Puerto Rico Bar Shooting, 7 killed 20 wounded, Despite Very Strict Gun Laws.

[GreenStormCloud]

All guns in PR have to registered.
Puerto Rico Commonwealth Law
Laws of PR Ann.
Controlled Substances Act of Puerto Rico

Title 24; Chapter 111
416. Possession of pistol or firearm without license.
Any person who has or possesses any pistol, revolver, or
other firearm without having a license therefor issued as
hereinafter provided, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, if
previously convicted of any violation of this chapter or of any
of the offenses specified in section 427 of this title, or uses
the weapon in the commission of any such offenses, shall be
guilty of a felony.

5. A record in triplicate shall be kept of each firearm sold
and of each sale of ammunition,

Yet, such laws did not stop this from happening:
-------------
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Gunmen opened fire into a bar and killed at least seven people, injuring 20 others, Puerto Rico police said Sunday.

A 9-year-old girl and a pregnant woman who lost her eight-month-old fetus after being shot were among those seriously wounded, said police Col. Jose Morales Vazquez.

At least two armed men began shooting late Saturday as they entered La Tombola bar, which had reopened that night under new ownership, Morales said. Several people who were at the bar returned fire and the shooting continued outside before the gunmen fled in a car, he said.
-------------

That was a drive-by shooting. Almost certainly the shooter were in illegal possession. The drive-by shooters were chased off by return gunfire, but that likely from illegal possession too.

[tridim]

1. Are you implying that your solution is to ease the strict gun laws?

Because if so, :crazy: :freak:.

[GreenStormCloud]

2. AK & VT states don't have that kind of problem.

Neither does WA. They have much easier gun laws than PR. The tighter laws didn't stop the drive-by shooting and the mass casualties, so obviously they didn't work.

Perhaps you may wish to try logical discussion instead of snark.

[tridim]

3. So I was correct. Thanks.

Do you think any gun restrictions are logical? Or would you be happy with everyone carrying a fully automatic weapon anywhere they want?

[GreenStormCloud]

6. The 1934 NFA is a good law.

I also like the idea of an NICS check to be able to buy a gun. I would open it up for private sales so that would close the so called gun show loophole.

I like the idea that to carry a concealed gun one must take lessons and be tested and screened, as in Texas CHL laws. I would nationalize them so that there would be a national CCW law and the possesor could carry anywhere with no restrictions, except that they must be sober while carrying.

People with carry permits should be able to open carry as well. Although I would personally continue to carry concealed.

Otherwise, I am fairly well satisfied with current Texas laws and believe that other states should emulate them.

Obviously, I would do away with the excessive restrictions that some states and cities have.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

9. My my my!

Tell me, o arbiter of 'shitholes', exactly what makes Texas one, eh?

[tridim]

12. Their gun laws for one.

[X_Digger]

15. Which ones? Having concealed carry, but not open carry?

Having one of the most stringent training requirements for getting a concealed license?

[TheWraith]

17. Texas has pretty stringent gun laws, actually.

Much more so than most smaller states.

Do you consider Vermont a "shithole?" It has the most liberal gun laws anywhere in the country, including concealed carry without need for a permit.

[Hoopla Phil]

11. God bless Texas.

A land that respects the 2A and my right to protect myself.

[JonQ]

13. I suggest you compare the violent crime rate

of texas cities to comparable sized cities in other states.

Murders per/100,000 residents:

Houston: 16
Chicago (with strict gun control laws and limited connection to mexican drug trafficking): 16
Dallas: 16
Baltimore (also strict gun laws): 45
San Antonio: 9
San francisco (peace and love capital of the US): 14
Washington DC (until recently did not recognize the 2nd at all and had some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation): 31

And just for some more comparisons:
Cities with strong gun control laws:
Philadelphia: 27
Oakland: 30
Newark: 37
Detroit: 46

[GreenStormCloud]

16. No. Texas needs to loosen the restrictions somewhat..

I would like open-carry with a permit, and for CHL permits to be able to carry anywhere.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. Are you implying that strict gun laws prevent criminals from acquiring guns?

Because if so, :crazy: :silly: :beer: :wow: :shrug: :cry: :rofl: :spray: :yoiks:

[Euromutt]

23. Perhaps the implication is that strict gun laws aren't the answer to violent crime

As I've commented elsewhere, pushing gun control as an answer to violent is mistaking a means for a cause.

