Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Issue is violence, not the guns

April 25, 2013

Editor, OBSERVER: I recently listened to “Meet the Press” when U.S. Sen. Mark Rubio was being asked about “the gun issue....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(36)

Truthteller

Apr-25-13 7:10 AM

No Rosalee, let's do both. We are big-brained mammals--we can handle two problems at once.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DarkStar

Apr-25-13 8:20 AM

Okay truth which of the following are "problems" that need to be handled?

1) A law abiding citizen owning one of the so called "assualt rifles."

2) Four young men willing to kill an elderly couple to steal a few things from their house.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Apr-25-13 8:37 AM

It is not the law abiding citizens owning guns that are the problem. It is the mentally unstable ones, and the criminals.

So why not background checks for ALL gun sales?

Many guns used in crimes were purchased....at GUN SHOWS. Where NO background checks were conducted.

Or from private sales...look no further than the case locally where the person sold guns out of his car to someone who told him they were a felon. Did not slow him down in his sale did it?

Now if they had been required background checks, no known felon would legally be able to purchase a gun.

Number one way criminals get guns is straw purchases. Why are we not addressing this? Make stronger laws for those who commit this crime.

Oh, and yes I agree work to change our culture of violence....and FEAR, which too often leads to violence.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Apr-25-13 12:23 PM

So lets start profiling them judeye at an early age and weed out those who might be "the mentally unstable ones, and the criminals", that way we don't need more useless gun laws as we can take a majority off problem off the street before they get to that point in their lives. Many guns used in crime were bought( now pay close attention) ILLEGALLY. Oh my a criminal doing something against the law. What will they think of next.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DarkStar

Apr-25-13 12:43 PM

I doubt most realize this but FFL dealers, even at gunshows, have to follow the same laws that they do for sales at their shop, which means background checks.

The problem as I see it isn't gunshows, the issue is, in effect, people dealing firearms without an FFL, which is something that should be looked into.

I'm not talking about the guy who sells the occasional firearm, or even sells a large number of guns that were in his collection, but instead people who use gunshows to in effect run a retail firearms business without aquiring a FFL. That is the loophole that needs to be closed, not forcing you to run a background check on your neighbor to sell him one of your old hunting shotguns.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RipleyResident

Apr-25-13 2:19 PM

1997 DOJ survey indicates that only 0.7% of criminals obtained their guns from gun shows. Quite a loophole.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RipleyResident

Apr-25-13 2:24 PM

Judeye said "the person sold guns out of his car to someone who told him they were a felon. Did not slow him down in his sale did it?

Now if they had been required background checks, no known felon would legally be able to purchase a gun."

You really think that? So, how will that work? Obviously you're talking about Mr. Wassell, who allegedly sold a gun to a known felon. You are saying that if this is true, he and the felon would have gone through the background check?

Do me a favor, let me know which gun shops locally are performing these $10 private sale background checks. Heads up, it's going to be a short list.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

Apr-25-13 3:34 PM

Judeye, It's already a felony to knowingly transfer a gun to a felon, but that didn't stop the sales you refer to, did it? Please explain the mechanics as to how a Universal Background Check requirement would have prevented those sales. Outside of the government "sting' aspect of what happened there, what specific element(s) of a Universal Background Check procedure would have stopped those sales? Just what exactly about such a requirement would have compelled those two to comply? What would have forced them to 1st go to someone holding an FFL and ask that a NICS background check to be run on the buyer?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Truthteller

Apr-25-13 3:55 PM

1) The Arizona shooter who would have killed more people if he'd had bigger clips (so yes, assault weapons) 2) Four young men... We ALL agree--law-abiding people are law-abiding people are law-abiding people. And Adam Lanza wasn't a criminal until he was.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Truthteller

Apr-25-13 3:57 PM

Why does a person need an assault weapon? Here in suburbia, where I live, my defense against a home intruder is likely to result in innocent deaths next door and across the street. Not to mention the uselessness of such weapons if they are really stored properly, as responsible gun owners claim they are. I'd like to know one case where a locked up gun with locked up separately ammunition was useful against an intruder with a big knife.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Truthteller

Apr-25-13 4:03 PM

The real question is this--why are law-abiding gun owners afraid to have a background check? Does anyone seriously think the creators of the 2nd Amendment were thinking "Gee, in case some future government wants to persecute all of us because we own muskets, let's protect our freedom." The creators of the 2nd amendment lived in a society where gun ownership was everyday. It didn't need protecting. What DID need protecting was the country. But the founders were clear--no standing army. Those were dangerous in Europe and could threaten this fledgling democracy. So let's ensure guns at the ready for a militia. It was about defense of a fragile Republic whose executive had an undefined role whose ***** was as yet unknown. It wasn't about home defense or sport shooting. It didn't have to be; those were taken for granted. So common sense people. Gun control does NOT equal lack of freedom.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Truthteller

Apr-25-13 4:04 PM

"whose role was as yet unknown". Observer???

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Apr-25-13 8:11 PM

You can pass all the laws and background checks you want criminals will still get guns as to the mentally ill they could be stopped if family and close friends recognize the signs and get them help instead of hoping nothing happens.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Apr-25-13 10:58 PM

Judeye, have you ever been to a gun show? How about attending one and trying to purchase a gun before making a statement like: Many guns used in crimes were purchased....at GUN SHOWS. Where NO background checks were conducted.

