No new gun laws, enforce existing ones!

[Venix]

So you know what laws aren't being enforced but can't be bothered to answer the OP's question? Have you ever heard of the saying, "you don't know what you don't know"?

But hey, at least your answer will give the OP a start on where to look unlike the other moron posting in this thread.

OP was making a political point, not asking an honest question. He's already decided--sans any evidence or research, of course--that "enforce existing gun laws" is nebulous political hand-waving intended to sidetrack discussions about gun control, and that anyone who uses the phrase is a clueless, talking-point-regurgitating, Kool-Aid drinking Fox News worshipper. He's wrong, and silly, and deserves a snarky reply.

Anyone who's actually interested in educating themselves can simply search Google for "enforce existing gun laws." One of the first results is this article that explains many of the issues. I wasn't kidding about the "too lazy to use a search engine" comment; finding information on this is absurdly simple.

 

[ivwshane]

OP was making a political point, not asking an honest question. He's already decided--sans any evidence or research, of course--that "enforce existing gun laws" is nebulous political hand-waving intended to sidetrack discussions about gun control, and that anyone who uses the phrase is a clueless, talking-point-regurgitating, Kool-Aid drinking Fox News worshipper. He's wrong, and silly, and deserves a snarky reply.

Anyone who's actually interested in educating themselves can simply search Google for "enforce existing gun laws." One of the first results is this article that explains many of the issues. I wasn't kidding about the "too lazy to use a search engine" comment; finding information on this is absurdly simple.

So when members of congress say we need to enforce gun laws what they mean is that they need to actually do their jobs and provide funding for those existing laws? Sounds an awful like the OP was correct in his assumptions. Saying we need to enforce existing gun laws is nothing but fluff when it's those same people who are hindering the process in the first place.

I guess the OP was hoping that this talking point actually had some substance behind it. Thanks for setting him straight

 

[bradly1101]

Well, if you don't enforce the ones we already have

Tell me how exactly this is not done now, and how exactly should it be done better.

 

[bradly1101]

I usually leave my main rig up 24 hours a day, and have a tab open here.

I imagine a few people might, I'm not sitting at it full time moron.

It's probably on months at a time, whether I am posting or not.

Ha! Someone got me on that too, watching my login as if I needed much more time to write a response when I just had my browser open while I was making dinner. So we must logout all the time to satisfy the, ahem, never mind...

 

[bradly1101]

They mean that federal firearms laws are rarely enforced. This isn't a controversial point or one worth explaining to someone too lazy to use a search engine.

I suppose that OP could request details from Charles Rangel (D-NY), who introduced the Enforce Existing Gun Laws Act last summer. Or recently-departed ATF Director Todd Jones, who testified that his department rarely arrests violators due to limited resources. Or NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre, who in a 2013 Senate hearing detailed the federal government's failure to prosecute nearly 76,000 attempts to illegally purchase firearms.

Seriously, what a lazy and stupid topic. At least ask something worthy of discussion, like, "If pro-gun politicians want to complain that federal firearm laws aren't enforced, shouldn't they try to increase funding for the agencies responsible for enforcement?"

Finally some meat! I'd like to see La Pierre's quote in context. If the government is prevented from doing background checks at gunshows/private sales, how exactly did they "fail to enforce that law?" Tell us exactly what should be done.

As you suggest I did some Googling on what you stated and found this:

Bottom line: The unregulated and anonymous nature of the private marketplace for guns makes it impossible to know for certain how many gun sales occur through private transfers without background checks, though the best available evidence suggests that it is a significant portion of gun transfers, involving millions of guns per year. More importantly, however, there is reliable data indicating that a substantial majority of criminals obtain their guns through no-background check transfers.

2. Claim: Few criminals visit gun shows to acquire guns illegally.
Well, gun shows, right now are—according to all the surveys, are not a source of crime guns, anyway. It’s 1.7 percent.
– NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre testifying before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, January 30, 2013

The same BJS study that suggests that criminals rely on private no-background check transfers to acquire guns in more than two-thirds of cases also suggests that only 1.7 percent of those criminals visited gun shows to obtain those guns. The NRA and other gun lobby groups have repeatedly cited this study to suggest that concerns about no-background check gun sales at gun shows are overblown and that private sales at gun shows are not a significant problem. The argument goes, if so few criminals go to gun shows to get guns, why regulate private sales at these events?