[soleft]

4. And exactly how often does this happen in Puerto Rico?

[GreenStormCloud]

7. I don't know. Perhaps you could do the research and inform us.

In any case, the strict laws didn't prevent it from happening this time, did they?

[JonQ]

14. Does it matter?

A single instance of a person misusing a gun is proof positive that all guns should be banned forever.

It only seems fair that a single instance of gun-control laws failing could likewise be used to argue against the value of such laws.

[depakid]

22. That's about the stupidest statement I've run across yet- and that's saying something

considering that gun proliferaters will say almost ANYTHING to justify their obsessions and avoid responsibility for the consequences of the policies they promote.

[JonQ]

32. So you don't recognize the fact

that grabbers love to use "studies" with an N=1 to prove their claims?

Stick around and read a little and you'll see I'm right.

[petersjo02]

5. Well then, this was just your lucky day then, wasn't it?

n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. You sure seem to be happy about it.

[Hoopla Phil]

10. Good example of why strict gun control laws doesn't stop the bad guys. K&R

[paulsby]

20. the critical point people are missing

is that puerto rico is an ISLAND.

often anti-gunners, when confronted with abysmal crime stats in cities/states with strict gun laws will say that the problem is people just shoot over the city/county/state line and buy em where the laws are lax.

well... puerto rico is an ISLAND. thus, you can't do that.

and yet, it has a pretty bad crime rate, and then you have this incident.

[depakid]

21. How often do you hear of mass shootings in Puerto Rico?

Almost never.

QED.

[paulsby]

24. how often you hear about them

is a function of many things besides how often they happen.

see: media filter.

i'd love to know. i don't know, and i doubt you do either

i do know that the last time i checked, their overall homicide rate was 20 per 100k

which is very high, when compared to other US cities, let alone other US states.

and yet guns are highly regulated AND it's an island

[depakid]

25. "AND it's an island" LOL -it's in the Carribean!

Moreover, the real question is given the poverty and culture- how much worse would it be with US style gun proliferation? One shudders to think.

[paulsby]

26. poverty does not cause violent crime

and not only is that idea empirically (easily) provable as false, it is also a falsehood that demeans poor people

the issue is this

1) puerto rico has some of the strictest firearms laws in the US
2) puerto rico, UNLIKE many other strict law jurisdictions is ISOLATED from jurisdictions where gun laws are looser
3) yet it has substantial homicides compared to the national average

this offers a nice counterexample to those that make the claim about the reason why gun bans (a la DC) and/or very strict gun laws in places like chicago don't work, is because of the ease of getting guns in nearby jurisdictions that are lax

there are NO such jurisdictions near puerto rico.

hth

[depakid]

27. It's a Caribbean "nation" and there's TONS of smuggling

In other words, it leaks like a sieve- and guns are easily had, unlike islands (or nations) elsewhere- like say, Australia.

So that's a dumb argument to make.

[paulsby]

28. it is not a nation

it is part of the US, and it's an ISLAND

of course there is tons of smuggling

thank you for emphasizing my point. if people want guns, they WILL BE SMUGGLED IN regardless of THE LAW. same goes with drugs fwiw

reverse back to the gun grabber argument about if only those neighboring jurisdictions were also tough, then the gun bans would work

WRONG.

just as in puerto rico, if there is a demand for guns, there will be a supply

the argument is bogus and you help destroy it

i thank you

[depakid]

29. You know exactly what I meant

And your argument's still laughable

Other nations (which aren't traditional smuggler's paradises) and that have responsible gun laws don't have the sorts of problem that the US has- problems driven by gun proliferation- and those who promote it.

Fact is- less guns, less gun violence, and no amount of rationalization changes that.

[paulsby]

30. rubbish

you keep moving the goalposts, because you can't see the fallacies.

the neighboring jurisdiction fallacy is easily debunked by places like puerto rico

the guns cause crime fallacy is debunked by nations like switzerland

your dogs don't hunt.

you can try to massage the data all you want, but it's already left the table.
\

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. He claimed gun control in Puerto Rico worked in the other thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4109009#4110678

GreenStormCloud (485 posts) Sun Oct-18-09 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
13. The gun laws in PR are very strict.
Basically, all guns have to be registered.
All guns owners must have permits to own the guns.
Ownership is limited to two guns per licensee.
Ownership is aproximately $400 (fees, lawyer, stamps)
Membership in a target shooting club is required for all licensees.
All ammo sales recorded.


proteus_lives (1000+ posts) Sun Oct-18-09 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Works like gangbusters doesn't it?
.....Oh wait. It seems that criminals don't obey the law! We must alert the press!

depakid (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-19-09 04:53 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. As a matter of fact it does
Because unlike America- which is chalk full of random mass shootings, family killings and children getting hold of firearms (not to mention other common gun related crimes)- gangsters in countries like this tend to only shoot each other over turf and other beefs.

