in an investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He pleaded guilty to immigration violations and illegal possession of ammunition. The Pakistani store owner said he had bought handguns, rifles, and a submachine gun at gun shows since 1994.

Branch Davidian cult leader David Koresh used Texas gun shows to make large gun purchases. According to an ATF arrest warrant, Koresh and his cult made "regular purchases of weapons and ammunition flea markets and gun shows." Authorities estimated that Koresh had at least 200 automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles stockpiled, plus thousands of rounds of ammunition.

Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 was a "private seller" at gun shows. He along with accomplice Michael Fortier, admitted to stealing $60,000 worth of shotguns, rifles, and handguns from an Arkansas gun collector's ranch and then reselling the stolen weapons at gun shows.

Need any more?

are not really evidence of much of anything?

Let's just address the first one.

"On April 20, 1999, in the deadliest high school shooting in US history, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold procured two shotguns, an assault rifle, and a TEC-9 assault pistol and shot 26 students in Littleton, Colo., killing 13 before killing themselves. An ATF investigation found that all four weapons had been purchased from private sellers at gun shows."

Three of the four guns were purchased by Robyn Anderson who was old enough and legally allowed to purchase guns. All paperwork was filled out and a background check done. She then gave those weapons to Klebold and Harris.

She broke the law in making a straw purchase. The gun dealers broke no laws.

It's a common misconception that there are different, more lax, laws at gun shows. This is not true. Dealers are still required to run the same checks, and private sellers are still by statute forbidden from running those checks, at gun shows, at garage sales, through classified ads, in the kitchen, etc.

What do gun shows as such have to do with that?

did you do a federal background check?

And I was forbidden from doing a background check, just like I would have been at a gun show or at a garage sale. Gun shows have nothing to do with this.

Yes I have sold a gun but was not authorized to access NICS for background check verification.
It was a FIFTY CALIBER (OH MY GAWD!!!!!) and in the parking lot of a Subway Restaraunt.
I verified the buyer was an in state resident, he gave me cash, inspected the firarm (in the parking lot), and we went our separate ways.

Citizens are not permitted to do background checks or access federal databases - so I'm not sure what your point is.
It's a piece of private property, like anything else, that should be allowed to be bought and sold in private.

On April 20, 1999, in the deadliest high school shooting in US history, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold procured two shotguns, an assault rifle, and a TEC-9 assault pistol and shot 26 students in Littleton, Colo., killing 13 before killing themselves. An ATF investigation found that all four weapons had been purchased from private sellers at gun shows.

On Sept. 10, 2001, just one day before the devastating attacks against the United States, Ali Boumelhem was convicted in Michigan on a variety of weapons violations plus conspiracy to ship weapons to the terrorist organization Hezbollah. He and his brother Mohamed had purchased an arsenal weapons from Michigan gun shows without undergoing background checks.

In Texas, Muhammad Asrar was arrested in an investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He pleaded guilty to immigration violations and illegal possession of ammunition. The Pakistani store owner said he had bought handguns, rifles, and a submachine gun at gun shows since 1994.

Branch Davidian cult leader David Koresh used Texas gun shows to make large gun purchases. According to an ATF arrest warrant, Koresh and his cult made "regular purchases of weapons and ammunition flea markets and gun shows." Authorities estimated that Koresh had at least 200 automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles stockpiled, plus thousands of rounds of ammunition.

Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 was a "private seller" at gun shows. He along with accomplice Michael Fortier, admitted to stealing $60,000 worth of shotguns, rifles, and handguns from an Arkansas gun collector's ranch and then reselling the stolen weapons at gun shows.

Need any more?

that's all you got?

You need to realize that for every story where a gunman goes on a rampage, TENS OF MILLIONS of law abiding gun owners did not.
There are probably a dozen more topics one could address to better serve "public safety" than gun violence and criminal acess to guns.
"Gun Crime" is a non-issue. "Violent Crime" is a major issue. Wiping every gun off the face of the planet would not solve Violent Crime.

The media plays-up gun crimes and creates a hysteria surrounding guns for no other reason than rating. Public hysteria makes them money, it really is that simple. Much the same way republiCONS use hysteria and fear mongering to push thier agenda. Infact, both tactics are very similar to the manner this thread addresses the issue of guns.

The word hoplophobe comes to mind.

not to mention how many of those would have passed a background check?


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm
Retail Store 8.3%
Pawnshop 3.8%
Flea market 1.0%
Gun show 0.7%
Friend/Family 39.6%
Street/illegal 39.2%

0.7% per the gun nuts in the DOJ.

Not even 1 in 100 crimes uses a firearm from a gunshow.

There are an approximately 80 to 100 million street, illegal, or unregistered firearms in the US

Why would a felon wait for a gunshow (which aren't everyday) when they can likely buy an illegal gun without leave the street they live for less money quicker?

Oh yeah 99 out of a 100 don't.

What do any of those stories have to do with the allegedly "different" laws at gun shows?

Does not make it relevant.

Understand, please, that the only thing gun shows sell is table space. A decent analogy is a mall... the mall itself only rents retail space. The stores in the mall sell things, and are responsible for following all laws and collecting all taxes.

