The great ammo shortage of 2013

Link?

 

5 injured after firearms go off at Ohio, N.C., Indiana gun shows - CNN.com

 

So, nobody was shot at a Gun Appreciation Day event?

 

A possible federal/State regulation might be to require a yearly registration on firearms as they do with automobiles. This would make person to person sales be more responsible and eliminate the "oh I got burgled a couple years ago and somebody stole my gun"... " Did you report it?"..... "uh..no, I forgot"

 

Why? It's not illegal to sell a gun to anybody you want, so what good what such a law do?

 

There's a few reasons why a lot of people view gun owners as 'unedcuated' and/or 'rednecks' who are disconnected from the the 'real world', and most of them have to do with stupidity like this.

Whatever your stance is on firearms, you must admit that this a) doesn't help, and b) is inexcusable.

 

Absolutely. If you unintentionally discharge a firearm in a public place you should be charged with negligent endangerment. If you injure somebody, then I hope you get bankrupted in the subsequent civil suit following the criminal charges.

In 40 years of being around guns I don't recall ever seeing an "accidental" discharge (a shot fired due to a malfunction in a weapon). I've seen a number of negligent discharges, almost always due to idiots who can't seem to pick up a gun without putting their finger inside the trigger guard.

 

A fair question.

Don't we all want to keep guns from the hands of criminal's, the mentally unfit and those not willing to own and keep them responsibly?

If every gun owner had to afirm each year they, and they alone, had ownership a firearm, would this not close one of the loopholes whereby those mentioned above get guns they should not have? Will it not give Law enforcement a means to track the location of a gun? If you pay your registration one year, then not the next, does it not give the Law a heads up that a Gun is in the Wind?

Are not we all interested in keeping guns from those (Criminal, insane, unsafe) who should not have them?

There are too many guns out there in the hands of people who would not or should not have access to them.

Should not those who choose to own guns pay part of the cost to keep them just a little safer?

Those of us who choose to own a automobile must pay to keep a roads in good order and safe.

Just a thought.

P.S. Thanks Lou, but keep it on the low down, I got a reputation to protect!

 

So, what you're really suggesting is a a complete nationwide gun registration law, a complete ban on private transfers of guns, a yearly tax on each firearm owned and tens of thousands of new federal bureaucrats to run and enforce the scheme? And all of this for legal gun owners?

Allow me to point something out to you. There is already a federal law whereby a felon caught in possession of a firearm gets a mandatory ten year sentence - no parole, no exceptions. Yet, across the nation hundreds of felons get picked up in possession of a gun and get off with no jail time whatsoever. Why, you may ask? Because Federal prosecutors give this such a low priority they won't bring charges. So, these people are sorted out in local courts with minimal charges because the "felon with a gun" law is a federal offense, and just like illegal alien laws the local courts can't enforce federal laws.

So, when gangbanger felon X gets picked up in Chicago with a gun, he's back out on the street in a matter of days doing more drive-by shootings with a new stolen gun.

It's become a cliche' but the truth is we don't need new laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have. If every gangbanger found with a gun on a "terry" frisk went away for ten years on a federal charge, shootings would drop dramatically.

 

It's become a cliche' but the truth is we don't need new laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have.

- A truer word never spoken.

 

Out of everything you said that makes the most sense; it's also the NRA's stance.
California, and I am sure other States do as well, has a law that prevents felons from owning guns.
You do realize that sending a person to prison for possessing a hangun, essentially "ware housing" them is not cost effective.
All in all, there are several proposed acts that make sense; California already does most of them.

The key, as I see it, is education and accountability wich will cultivate responsibility.
Criminals do not buy guns from gun stores, they steal them.
The shooting in Colorado was committed with a lawfully obtained firearm by someone without a criminal history.
The shooting in Connecticut was comitted with a a firearm that was not responsibly secured by it's owner; by someone who should not have been allowed anywhere near it.

Sometimes even responible gunowners have properly stored firearms stolen, it happens, it happened to me.

Cultivating responsibility is the key.

 

Cultivating responsibility is the key.

- But how does one go about acheiving this?

 

That's incorrect. No law ever prevented a crime. The law only allows charges to be filed after a crime is committed. If you look at the reality you'll find the local laws are very weak since they have to be written around the federal law (which isn't enforced). Even if charged under local law, they usually plea out to some misdemeanor.

Allowing them back on the street to kill again and again is very cost effective, but then you have all those murders to clean up.

The simple fact of the matter is that 90% of the murders in this country are committed by a very small demographic - felons with rap sheets as long as your arm. Allowing them to roam around armed is poor public policy.

What's really not cost effective is laws aimed at legal gun owners who after all, aren't felons and rarely commit acts of violence.

A guy like the one in Newtown may make a huge media splash, but Detroit had 411 murders last year. Chicago had 513. And the people killed were largely young people - kids more or less. But nobody cares about that because they weren't white kids and it's not worth a federal prosecutors time to start imprisoning gangbangers with guns who after all, are only killing black kids.

 

I will not debate the symantics of prevent v. prohibit in the context. A law which prohibits someone from legally purchasing a firearm will prevent firarms from being legally purchased by someone who is legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm

Here is the California Penal Code Section: 29800 PC
CA Codes (pen:29800-29825)

The actual fact of the matter is that firearms used in homocides were legally purchased at some point, and Nationwide about 50% of the handguns used in homicides were used by a person who purchased them legally. (need to find the citation)
Here is a link for a Bureau of Forensic Services booklet. The BFS is a criminalistics service for rural communities in California:
( http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_09.pdf ) ( http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_10.pdf )

That is just a silly conclusion, try and limit those in the future.....here is some other Data you might find interesting:
FBI — Expanded Homicide Data
Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:Firearmsources.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Yeah, find that citation and good luck with that.

Look at your own link at California law - most of those felons people are going to get a $1000 fine, or at most 1 year in jail.

owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control, any firearm is guilty of a public offense, which shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

It is very interesting. Look at murder by types of weapon - table 20. To pick a state, look at Illinois. 453 murders by handgun. 3 by rifle.

What do the Democrats want to ban? Was it rifles?

 

In my opinion you are half right and half wrong in this statement.

Society, any society, retains the privilege to enact new laws, or modify existing ones, to meet either unforeseen conditions or those that have gotten out of control. We don't always like them (Universal Heath care/tax is one of my pet peeves) but they are the law of the land.

You are absolutely correct that the existing laws should be enforced to their fullest extent, but therein lies a huge problem.

Law and Order, Police on the streets, Prosecutors in the courts and Prisons to hold the offenders are expensive. I respectfully offer that you cannot find any tier of Law Enforcement that will state that it is over-funded. Just the opposite.

A quick Internet search shows at least 270,000,000 privately owned firearms in the US (estimated), with another 3,951,953 in the hands of Federal/State/ Local government.[Source: GunPolicy.org]

Two quick points, the fact that we can only estimate how many privately owned firearms should be troubling enough and that we seem to have those government varmint's surrounded! (or at least outnumbered 67 to 1)

A $10.00 yearly registration fee, per privately owned firearm would generate 2.7 Billion dollars per year that could be used to put more police on the street, build more prison's, etc.

The argument will be made that my 2.7 Billion is a drop in the bucket and won't fix everything. Your probably right. So raise it to $20.00 or fix those things you can with what you got.

 

Let's tax people who don't own guns at the rate of a thousand dollars each. That would generate even more money.