Less guns- more difficult to acquire- less (and different sorts) of violence. So yep- it works, even in places like Puerto Rico.

[paulsby]

64. iow, he's an intellectually dishonest gun grabber

thank you for informing me of that.

i find that many people here are, when their pet issues are challenged.

[pipoman]

31. I know others (maybe even I) have asked you before

how you explain the 30-40 year lows in firearms murder and accidental shootings we are experiencing here in the US? I mean every single day of every year there are necessarily more guns in circulation in the US. If your statement, "Fact is- less guns, less gun violence, and no amount of rationalization changes that.", were true, the current numbers couldn't possibly happen.

[JonQ]

35. Thats why you only try to find correlations

in those years when gun ownership and crime go up together.

Any other years (the majority) that show no relation, or a negative correlation can be safely tossed out of the analysis as meaningless outliers.

That's the same methodology I used to prove that I could, with 100% accuracy, predict the outcome of every coin flip.

[armueller2001]

33. "Fact is- less guns, less gun violence, and no amount of rationalization changes that."

Ahem... Switzerland

[GreenStormCloud]

34. You have your facts backwards.

Fact: Guns in circulation in America have increased every year for the past 20+ years.

Fact: Since its peak in the early 1990s, the violent crime rate has been dropping.

So we have, in America, a situation of rapidly increasing gun ownership at the same time as a major, long term drop in the crime rate. IOW - We are actually having More Guns, Less Crime.

[iverglas]

38. you just don't have any facts

Fact: Guns in circulation in America have increased every year for the past 20+ years.
So we have, in America, a situation of rapidly increasing gun ownership

See how the two are not the same thing?

More firearms per firearm owner. Not many more firearms owners. Feel free to look it up.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. I did misword that. Thanks.

So we have, in America, a situation of many more guns in circulation.

That better?

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. Puerto Rico *has* 'US style gun proliferation'. Just like DC, in fact.

and the murder rate to go with it:

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/cjis.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/index.html

The relevant numbers (as of 2008) can be found here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_05.html

[fireonthemountain]

68. I grew up in PR

Getting a gun is as easy as getting a bag of pot. In fact id say it was easier to get a gun illegaly there than here. Because they have very well known permanent open air drug spots where you can get a gun. It's as sure as a flea market and you can get anything there. In the US there are very few such places.

[GreenStormCloud]

69. Thanks for the help.

Of course, the key word is ILLEGALY. I have been there on New Year's Eve and noticed that a lot of the midnight fireworks came in evenly spaced sets of six.

Where there is a high demand, a black market will arise to supply that demand.

[iverglas]

71. marketing 101

Where there is a high demand, a black market will arise to supply that demand.

It's worth noting that where there is a potential profit to be made from a good or service, someone will make sure to create a market for it.

If 'they' gots gunz, then 'we' gotta have 'em too, eh?

Obviously there will always be "demand" for firearms among criminals. Obviously there will always be efforts to provide supply for that demand.

Seems to me that some supply-side thinking is what's needed here, and in awfully short, er, supply.

Of course, one could always throw up one's hands.

Or hey, throw all the criminals in prison.

I mean, it's not like other people will come along to fill their shoes, eh?

That's the bit that the lock-'em-up crowd never seems to want to talk about.

[GreenStormCloud]

72. Pretty hard to choke off supply. It has failed with drugs.

Drugs are a consumed item, so more have to constantly be smuggled in. Guns are extremely durable goods. I have a rifle that is older than I am, and it shoots nicely. Once a gun is smuggled in, it fills part of the demand for a veeeerrryyyy long time.

[iverglas]

73. if you say it, it will be true.

Once a gun is smuggled in, it fills part of the demand for a veeeerrryyyy long time.

Until someone gets caught with it. You do know that happens fairly regularly, in countries with functioning police services and the like. Like Canada. Just for instance.

And, of course, until the source of the supply for smuggling in is addressed. Like Canada wishes would be done in the US.