A gun show is a temporary mall.



Nearly all gun sellers in the gun show are licensed dealers and obey federal, state, and local laws.

However, private sales of merchandise (including guns) doesn't require any special permits or anything like that. You don't apply for a retail permit and collect sales tax when you sell your old living room set, for example.

Gunshows is the answer to everything for you.

And start gunning down masses. So, you know, maybe its working just a tad?

There is NO way to control a criminal intent on criminal behavior. A person that needs a gun to commit horrific acts will get one somehow, some way.

Depending on how he illegally acquired the rifle may point to what worked or didn't work.

please go ahead and elaborate what your larger point actually is.

no matter what means used to kill and then try to reconcile how more laws will decrease murder? I never quite follow the reasoning that one more law will prevent that which is already illegal.

They never elaborate, but many do tend to use tragedy to make their illogical argument.

there are already too many restrictions in some states on the types of arms that can be kept, and alot of places there are too many laws on where they can be carried.

And therefore, any single instance of gun crime is a stark contradiction to its effectiveness?

Or is gun control simply policies to control and reduce gun crimes, and these such instances are merely inevitable gun crimes that gun control did not absolutely suppress (while it suppressed many others and potential reduced the damage here)?

Are you using an exception to argue against a rule? Or is the suppression of a gun related crime as a result of "gun control" an exception to the rule?

Did "control control" work in this case to ensure that he was not more well-equipped to do even more damage in a shorter amount of time?

BTW, I don't think gun control will ever reduce well-planned, funded, thought out domestic terrorism (it could make it a little more difficult). But, for the average crime, consider those questions.

But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the discussion.

prior attempt to take hostages?? granted 20 years but still, who ever sold him that gun is in some deep shit - thats a felony to sell a gun to a felon.

To knowingly sell a gun to a convicted felon is a felon.
All dealers know who they sell to via NICS and are not allowed to transfer firearms otherwise.
Dealers are also unauthorized to sell to a buyer whome they suspect of committing a "straw purchase".

In most states, a private citizen would only need proof of residency and verbal commitment of legal ownership status. This is most likly how the scumbag got the weapon. And if this is the case, even if they find the seller, he/she is not legally liable.

There are multiple legal and illegal ways he could have obtained the gun.

the legal ways a felon can obtain a firearm?

legally purchase it in 1967 before it became illegal for him to do so in 1968.
That is the easy example, there are probably others if you look for them.

there is NO legal way for him to own a firearm. barring a presidential pardon or reversal an acquittal of his felony conviction.

as a greater punishment he also loses his right to vote.

when was the last time you heard of a police department actively searching for and removing the firearms from a now ineligible owner?

police actually seize a lot of firearms from people who are not legally allowed to have them.

and example

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/play...89510&src=news

Yes, on the street, it happens quite frequently.

When was the last time it happened at the home based purely on the eligibility status change? (The cops coming into the house for other reasons -- warrants, active chases, etc. -- would be similar to the traffic stops.)

it doesn't matter if it is found during a house search as part of his parole, stumbled across during an arrest, found under his mattress, it earns the felon a one way ticket to club fed. If the felon has completed his parole requirements then a warrant (based on probable cause)would be needed to search his house / possessions etc as he (having paid his debt to society) no enjoys the same (almost*)freedoms as the rest of us.

(* almost - felons lose the right to vote also, and depending on the crime may have to be a registered offender for life)

There is a federal 5 years for gun possession law. It has been on the books for 20 years now. Almost never enforced as local DA doesn't want to help the feds.

"Project Exile"

Richmond, VA substantially reduced their gang violence problems by doing just 3 things
1) enforce the 20 year old law
2) make it illegal for DA to cut a deal. get caught with gun = 5 years in federal prison. Period.
3) make sure EVERYONE knows about it (tv, radio, billboards, cops, pamphlets, counselors, community organizers, neighborhood watch).

Guess what. Crime rate in Richmond went down. Violent crimes with firearm went down even more.

Word got out the DA hands are tied. If you are a felon and get caught with gun you serve your state time then on the day of your release the feds pick you up and you do another 5 years on the other side of the country (not likely to get visitors).

No pleas, no deals, no concurrent sentences. Regular time + bonsu 5.

Commit a crime with a gun = bonus 10 even if charges are dropped (lack of evidence, etc) on base charge.

Are you ready for me to blow your mind? Be sure to sit down. The NRA lobbied for and got the funding for the program. It has been such an overwhelming success it has now been copied in a lot of cities around the country.

Or it is just never reported to the public. I cannot tell which.

and if you want it them to search more then hire more of them/ request the parole board make it mandatory/etc there are several way to begin the process. my point is there is a constant knee jerk reaction that any time something bad happens - oh ban guns and that will solve it. it wont because until you can convince people to not commit crimes they will always find ways and things to commit crime it with.

So and so was stopped for speeding and then arrested for illegal possession of a weapon. I see it a lot.

David

What was he doing out of prison?

But the 2nd amendment is strong, so no one cares.

