The Correlation Between State Gun Laws and Homicide Rates

This will be as useful a "solution" as gun control.

If you have a gun permit, you can wear clothes. If you do not, you must go naked, and cannot carry bags, of any kind.

There. Now, all law enforcement has to do is approach the non-naked people. Because, how else would you conceal a gun? If you have on clothes, but no firearm, you will be arrested for inciting a riot, and fined.

So, if you have clothes on, while at a school, court, or other gun free zone, you will be immediately arrested.

I bet this also solves some of our overweight problems.

There. I'm a problem solving genius.

 

Is it so crazy to to want to make it a little more work to get access to a gun? Is that just as crazy as banning clothes to you?

 

Legally, it's not that easy

 

And how do you propose we make it a little more work, that can't be easily circumnavigated by either the ability to lie (which is a talent among sociopaths), or steal a firearm from someone who did get one?

Which recent shootings would have been stopped by "tougher background checks"? The guy who had a family member give him a gun? The guy who stole a gun from his family? Or how about the guy who probably had a gun before washing out of training, for whatever reason?

What meaningful changes are you advocating that would actually make a difference? Or have we now switched gears to gun crime in general, and are talking about eliminating the "gun show loophole?" Because as far as mass shootings go, that probably doesn't do mcuh of anything.

 

The one in Aurora would have been prevented by closing a loophole where one can purchase guns online. He went to a gun store here locally and the owner refused him service because he was a weirdo, and reported him to the police. His therapist reported him as potentially dangerous. Nothing happened. Gun arrives, shooting commences.

There's one. The most current one got washed out of the military. How much you want to bet it was psych related? If so, he should have been flagged and disarmed for safety and then provided a mechanism to clear himself.

 

The South Carolina shooter had a criminal history and was prohibited from buying guns. South Carolina has a law forbidding those kind of background checks, so he was able to buy one.

There's three, and the two most recent, off the top of my head that could have been prevented or at least hindered with tougher national gun laws.

Myth busted. What else you got?

 

As far as I know, it is illegal to purchase a firearm online. Period. And I don't mean on a state to state basis. I mean, Federally. As in, purchase of a firearm online must go through an FFL. At the FFL, the individual is required to do a background check.

The "gun show loophole" has forever been face to face transactions, which in many states are legal. But an online purchase wouldn't be face to face. In fact, I'm pretty sure it is illegal to ship a firearm to anyone but yourself, without it going through an FFL. I'd have to look into that, as well as the online purchase.

I mean, that law has been in place since like Kennedy was killed. I'd be really curious to see how that one went down, and the act itself wasn't illegal.

Oregon shooter may have washed for psych. May have also just been a failure to adapt. Even if it was psych related, even if he was flagged, and even if his weapons were confiscated, he'd have to be pretty stupid to not be able to convince whomever is eval'ing him that he wasn't a psychopath.

"I've been going to church, doc. I feel a lot better. I got involved in this group. I'm attending weekly AA meetings." I mean, c'mon. There's no quantitative "psycho" test.

 

Didn't the South Carolina guy also get given a firearm by his uncle? So, even if he had been denied, he'd still have a firearm, right?

Elaborate how the two most recent would have been prevented by tougher laws, and which ones? Oh, hindered? Oh, my. Well, so long as it took an extra year for the guy to snap... that's ok.

So no, myth not busted.

 

Correction: he ended up obtaining them from 3 different stores, circumventing the restriction on buying more than 1 firearm within 5 days. I remember reading there was some online component of this though. I'll keep looking. I do know that a gun store owner refused service to him and reported him.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/colo-shooter-purchased-guns-legally-from-3-different-stores/

 

6,000 rounds online http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ado-shooter-james-holmes-bought-his-guns.html

 

Whoa whoa, you act like there would be no impact. I demonstrated that there WOULD have been. Myth busted.

 

Ammo isn't regulated. That you can purchase online with no restrictions.

 

I actually buy my ammo in bulk, it's cheaper and I'll use 500-600 rounds when I go to the range

 

Actually, this is what I asked.

Not hindered. Not delayed. Stopped. Never to occur.

Let's go back to the Aurora shooter. Let's assume a national registry, that would have made it impossible for him to purchase more than one firearm within the 5 day period, or whatever. So he waits an additional 15 days? Ok. You think it likely he changes his mind in those 15 days? Possible. But he already had to wait on the ammo shipment.

 

Well, you're convincing me. Maybe we do need to ban guns.

 

That statement is ludicrous.

They have crazy good weed in Colorado. Fact.
Cars can drive to Colorado. Fact.
I have a car. Fact.
I do not have any crazy good week. Fact.

Ease of acquisition is relevant.

 

Can you explain why Nebraska and Kansas are suing Colorado for it's weed getting into their states, if weed can't be transported across state lines by cars?

 

Because they overhired in the Attorney General office and needed them to bill hours to justify their salaries?

Also, I'm not alleging that the contraband won't move. I'm saying that your argument that the locality of these thighs doesn't matter is facially absurd.

Does some Colorado weed get into Nebraska? Sure.
Is it easier to get Colorado weed in Denver or Lincoln? Hmmm. brain buster.

You're essentially saying that guns in one city just flow like water downhill into the rest of them. And you're apparently saying this with a straight face.

 

If you honestly don't see how that is happening in places like Chicago or DC, you're legitimately stupid. Do you think guns grow in alleys or breed in abandoned warehouses?

Guns do not spontaneously spring into being in cities in which they are not legally available. They're being moved there.



Also, if you want crazy weed and can't find it in DC, you are probably considered lame by those who have access to crazy weed. Fact. Just grow your own, that is perfectly legal. There are kits available such as Root. Not that I'm into this sort of thing.

 

Wait, you mean to tell me that there are laws against transporting weed across state lines, and people are breaking that law? How can this be?