Reply With Quote
Some laws are more effective than other laws. Existing laws may be ineffective or may have loopholes that need to be closed via additional legislation.
If gun crime is as big as problem as they make it out to be then you'd think they'd find the resources to prosecute these gun crimes. They can't enforce the laws on the books, and you want them to make more laws. Explain how that makes sense.
Some laws are more effective than other laws. Existing laws may be ineffective or may have loopholes that need to be closed via additional legislation.
Additional legislation........................
You just asked me to explain why more laws may be necessary when existing laws are not being enforced (I.e additional legislation.) not sure why that's :roflAdditional legislation........................
Back your claim up. Which laws are more effective? Which laws are ineffective? Where are the loopholes that need to be closed? (Don't use the faulty Obama gun show loophole purchase % either, been debunked already)
"We can't/don't enforce the current laws, so let's make more laws we can't/won't enforce"
I'm leaving work now Pusher, I'll come back later to read your detailed report on which laws are effective/ineffective and what new legislation is needed.
Just because Barry used a bogus stat does not mean the gunshow loophole does not exist. So yes, that would be an example of a loophole that could be closed that could have some effect.
Cons utional concerns aside, It can be argued that a ban on all semi auto weapons would be effective as fuzzy so early pointed out to you, but you were too stupid to understand the argument.
Nice job not using Obama's loophole lie. Okay, so you've closed a loophole that accounts for .7% of criminal purchases, what about the rest? I expected you to back your claim up a bit more than that.
“The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun,” said Mr. Obama, when he announced his gun-violence task force results on Jan. 16. “But it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.”
The 40 percent figure that Mr. Obama and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, cite so frequently comes from a 1997 Justice Department survey. A closer look at that 40 percent number reveals it includes 29 percent of gun owners who said they got their guns from family members or friends and acquaintances.
That leaves 11 percent of firearms obtained through unfamiliar people. Of these, 3 percent reported they got their firearms “through the mail,” a process that requires a background check from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Four percent said “other,” and 4 percent made their purchase at a gun show.
The “gun-show loophole” is an exaggeration designed to foster the false impression that this is how the bad guys acquire firearms. A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2VU8UUnkN
Cons utional concerns aside, It can be argued that a ban on all semi auto weapons would be effective as fuzzy so early pointed out to you, but you were too stupid to understand the argument.
Nice job Pusher. I'll give you more time to back your claim up, this last attempt was pathetic.
here ya go, TSA, take your lips off the big hard stiff black barrel and check this out, Fastly and Furiously
Half Of Licensed U.S. Gun Dealers Depend On Weapons Trafficking To Mexico
Researchers at the University of San Diego’s Trans-Border Ins ute and Brazil’s Igarapé Ins ute put together a groundbreaking model to determine why Mexico, which possesses some of the toughest gun laws in the world, is so awash in firearms. In constructing their report — Way of the Gun: Estimating Firearms Traffic Across the U.S.-Mexico Border — the authors used the number of Federal firearms licenses (FFL) issued to sell small arms to create a demand curve, based on the distance by road from the seller to the nearest point on the U.S.-Mexico border to estimate a total demand for trafficking, both in terms of guns sold and the amount the industry took in.
Their results? A much larger number of U.S. guns circulating in Mexico than occurred under the now-lapsed federal Assault Weapons Ban, with an estimated 253,000 firearms purchased per year to be trafficked to Mexico between 2010 and 2012. Somewhere between 0.9 and 3.7 percent of all gun sales in the U.S. can be attributed to trafficking to Mexico, a rise from the amount in 1993. Most shocking, an estimated 46.7 percent of all FFLs issued “during 2010-2012 depended for their economic existence on some amount of demand from the U.S.-Mexico firearms trade to stay in business,” a number that has also risen since 1993.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...icking-mexico/
marans!
2nd Amendment!
self/home defense!
water the tree!
Liberty!
Freedom!
Guns are STRICTLY about $$$ for the gun industry (and of course less manhood issues of gun fellators)
Ingrape Ins ute again?
TBIngrape Ins ute again?
gfy moonbat blog fellator
That piece of analysis (lol Ingrape) has already been destroyed. Of course, if you did your own thinking instead of letting your moonbat RSS feed think for you, you would've remembered that.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6430142
lol thinkprogress
I can feel that love. I know it well.
ok pusher, you've had all weekend to come up with something better, what do you got?
“The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun,” said Mr. Obama, when he announced his gun-violence task force results on Jan. 16. “But it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.”
The 40 percent figure that Mr. Obama and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, cite so frequently comes from a 1997 Justice Department survey. A closer look at that 40 percent number reveals it includes 29 percent of gun owners who said they got their guns from family members or friends and acquaintances.
That leaves 11 percent of firearms obtained through unfamiliar people. Of these, 3 percent reported they got their firearms “through the mail,” a process that requires a background check from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Four percent said “other,” and 4 percent made their purchase at a gun show.
The “gun-show loophole” is an exaggeration designed to foster the false impression that this is how the bad guys acquire firearms. A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2VU8UUnkN
Nice job Pusher. I'll give you more time to back your claim up, this last attempt was pathetic.
One gun fellator less and one fatherless child more
Justin Stanfield Thomas Shot, Killed Accidentally By 4-Year-Old Son In Arizona
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...ef=mostpopular
and of course, gun fellators, NRA, and gun industry assholes skate free, totally unaccountable.
How did California's strict gun laws work out in Santa Monica?
Guns sold anywhere in red-state, gun fellating, no b/g check America are easily transportable across state lines.
Are you saying his gun was not from California?
you and your strawman
strict gun regulations have to be national and retroactive to be effective.
And when you find out he bought the guns in CA, what is your argument? CA has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, I thought these super strict laws were supposed to prevent these types of things, isn't that what you've been saying all along?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