Advocates for stronger gun laws typically make the case for the risks of no-background check sales at gun shows by pointing to a different statistic from a different federal report. A 2000 report released by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, looked at every federal gun-trafficking prosecution over a two and a half year period—1,530 cases involving 84,128 illegal guns. The report found that cases involving 25,862 of the illegally trafficked guns—30 percent of the total—had a gun-show connection. So how can we reconcile the BJS and ATF studies? The two studies are roughly contemporaneous, but point in seemingly opposite directions. Are private sales at gun shows a problem or not?

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/report/2013/12/13/80795/the-gun-debate-1-year-after-newtown/

 

[bradly1101]

OP was making a political point, not asking an honest question. He's already decided--sans any evidence or research, of course--that "enforce existing gun laws" is nebulous political hand-waving intended to sidetrack discussions about gun control, and that anyone who uses the phrase is a clueless, talking-point-regurgitating, Kool-Aid drinking Fox News worshipper. He's wrong, and silly, and deserves a snarky reply.

I didn't mean to insult your intelligence, it's just that I hear those exact words every time a conservative is asked about our gun "problem."

I did do the Google, but couldn't find a single word about how the greater enforcement should work (other than Ms. Fiorinas cryptic response).

No one says how or why it should be done better. Enlighten me. More background checks? The NRA via congress won't allow that. Posting the ATF at every gun show and private sale to check the background of every purchaser? How would they allow that? What does "better enforcement" exactly mean? No one says.

 

[MongGrel]

Ha! Someone got me on that too, watching my login as if I needed much more time to write a response when I just had my browser open while I was making dinner. So we must logout all the time to satisfy the, ahem, never mind...

Had never really thought about it much myself.

Must be funny if someone is sitting there waiting on a response if you just go into another room on another desktop and just let that desktop run while they sit there ...

I do it a lot anyways, probably has miffed a few people off in the past.

 

[Venix]

I did do the Google, but couldn't find a single word about how the greater enforcement should work (other than Ms. Fiorinas cryptic response).

No one says how or why it should be done better. Enlighten me. More background checks? The NRA via congress won't allow that. Posting the ATF at every gun show and private sale to check the background of every purchaser? How would they allow that? What does "better enforcement" exactly mean? No one says.

Plenty of people have explained exactly what it means. You must not be very good at searching.

 

[bradly1101]

Plenty of people have explained exactly what it means. You must not be very good at searching.

From your "exactly" link:

During the Obama administration, Congress has failed to provide the necessary funding for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS is the database checked during gun purchases to ensure individuals with criminal records & mental illness aren't allowed to purchase guns. In 2007, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, which created incentives for states to improve the reporting of mental health information into background check system. Yet many states have made little or no progress reporting largely because Congress failed to follow through with funding, granting just 5.3% of the total authorized amount from FY 2009 through FY 2011

So how can we increase background check reporting without funding? Who is making it impossible if not the NRA's choke-hold on congress?

And how would this even be done at gun shows, private sales, "straw man" purchases, unstable kids accessing their parents' guns, and gifts? Wouldn't we need to have someone observing every sale/gift/theft? I still don't understand how this would work with the NRA and congress blocking every move.

We had 30,000 gun deaths in 2015, what should we do to get that number down for 2016? Or is it inevitable that it will go up in a country saturated with guns?

 

[bradly1101]

To the gun rights advocates, if the current background check laws are not being enforced well enough, are you happy about Obama's new attempts to shore that up via executive action?

 

[Kwatt]

Tell me how exactly this is not done now, and how exactly should it be done better.

The FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns in 2009. But the Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%.