There really really is not an infinite number of sources of supply of serviceable, durable firearms. And there really really are ways of addressing major sources.

Perhaps you are someone else imagining that the ultimate outcome of measures to do that will be zero firearms circulating illegally. Kinda like the way the ultimate outcome of every other law/policy designed to curb a behaviour has been to eliminate that behaviour. Right?

If you pretend that someone is claiming to have the magic wand that will eliminate illicit trafficking in firearms firearms and eliminate unlawful possession of firearms, you're just jousting with straw.


Drugs are a consumed item, so more have to constantly be smuggled in.

Yes, I've pointed this out several brazillion times at this site -- substances are consumed and many users require a constant supply. Kinda not like guns. Making the drug/alcohol analogy kinda, well, not.

[GreenStormCloud]

74. Yep. I do say it, because I know it to be true.

After all, PR has very strict gun laws, is an island so folks can't just drive to a neighbor country, and they still have lots of guns. The getting-caught rate appears to be lower than the smuggled-in rate.

"The monkey thought it was all in fun..." I finally remembered the 3rd line of that nursery rhyme.

[iverglas]

75. yup, after all ...

After all, PR has very strict gun laws, is an island so folks can't just drive to a neighbor country, and they still have lots of guns. The getting-caught rate appears to be lower than the smuggled-in rate.

... you and everybody else can just pretend that what was said in reply to your bald assertions was never said, and you and everybody else can go on making them, post after tedious post and year after dreary year ...

[GreenStormCloud]

76. Sorry your years are dreary, Dearie.

Think happy thoughts. It helps in fighting depression.

[spin]

36. Authorities suspect this was a shootout between drug gangs...

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - Gunmen opened fire into a bar in northern Puerto Rico and killed at least seven people, injuring 20 others, police said Sunday. A prosecutor said a battle over drug traffic might have prompted the attack

***snip***

Authorities say 709 people have been reported killed this year in Puerto, 65 more than during the same period last year. Puerto Rico's police chief estimates that 70 percent of the killings are tied to drug-trafficking.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33368531/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Seventy percent of 709 homicides is 496. If drug related homicides are subtracted from the total, 213 remain.

It seems logical that every effort should be made to reduce gang violence by arresting and incarcerating gang members. It also seems logical that our war our drugs is a total failure and we could legalize certain drugs such as marijuana to reduce the profits from illegal drug trafficking.

All too often our politicians suggest more gun control laws will solve the problem of gun violence in our society. For example, many politicians suggest reinstating the assault weapons ban would help. This law when it was in effect did little to curb violence and backfired badly. The sales of evil looking semi-auto weapons increased dramatically.

"Feel good" laws rarely bother criminals as they are directed at honest citizens. It's inexpensive to pass legislation. True solutions to gang violence are very expensive.

[iverglas]

37. Puerto Rico Bar Shooting, 7 killed 20 wounded, Despite Very Strict Homicide Laws

Yeeeee eeeesh.

Three people killed in Toronto this week by a drunk driving at 200 km/h on city streets, despite very strict blood alcohol level laws and speeding laws ...

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Wow, 200+ kph. He was really moving out. What kind of car?

[Katya Mullethov]

41. 125 MPH

I bet it wasnt anything too exotic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvTggX3ADlY

[iverglas]

46. news report

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/10/19/to-crash-death.html

Police allege that Roman Luskin's BMW was travelling at about 200 kilometres per hour on Saturday night when it smashed into a Honda Odyssey van near Tobermory Drive and Finch Avenue. The force of the collision split the van in half.

Hon To, 44, her daughter Christine Taing and a third passenger were thrown from the van, and officials pronounced them dead at the scene.

To's husband, Pho Taing, and another passenger are in a Toronto hospital with serious injuries.

Luskin faces 16 charges, including criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm, impaired driving causing death and bodily harm and refusing to provide a breath sample.

Police said they've investigated Luskin for drinking and driving in the past.

Ontario, like some US states, has a stringent graduated licence program (e.g. zero blood alcohol for new drivers, time of day and passenger limits) designed to weed out drivers like this early -- not just 16-yr-olds, all new drivers. It has had a dramatic effect on crashes involving young drivers, but not this one.

Graduated licence programs, speed limits, blood alcohol limits - like firearms licensing and registration - can reduce risks. Nothing, including laws, eliminates risk.

