Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Gun Control/2nd Amendment
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Gun Control/2nd Amendment Discuss Background Check law dies in Senate at the General Forum; Originally Posted by off the porch There aren't adequate background checks so they aren't as useful as they should or ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111 (permalink)  
Old 05-03-2013, 12:29 AM
40yearfan's Avatar
Easy Living
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix, AZ.
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,970
Thanks: 2,617
Thanked 3,963 Times in 2,718 Posts
Default Re: Background Check law dies in Senate

Quote:
Originally Posted by off the porch View Post
There aren't adequate background checks so they aren't as useful as they should or could be. Using numbers YOU provided, background checks aren't required by approximately 10% of gun show sellers at gun shows. There are approximately 5000 gun shows in the US according to the ATF. At the large gun shows, over 1000 guns are sold. So knows how many firearms are sold by the 10% of sellers that aren't required to do background checks...some studies have said as many as 40% of guns sold at gun shows go without a background check.

Now, in my domestic violence scenario, there are some credible numbers to consider when thinking about making sure the batterers find it much more difficult to get a firearm. See below:

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/center...s/IPV_Guns.pdf

......
According to federal data collected from police departments, in 2005 approximately 40% of b female homicide victims ages 1550 were killed by either a current or former intimate partner. In over half (55%) of these cases, the perpetrator used a gun. Among male victims 1550 years of age, 2% were killed by either a current or former intimate partner. About 37% of the male intimate partner homicides involved a gun.
.....

And for those that say the woman should just arm herself:

(from the same link)

A study of women physically abused by current or former intimate partners revealed a 5-fold increased risk of the partner murdering the woman when the partner owned a firearm. In fact, homocide risks were found to be 50% higher for female handgun purchasers in California compared with licensed drivers matched by sex, race, and age group. Among the women handgun purchasers who were murdered, 45% were killed by an intimate partner using a gun. In contrast, 20% of all women murdered in California during the study period were killed with a gun by an intimate partner.


Wow, I had no idea it those numbers would be so revealing.


So let's think for a moment...studies say that 22% of women have been in a domestic abuse situation. That's about 34,530,544 women. It's only common sense that some of that 34 million women have restraining orders on their abusers. Even in states that don't allow people with restraining orders to buy a firearm, those abusers can just go to one of the 10% of private gun sellers at a gun show to get his firearm. This abuser is likely to know he has a restraining order against him so he will most probably go to this private seller. It's just too easy. The system doesn't even rise to the level of a speed bump for this abuser.

The link I provided is full of real numbers that matter to the conversation...and the link only deals with domestic violence. It doesn't deal with accidental firearm deaths or suicides or any other specific gun violence. The dangerous numbers only rise if those are included.

Putting those domestic violence murder victim numbers together and doing the math, lots of women's lives could be saved with a universal background check system....not all of them, but lots of them.

I guess those of you that think people that believe comprehensive universal background checks are desperate may have a point. We are desperate to save lives..because the lives of gun violence victims matter desperately to their loved ones, family, and friends.
You forgot the most important point from your article:

Quote:
Twenty-two percent of women and 7% of men report that they have been physically assaulted by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Among female victims of IPV, 4% reported having been threatened with a gun by an intimate partner, and 1% sustained firearm injuries in these assaults.2, a
Regardless of all those numbers you posted, only 4% of women who were assualted were threatened with a gun and only 1% received an injury. Pretty small numbers considering the gravity of the problem. Not a very good example for promoting gun control.
__________________
__________________________________________
We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
Reply With Quote
  #112 (permalink)  
Old 05-07-2013, 04:36 PM
40yearfan's Avatar
Easy Living
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix, AZ.
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,970
Thanks: 2,617
Thanked 3,963 Times in 2,718 Posts
Default Re: Background Check law dies in Senate

Quote:
What is really in Background Check bill?

The "most popular" part of the defeated-but-sure-to-come back Senate gun control bill (background checks) sounds like a good idea at first but is more restrictive than anyone anticipated and will have significant unintended consequences.

There is a huge push to get it through Congress before the public has a chance to consider its contents.

Common activities that we take for granted will become federal crimes. These are not irresponsible exaggerations. Please take a moment to review the requirements of the bill.

Here are a few examples of the restrictions in the bill:

EXAMPLE #1

Loaning your buddy a shotgun for a duck hunting trip will be considered a transfer.

If the following requirements are not met, YOU HAVE BOTH COMMITTED A FEDERAL CRIME.

1. He must have already purchased his hunting license

2. Season is already open (and will not close before he returns it)

3. He cannot travel with the firearm through a county where season is not yet open or any area where hunting is prohibited and certainly not across a state line.

He CANNOT stop by your house on the day before season opens, pick up the shot gun, go to the sporting goods store to buy a license and shells then drive out to the hunting lease. In this scenario, YOU BOTH WOULD HAVE COMMITTED MULTIPLE FEDERAL CRIMES, YOUR WEAPONS WILL BE FORFEITED AND YOU WILL LOOSE YOUR RIGHT TO BUY OR OWN A FIREARM.

EXAMPLE #2

It appears that only you may relocate your weapons. If your weapon leaves your home without you, the new legislation considers it a transfer of possession. ALL transfers require going through a firearms dealer, paying the transfer fee and a background check for the transferee.

Putting the weapon, even temporarily in someone else's possession, requires a transfer through a dealer. There is no exception for putting them in a friend's truck while moving to your new house or packing them unloaded, locked in a gun safe into a moving truck.

