EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

Thoughts on reasonable gun controls
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24996
Page 2 of 2

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Thoughts on reasonable gun controls

deep woods wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
I beloeive that is called an assumption since there is nothing invovled but a belief. The fact is that three of the last fireatms I have purchased were from individuals with no background check performed. Only one of those people knew me in any way. That is anaecdotal information, but it indicates the statisics of private sale weapons beinb used in a crime have a personal experience support.


My comment is based on personal experience and anecdotal information as well.


You missed the part about the anecdotal information supporting the known statistics in my case.

Quote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Why is it irrelevant to the discussion if the side you support creates fake supply and demand issues through lies and deception to increase the cost to consumers?


You have proposed a ban on certain magazines. Others on your side have called for bans on handguns, bans on "assault" rifles (speaking of lies and deception!), and bans on all firearms. This threat is real, and naturally has an effect on prices, just as the threat of war in the Middle East affects oil prices.


Yes, but when President Obama took office the gun industry made the claim and did it again when he was elected for the second term without anything to support the claim other then the need to create the concern which drove up prices.

Quote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Yes, tobacco is subject to extensive "sin taxation" due to the impact of health costs relating to ist use, but that is not what is being discussed. I could forsee that approach being used at some point if the health impact of firearms is not lessened, which preventing acquistion by some and adequate training for all would be expaected to do.


This approach has been proposed by your side, and will be the natural evolution of "reasonable" gun control laws, in my opinion.


In my opinion, if nothing is done to provide some reasonable gun controls the eventual outcome will be an outright ban similar to that seen in Australia after one of the mass shootings becomes the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Quote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
No new laws would be needed? There is no law requiring a background check for private transfer now. Thus, there is no illegal sale by an individual now unless they can be proven to have been in the business, which is nearly impossilbe. Do you know how many guns you can sell before you are considered in the business? The law does not state any level. Thus the first defense is disbelief they were doing anything illegal and the ability to convict goes through the floor.


Background checks for all sales of handguns are required in the state that I live in. And in many, if not most others.


But not long guns, which we have seen are used in mass shootings if not in the more regular crimes. A long gun can also be converted into a more concealable size.

Quote:
Irregardless, breaking one law does not make someone guilty of a second crime unless the first crime was committed to facilitate the second.


It does when the law specifies it. The application of murder charges for everyone involved in the commission of a crime where someone dies for example.

Quote:
Please check the legal definition of conspiracy.


The law defines the terms used as part of the law, which is why the law has the terms within it defined in a portion of the legislation. Thus, the law would have such a definition included.

Quote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
The knowledge level is not required if the laws specifies the criteria. Just like the legal criteria stating that anyone killed in the execution of a felony is automatically classified as first degree murder ... even if there was no intent to harm anyone by the criminals involved. It also applies to every person involved with the crime even if they were not present at the time. The get away driver for example is charged the same as anyone else involved even if all they were doing is driving. It is the big stick to help people make a better choice and not do someyhing illegal.

You are believing too much of the gun lobby propaganda.


Is the guy who supplied the getaway car charged? He is not, unless it can be proved that he knowingly provided it for the purpose of aiding in the crime.


He would be if the law specifically stated that was the case.

Quote:
If I sell a car to someone who drinks alcohol, should I be charged if they have an accident with it?


If there is a law that states you cannot sell a car to someone who drinks. You are missing the writing of the specific legislation aspect.

Quote:
Again, check the legal definition of conspiracy. Making people strictly responsible for crimes committed by others would be a dangerous precedent to set.


It is already set. If you assist in a crime where someone dies you are legally guilty of murder whether you hurt anyone or intended to hurt anyone. The actions you undertake have the known potential to cause death when you commit a crime, thus you are guilty. If you illegally transfer a firearm to someone there is also the known potential to facilitate another crime in the commission of that crime. Thus, the precedent for making such a person a conspirator in that crime. The crimes are not limited to murder, but that would be the more serious offense.

Quote:
I'm not sure where the propaganda comment came from.


The "if they only enforced the laws on the books" is a common NRA propaganda slogan since they also work so hard to make the enforcement of the laws so difficult.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Fri Nov 06, 2015 9:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thoughts on reasonable gun controls

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safet ... s-map.html

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Thu Nov 12, 2015 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Thoughts on reasonable gun controls

I got news that a Soros company has been buying arms manufacturers, and is shutting them down. Marlin Arms is the last one.
Reasonable gun control is hitting the target. The 80 million households with guns will not tolerate confiscation and well taken care of guns last a very long time. Black powder ones, too.
Then how about all the swords, and knives, numerous poisons, kitchen utensils, 2x4s, hammers, axes, rakes and shovels, other sticks and branches, rocks and fists, teeth and feet, knees and elbows, too?
What does it matter in a world heading toward thermal maximum? A gun could give your family another year or so to live, with rioting cannibals all over. Eat or be eaten, then fry. :mrgreen:

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/