Including the crazies.

the objective of the NRA

-1934 National Firearms Act - federal legislation was modeled on NRA written state statutes in VA, KS, NY, MI.
-1968 Gun Control Act - supported by the NRA
-1986 McClure-Volkmer Act - supported by the NRA, especially the clarification / expansion of the 'prohibited persons' list
-1994 Brady Bill - NRA supported the instant check system

federal/state and local jurisdictions, and who then still want them - to have them. i didn't realize the bill of rights, the national firearms act, the omnibus crime bill etc were sales gimmicks.

If Big City wants to totally ban the possession and sale of firearms within its boundries, anyone with the desire & transportation can drive 20 miles away to NRAville where there are absolutely no restrictions - and the citizens & authorities in Big City can do nothing about it.

i would only say that, if cities make laws that are inconsistent with/are not supported by state laws they put themselves in a difficult legal position. i would check the laws in the city the majority of times there is also a set of corresponding laws that criminalize the bringing of firearms into the city for city residents who simply just drive to NRAsville. the other side of that is if the city is having so many problems why penalize the people in NRAsville/ other cities who have a more robust handle on criminal activity

p.s. just as a note - i made fun of you on another thread - without you having made fun of someone first - it was childish, it did not serve to further the discussion and i apologize.

Bruised shins & black eyes are the norm.

Could you point out an example of the type of law to which you are referring?

Bullshit

Or any other law, really. There will be those who break the laws, and those who adhere to the laws. It has always been so, and it will always be so. If everyone followed the law, there would be no need for prisons.

just kidding - i agree with you 100 percent - ive just had to much caffine today - have a nice day

Had me going for a second there:)

You have a nice day too!

My suicidal sister is living with a cop who leaves loaded weapons all over the house.

He doesn't "mean to do bad," he's just ignorant. And both of them are drugged to gills on painkillers.

This is a disaster waiting to happen, but it's probably not that rare.

What are we going to do about this?

The toothpaste is out of the tube.

How many guns are there in this country per man/woman/child?

99.9999% of which are never involved in a crime.

The idea that you can somehow craft "item control" laws that selectively target the 0.0001% of firearms that are misused is a misnomer.

If you live in a non-police state tragedies will happen.

Enforcement of existing laws would be a good idea though.

Richmond, VA cut crime rate massively by simply enforcing existing laws and letting criminals know it "Project Exile".

The ratio is about 1:1 (300 million people, around 300 million firearms), with around 40% of households owning. The overwhelming majority of those are owned lawfully and responsibly, and about half of owners lean Dem and independent, not repub. 80% of gun owners are nonhunters.

The vast majority of gun crime is committed by people who cannot legally possess a gun but choose to anyway, as in this case.

decide not to turn their firearms in. (No one knows for sure how many gun owners there really are. I'll use a low guess of 40 million but many estimates run from 80 to 90 million.)

So, 400,000 gun owners refuse to turn their firearms in.

Of that number let's say that 1% decide to become domestic terrorists and disrupt our society. You now have 40,000 individuals running amok creating havoc. (OK, maybe that figure is too high, let's cut it down to 1/4 of 1% or 10,000 super radical right wingers.)

Most of that number are the loons that run around in the woods on weekends in camouflage uniforms pretending to be mighty militia members. Half of their membership are government agents. Discount at least 1/2 of the 10,000 as figments of their own imagination.

So you end up with, at the very least, 1000 to 5000 individuals who are extremely dangerous and are not known or suspected by law enforcement. Many of these have received extensive training courtesy of the best military in the world (ours). The havoc they could produce would at the very minimum disrupt our society.

But I'm not even mentioning the fact that many law enforcement or military personnel would not participate in any effort to remove firearms from honest gun owners. You would need a specialized force similar to the Nazi SS to enforce your law. That in itself, would result in a significant resistance movement.

But you could argue that all that is necessary is to dry up the supply of ammo. Unfortunately, ammo has been flying off the selves since Obama took office. It's extremely hard to find any ammo anywhere. Also many firearm owners make their own ammo and have large supplies of the necessary components. Ammo, if stored properly, lasts a LONG time. I have shot WWII rounds that work as well as fresh rounds.

Unless you develop a magic spell and a wand to wave, your chances of eliminating firearms in this country is as good as the chances of winning the Florida lottery five times in a row.

At the very minimum, if our party leadership ever proposes such an idea they will fade into history like the Whig party of the nineteenth century.

Better to work on better enforcement of current gun laws and improving our NICS background check so as to eliminate those with severe mental problems. Also to work to improve social conditions that lead to profitable criminal occupations.

Let's ban and confiscate alcohol too. It contributes to as many (or more) deaths as guns.

did'nt work then. Probably would not work now.

:eyes:

Everyone who wants a gun can get one:(

Unless you were convicted of a violent crime.

We have thousands of gun laws that law-abiding people comply with. Criminals do not follow laws. You can make a shotgun from parts at the hardware store if you really want to, whats the solution to that? The main problem is when someone snaps they don't follow the law because they don't care. Punishing millions of gunowners with laws that criminals don't follow will never be the answer.

When you consider the number of gun owners to gun crime.

In Ohio they are about where they ought to be. MA and CA only punish and disarm normal people while the criminals still get guns.