[iverglas]

47. and while we're at the CBC

A link from the above to this report:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/10/16/ottawa-double-murder-gun-smuggled.html

Smuggled gun used in double-homicide

A gun allegedly used in two Ottawa homicides in 2007 was smuggled hundreds of kilometres from a rural corner of Maine into Canada.

The gun — a .40 calibre HiPoint semi-automatic pistol — costs less than a base-model iPod in the U.S., and was allegedly used to shoot Ziad Ahmad, 32, and Phillip Salmon, 23, at Pari's Motel in Ottawa's east end two years ago.

... Police used the gun's serial number to trace it to the Maine Military Supply store in Brewer, Maine where it was sold on June 13, 2006. Lawrence Sears, a 63-year-old with no criminal record, had purchased the gun, and seven other HiPoint pistols, the same day.

Sears was what police call a "straw purchaser" — a front man who buys guns for a smuggler. The smuggler then took the weapons across the U.S. border.

"I thought I'd get lots of money," Sears said. "I ended up getting screwed. But I had a gambling habit at the time and that's how I spent the money. I spent it all gambling."

In this case, the smuggler was Andrew Porter, a 39-year-old New Brunswick resident and property manager with an addiction to video slot machines. Porter smuggled the guns into New Brunswick, and from there they were sold to people in cities across Ontario and Quebec — many of whom were barred from buying guns on both sides of the border.

Laws - and threats of punishment - tend not to affect the behaviour of people with serious problems involving compulsive behaviours like drinking and gambling.

That's why measures that interfere in their ability to break the law / cause harm are so important.


Maine. No crime problem there. They just export it over the border.



html fixed

[GreenStormCloud]

48. The the problem with prohibition. A black market always springs up to supply the demand.

Just like in Puerto Rico.

[iverglas]

49. round and round the mulberry bush

And if Canadian smugglers couldn't get guns via straw purchasers in Maine, they'd get them from the Martians ...


Somehow, the fact that people like these HAVE to get their guns over the border, with the result that there are a whole lot fewer people like these with guns in Canada, doesn't really upset me. I'd be much happier if they could not get guns over the border, obviously, but the fact that a few of them manage to do it really doesn't persuade me that we should just offer them guns on a platter in Canada.

[GreenStormCloud]

50. the monkey chased the weasel

dum to da ta deadly dum (Or whatever the words are)
POP! Or should that be BANG? goes the weasel.

Canadians just don't have that much demand for guns. If the demand were higher, there would be much more smuggling.

[iverglas]

51. as so often happens

Canadians just don't have that much demand for guns.

I am at a loss for words.

Yup, the numbskull cokehead who tried to hold up my local 7-11 with a penknife just didn't want a gun. He much preferred to have the 7-11 clerk laugh him out of the store empty-handed ...

[GreenStormCloud]

52. You're at a loss for words?!

Color me amazed.

I'm sure you will soon find some.

[TPaine7]

53. Hmm...

Laws - and threats of punishment - tend not to affect the behaviour of people with serious problems involving compulsive behaviours like drinking and gambling.

No argument there.

That's why measures that interfere in their ability to break the law / cause harm are so important.

Hmm...

There are several ways to interfere with their ability to break the law:

1. Forbid drunkards from possessing guns
   
2. Forbid compulsive gamblers from possessing guns
   
3. Forbid anyone not employed by the government--police, soldiers, presidential security--from possessing guns
   
4. Forbid anyone who has acted as straw purchasers from possessing guns
   

It matters a lot which approach is taken. Item one makes some sense. Item two seems extreme, as the vast majority of compulsive gamblers are probably not straw purchasers. Item 3 is ridiculous and politically impossible. Item four punishes the guilty and is perfectly reasonable.

Assuming that the average American is a criminal in waiting and then treating him accordingly is never the solution. We don't assume he is a pedophile. We don't assume he is a serial killer. We don't assume he is an embezzler. We don't assume he is a tax cheat. Why should we assume he is an unconvicted and uncaught straw purchaser, or that he will become a straw purchaser if the government doesn't prevent him from becoming one?

Ban the guilty and the unfit from possessing arms and leave the innocent alone.

[iverglas]

54. and a 1, and a 2, and a 3, and a 4,

There are several ways to interfere with their ability to break the law:

1. Forbid drunkards from possessing guns
2. Forbid compulsive gamblers from possessing guns
3. Forbid anyone not employed by the government--police, soldiers, presidential security--from possessing guns
4. Forbid anyone who has acted as straw purchasers from possessing guns


I trust that was not intended to be an exhaustive list, or even a serious list.