NICS is the database checked during gun purchases to ensure individuals with criminal records & mental illness aren't allowed to purchase guns. In 2007, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, which created incentives for states to improve the reporting of mental health information into background check system. Yet many states have made little or no progress reporting largely because Congress failed to follow through with funding, granting just 5.3% of the total authorized amount from FY 2009 through FY 2011


prosecuting straw man purchases


.

 

[Kwatt]

To the gun rights advocates, if the current background check laws are not being enforced well enough, are you happy about Obama's new attempts to shore that up via executive action?

I have not seen anything about any attempt to do with enforcement of current law. I have only seen a report on adding another level to the law that is not currently enforced...
Which will increase the difficulty and add to the cost for someone who wishes to make a legal purchase.

.

 

[bradly1101]

This video was quite telling. Its relevance to this thread comes near the end.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35229220

 

[Venix]

So how can we increase background check reporting without funding? Who is making it impossible if not the NRA's choke-hold on congress?

And how would this even be done at gun shows, private sales, "straw man" purchases, unstable kids accessing their parents' guns, and gifts? Wouldn't we need to have someone observing every sale/gift/theft? I still don't understand how this would work with the NRA and congress blocking every move.

First post: Nobody who says "enforce existing gun laws" even knows what it means
Now: Everyone who says "enforce existing gun laws" knows exactly what it means, but they're liars who prevent the President from funding the laws' enforcement

When one baseless narrative is disproved, you just blindly jump to another. Unsurprisingly, this one is also fundamentally flawed: the Obama Administration's proposed ATF and FBI budgets have always been approved, and Congress voted last year to increase funding for the NICS background check system by $78 million. The NRA made no attempt to "block" this funding increase.

We had 30,000 gun deaths in 2015, what should we do to get that number down for 2016? Or is it inevitable that it will go up in a country saturated with guns?

Clearly not. Firearm homicides have been dropping since 1993, and accidental deaths since the early 1900's. Both are currently at historic lows, despite a doubling of the civilian firearm stock and general loosening of gun laws over the last 20 years.

 

[bradly1101]

First post: Nobody who says "enforce existing gun laws" even knows what it means
Now: Everyone who says "enforce existing gun laws" knows exactly what it means, but they're liars who prevent the President from funding the laws' enforcement

No, I still haven't heard a logical response. Logically the president is proposing expanding existing laws about background checks to include smaller gun sellers like the one in the above video who stated that all a potential convicted felon needs to do to buy one of his guns is to lie about their criminal past.

Do you support the president on this?

When one baseless narrative is disproved, you just blindly jump to another. Unsurprisingly, this one is also fundamentally flawed: the Obama Administration's proposed ATF and FBI budgets have always been approved, and Congress voted last year to increase funding for the NICS background check system by $78 million. The NRA made no attempt to "block" this funding increase.

No, $78M is the total the program was brought up to after a $19.5M increase, which is a drop in the bucket IMO compared to the problem. When I said the NRA is a blocking funding, I should have said necessary funding. I believe a strong reason it's not funded more has to do with the NRA's influence on the recipients of their funding, but we can disagree on that.

Clearly not. Firearm homicides have been dropping since 1993, and accidental deaths since the early 1900's. Both are currently at historic lows, despite a doubling of the civilian firearm stock and general loosening of gun laws over the last 20 years.

So everything's hunky-dory? When I saw (in that thread with the link about looking up gun crimes near you) that there were nine shootings within a mile of me in the last year (others here saw many, many more), I was dumbfounded; I live in a pretty nice area. The wild west is the wild nation. It's not looking good to me. But again, we can disagree on that.

 

[shortylickens]

I hear this from the right all the time, and I hear it parroted here as if all conservatives have read the same talking points memo from the NRA, or have drunk the same Kool-Aid, liberally poured by Fox News.

But what does it mean? Are they saying that the police aren't doing their job? I heard Carly Fiorina offer some explanation today on one of the CNN shows by repeating it and then saying, "We know who the criminals are, we know they have guns, but Obama won't go after them!"

But what the hell does that mean? Should we subject those who have committed a crime to random searches to remove their guns? Would that not violate privacy laws and result in double jeopardy? And I wonder how gun rights advocates would react if anyone was targeted for gun seizure.