Any scenario in which your weapon leaves your home without you is considered a transfer. Failure to properly transfer the weapon is a federal crime which can result in a prison term AND WILL RESULT IN THE FORFEITURE OF YOUR WEAPON.

In the scenario above, your buddy's truck was used to commit a federal crime and WILL BE CONFISCATED just like with current Fish and Game violations.

EXAMPLE #3

Infractions as above which involve 2 guns of any type are considered weapons trafficking. You will be prosecuted under the same federal laws as a terrorist arms dealer.

EXAMPLE #4

Any of the infractions above (or hundreds of other routine scenarios) may result in federal charges, confiscation of ALL your weapons and being prohibited, like all felons, from ever owning a weapon again.

Please read the text of the bill yourself. Most of it is boring legalese but the sections on transfers and trafficking are critical.

Take a minute to think about all the routine activities like those above that will make you a federal criminal and result in prison time plus the confiscation of your weapons and other property.
Text of S. 22: Gun Show Background Check Act of 2013 (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us
__________________
__________________________________________
We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
Reply With Quote
  #113 (permalink)  
Old 05-07-2013, 05:22 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,349
Thanks: 549
Thanked 6,561 Times in 4,712 Posts
Default Re: Background Check law dies in Senate

Quote:
Originally Posted by 40yearfan View Post
Text of S. 22: Gun Show Background Check Act of 2013 (Introduced version)
Pardon my lack of legalese knowledge, but, could you point out where in the bill all that you said is stated? Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #114 (permalink)  
Old 05-07-2013, 10:07 PM
40yearfan's Avatar
Easy Living
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix, AZ.
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,970
Thanks: 2,617
Thanked 3,963 Times in 2,718 Posts
Default Re: Background Check law dies in Senate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
Pardon my lack of legalese knowledge, but, could you point out where in the bill all that you said is stated? Thanks.
Quote:
‘(c) Responsibilities of Transferors Other Than Licensees-



‘(1) IN GENERAL- If any part of a firearm transaction takes place at a gun show, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to another person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless the firearm is transferred through a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer in accordance with subsection (e).

In other words, if you don't have a FFL, you won't be able to sell a gun at a gun show.

‘(2) CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS- A person who is subject to the requirement of paragraph (1)--

‘(A) shall not transfer the firearm to the transferee until the licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer through which the transfer is made under subsection (e) makes the notification described in subsection (e)(3)(A); and

You have to notify the agency before you can sell the gun and they have to approve the transaction. Who knows how long this could take?

‘(B) notwithstanding subparagraph (A), shall not transfer the firearm to the transferee if the licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer through which the transfer is made under subsection (e) makes the notification described in subsection (e)(3)(B).


Quote:
(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(8)(A) Whoever knowingly violates section 932(a) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

‘(B) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (b) or (c) of section 932 shall be--

‘(i) fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both; and

‘(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

‘(C) Whoever willfully violates section 932(d) shall be--

‘(i) fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both; and

‘(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

‘(D) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (e) or (f) of section 932 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

‘(E) In addition to any other penalties imposed under this paragraph, the Attorney General may, with respect to any person who knowingly violates any provision of section 932--

‘(i) if the person is registered pursuant to section 932(a), after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend for not more than 6 months or revoke the registration of that person under section 932(a); and

‘(ii) impose a civil fine in an amount equal to not more than $10,000.’.
Penalties for breaking this law. What this law does is make it impossible for a regular citizen to sell a gun at a gun show without breaking the law. He has to get an FFL dealer to handle the transaction (which is expensive) and the buyer has to wait until the agency handling this law approves the transaction which could take months.
__________________
__________________________________________
We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
Reply With Quote
  #115 (permalink)  
Old 05-07-2013, 10:16 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,349
Thanks: 549
Thanked 6,561 Times in 4,712 Posts
Default Re: Background Check law dies in Senate

Quote:
Originally Posted by 40yearfan View Post
Penalties for breaking this law. What this law does is make it impossible for a regular citizen to sell a gun at a gun show without breaking the law. He has to get an FFL dealer to handle the transaction (which is expensive) and the buyer has to wait until the agency handling this law approves the transaction which could take months.
Got it. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #116 (permalink)  
Old 05-08-2013, 01:07 AM
40yearfan's Avatar
Easy Living
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Phoenix, AZ.
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,970
Thanks: 2,617
Thanked 3,963 Times in 2,718 Posts
Default Re: Background Check law dies in Senate

Quote:
Two new reports show gun homicides down since 1990s


Published May 07, 2013

Associated Press



Gun homicides have dropped steeply in the United States since their peak in 1993, a pair of reports released Tuesday showed, adding fuel to Congress' battle over whether to tighten restrictions on firearms.

A study released Tuesday by the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics found that gun-related homicides dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. That's a 39 percent reduction.

Another report by the private Pew Research Center found a similar decline by looking at the rate of gun homicides, which compares the number of killings to the size of the country's population. It found that the number of gun homicides per 100,000 people fell from 7 in 1993 to 3.6 in 2010, a drop of 49 percent.

Both reports also found the rate of non-fatal crimes involving guns was also down by around 70 percent over that period

Read more: Two new reports show gun homicides down since 1990s | Fox News
__________________
__________________________________________
We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
background, check, dies, law, senate

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0