It's been explained a dozen times on here what the laws are but you still keep coming back with the same statement. Common, I know you're smarter than that. I've read some very intelligent things you have written over the years; don't always agree but they are well thought out and researched. So, please, do some of that research when it comes to firearms.

Also, straw purchasers for firearms is illegal.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Apr-25-13 11:10 PM

Actually, for myself, I don’t believe in using my AR-15 or AK-47 for home defense: I prefer my Combat Commander and FNP-45. The AR and AK are for any possible civil unrest or naturally disaster like what occurred during Katrina. We all heard of what happened in New Orleans but in the rural areas of Southern Louisiana and Mississippi, those people were on their own as all recourses went to the big cities. Don’t forget the 1992 LA Riots. Many Korean store owners were on their own defending their lives and property. I bet you didn’t hear either of the car loads of thugs who headed to the suburbs for a “little fun” but were met and tuned back by armed homeowners. Lastly, those millions of AR’s and AK’s owned by citizens are for enforcement of the Bill of Rights; the document which protects you, the American Citizen, from a government gone amok.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

Apr-26-13 12:29 AM

ATF study in 1999 that covered 314 gun show investigations - - Felons were involved in 46% of all transactions.

That's why, as a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter, I nonetheless endorse closing the gun show loophole.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

Apr-26-13 7:40 AM

How anyone could be against more checks in an attempt to keep felons from obtaining weapons is just beyond me. That's what puts the "nut" in "gun nuts".

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CKP5600

Apr-26-13 7:51 AM

A 1997 Justice Department survey of more than 18,000 state and federal convicts revealed the truth: • 39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member • 39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source • 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show • 1% of criminals purchased a gun at a flea market • 3.8% of criminals purchased a gun from a pawn shop • 8.3% of criminals actually bought their guns from retail outlets Note that less than 9 percent of all guns obtained by criminals in this survey came from retail outlets, hardly “a lot” compared to the almost 40 percent of convicts who obtained guns from friends or family or the almost 40 percent who obtained them illegally on the street. The gun-show loophole? Less than 1 percent of criminal guns came from gun shows.

This is why we don't think more back ground checks are needed, the majority of guns come straw purchases. i.e friends and family. more checks will not stop this from hap

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DarkStar

Apr-26-13 8:16 AM

" "whose role was as yet unknown". Observer???"

ROFL

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Apr-26-13 8:49 AM

DKexpay, maybe you can explain what the gun show loophole is? So far, nobody has been able to.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Apr-26-13 8:50 AM

Sorry, should be DKexpat.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Apr-26-13 9:00 AM

Beyond the popular belief of many here, not all criminals have criminal backgrounds which would prevent them from purchasing a firearm. Many criminals haven’t been caught yet or haven’t been convicted of a felony. Not every crime is a felony and many criminal lawyers are able to get felony charges dropped to lesser charges. That’s how many criminals who are now in prison were previously able to purchase firearms from dealers.

CKP5600, thanks for the statistics. Unfortunately, there are those here who will still claim how universal background checks will close the "gun show loophole" and prevent gun crime from taking place.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PhilJulian

Apr-26-13 10:03 AM

Can you imagine a criminal submitting to a background check? I can't. There are already 300 million guns in this country and criminals will figure out a way to get them - or maybe they will use pressure cookers! Rubio has it right. We live inb a violent society with alot of distrust and hatred of government. We need to start by cleaning up the media where you can see multiple murders every day on TV, in the movies or video games. It would help if we had a government that actually represents the people and not the special interests. Our foreign policy is a major problem and needs to be changed.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

kcw007

Apr-26-13 10:04 AM

stangv8 wrote: "....many criminal lawyers are able to get felony charges dropped to lesser charges" Indeed, that's SOP for the plea deal isn't it?. A primary motivator to not breaking the law is....fear of what comes with a conviction. But when the gun charge, commonly the most serious of the charges laid, is commonly pleaded down "in the interest of justice"; what motivation is there on the part of a criminal to not go out and do it again, and again? Unless the government has some reason to put on a "dog and pony" trial, the gun charge is right at the very top of the list of charges that just seem to go away.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

Apr-26-13 10:06 AM

It’s a double standard: Dealers at gun shows must be licensed and run background checks. Private sales at guns shows by unlicensed vendors – between 10% and 22% at shows here in VA – are more like “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

The DOJ’s “less than 1%” purchased at gun shows survey quoted by many was –get this – from a “self-identify, where’d you get the gun?” multiple choice questionnaire given to incarcerated felons. I’m sure that was a very scientific poll...and the provenance of the weapons was never traced.

ATF has identified gun shows as the 2nd-largest channel for criminals: (1) 1,530 trafficking investigations 1996-98 = 25,000 illegal firearms; (2) more recently, 2004-06 = 195 gun show investigations = 5,345 seizures. (Less than 2% of gun shows are checked annually.)

I agree most criminals don’t source their guns at shows, but were I a licensed dealer competing against private sellers, I’d like them to have to play by the same rules I do.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 36 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web