There is also this false equivalency that states that strict gun laws produce more gun crime. Which is it? The existing gun laws are all we need, or that they are a hindrance to public safety?

WTF?

Your lack of logic and horrific debate skills are the main reason you have not been able to completely ban guns.

Good job!

 

[ivwshane]

First post: Nobody who says "enforce existing gun laws" even knows what it means
Now: Everyone who says "enforce existing gun laws" knows exactly what it means, but they're liars who prevent the President from funding the laws' enforcement

When one baseless narrative is disproved, you just blindly jump to another. Unsurprisingly, this one is also fundamentally flawed: the Obama Administration's proposed ATF and FBI budgets have always been approved, and Congress voted last year to increase funding for the NICS background check system by $78 million. The NRA made no attempt to "block" this funding increase.



Clearly not. Firearm homicides have been dropping since 1993, and accidental deaths since the early 1900's. Both are currently at historic lows, despite a doubling of the civilian firearm stock and general loosening of gun laws over the last 20 years.

Do you support Obamas executive orders?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d539e8-b2fb-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html

 

[Knowing]

Do you support Obamas executive orders?

At the current juncture, no. But if all of the money he's funneling in to background checks makes them faster then I might come around. Also I find it interesting that the only reason things don't get done is because of the NRA. It couldn't possibly be that people actually don't want it (excepting those who are convinced by high profile incidents and chicken littles that this will do anything but make legal guns more difficult to obtain).

 

[Kwatt]

Do you support Obamas executive orders?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d539e8-b2fb-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html

No.

I see nothing in it that will fund the enforcement of current laws.

This will only lead to making it more difficult and more expensive for non-criminals to make a purchase. If the people who are lying on the current background checks are not being prosecuted why increase the number of background checks?

I would be willing to bet a dollar to a doughnut (the less than 1% of the violators) that where prosecuted. The "justice" department ran a credit check before they began to make sure they had a job and could pay the probation fees. Or had assets that could be forfeited.

.

 

[bradly1101]

No.

I see nothing in it that will fund the enforcement of current laws.

This will only lead to making it more difficult and more expensive for non-criminals to make a purchase. If the people who are lying on the current background checks are not being prosecuted why increase the number of background checks?

I would be willing to bet a dollar to a doughnut (the less than 1% of the violators) that where prosecuted. The "justice" department ran a credit check before they began to make sure they had a job and could pay the probation fees. Or had assets that could be forfeited.

.

As I stated (and with a video to prove it), smallish gun sellers at gun shows don't have to process background checks, so they just can be lied to and the criminal gets his gun, and now it's on the street. That's what Obama is trying to fix.

Thanks Obama!

 

[Kwatt]

As I stated (and with a video to prove it), smallish gun sellers at gun shows don't have to process background checks, so they just can be lied to and the criminal gets his gun, and now it's on the street. That's what Obama is trying to fix.

Thanks Obama!

Please edit thread title from.

No new gun laws, enforce existing ones!

to

I want a new gun law!


I am getting confused.

.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

As I stated (and with a video to prove it), smallish gun sellers at gun shows don't have to process background checks, so they just can be lied to and the criminal gets his gun, and now it's on the street. That's what Obama is trying to fix.

Thanks Obama!

Well, that will have zero effect on the gun shows in the Houston region as they only allow FFL dealers in the show and don't allow anyone to sell in the parking lot (patrolled by off duty police officers).

 

[bradly1101]

Well, that will have zero effect on the gun shows in the Houston region as they only allow FFL dealers in the show and don't allow anyone to sell in the parking lot (patrolled by off duty police officers).

Cool.

 

[bozack]

Please edit thread title from.

No new gun laws, enforce existing ones!

to

I want a new gun law!


I am getting confused.

.

always love the posters like the OP who ask a veiled question knowing they don't care about the answer but instead just want the platform to push their agenda.

 

[Kwatt]

always love the posters like the OP who ask a veiled question knowing they don't care about the answer but instead just want the platform to push their agenda.

Is that what this was? Really?

I apologize for wasting the OP's time trying to respond to his question.


.