Here are the real ways:

- require that anyone who wishes to acquire/possess a firearm obtain a licence for that purpose
- require that firearms in anyone's possession be registered
- prohibit the transfer of firearms to anyone without a licence
- prohibit the transfer of firearms without registration of the transfer


Obviously, licences would be denied to individuals known to have characteristics that make them poor risks for firearms possession, such as compulsive behaviours / addictions involving alcohol/drugs. And people with histories of violent behaviour, violating firearms laws, mental illnesses that are associated with danger to themselves or other people, and like that.

This would leave a pool of people eligible for firearms licences who would present less of a risk of using firearms for harmful/illegal purposes. You know. Like those concealed weapons permit holders in the USofA.

Those people would generally share characteristics that make it unlikely they would violate firearms laws by engaging in straw purchases and illegal transfers, if only because they have something to lose if they get caught.

And voilà. The pool of people likely to be sources of firearms for people ineligible to possess them is significantly reduced.

Not overnight, of course, when you are dealing with a population drowning in firearms already. But a journey of 1600 kilometres, and all that.


So happy to have enlightened you on this, again. If you wanted to try to remember it this time, it might help you in future.

Of course, if you really really enjoy flailing around and getting all that straw up your nose, don't let me interfere!

Let me not to the marriage of a funny mind and his straw spouse admit impediment.

[TPaine7]

55. Oh my, I left out some unconstitutional and questionable tactics

- require that anyone who wishes to acquire/possess a firearm obtain a licence for that purpose
- require that firearms in anyone's possession be registered
- prohibit the transfer of firearms to anyone without a licence
- prohibit the transfer of firearms without registration of the transfer

A license is a permission slip from the government. Keeping and bearing arms is a right. Rights do not require permission slips, not even rights that iverglas despises.

Registration has been a precursor to confiscations and other illegal activities under color of law. It is not politically feasible, nor should it be given the corrupt and criminal ways of gun control fanatics throughout American history.

Intrestingly, you are apparently less wrong than usual:

Obviously, licences would be denied to individuals known to have characteristics that make them poor risks for firearms possession, such as compulsive behaviours / addictions involving alcohol/drugs. And people with histories of violent behaviour, violating firearms laws, mental illnesses that are associated with danger to themselves or other people, and like that.

This would leave a pool of people eligible for firearms licences who would present less of a risk of using firearms for harmful/illegal purposes. You know. Like those concealed weapons permit holders in the USofA.

Those people would generally share characteristics that make it unlikely they would violate firearms laws by engaging in straw purchases and illegal transfers, if only because they have something to lose if they get caught.

The technical term for "people with histories of violent behavior" is "felons." You are correct that they should be prohibited from possessing guns, so you got that detail right. Finally.

I would guess that your getting it right is, as I noted earlier, only apparent. It is almost impossible that you, having embraced a flawed position, would then abandon it. So I expect that you will be along shortly to tell me that felons should be able to own weapons. They are, after all, the only group whose gun rights you routinely champion (excepting, of course the government's right to have their employees armed, and maybe couriers of valuable goods).

[iverglas]

56. ah, those technical terms

The technical term for "people with histories of violent behavior" is "felons."

If you live in medieval England, or some other backwater of history. I don't.

If I had meant to say "people convicted of violent indictable offences", I would have said that.


So I expect that you will be along shortly to tell me that felons should be able to own weapons.

Of course they should. Per you. Even you understand that it is, ah, technically impossible to say both

A license is a permission slip from the government. Keeping and bearing arms is a right. Rights do not require permission slips
and
The technical term for "people with histories of violent behavior" is "felons." You are correct that they should be prohibited from possessing guns, so you got that detail right.

Unless it's a Tuesday in Neverland and you are standing on your head and singing Yankee Doodle.

I don't say any of it, myself.

[TPaine7]

57. Sigh,...

I've tried to explain this to you before, many times. One among many is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x186346#186686 . I've showed you that the founding documents don't fit your definition of inalienable rights. I've explained that the founding documents get to define their own terms, and that they outrank the dictionary.

But in spite of your deep reverence for a petty DC statute--which you correctly maintain gets to redefine "machine gun" for purposes of that statute--you stubbornly deny that the Constitution gets to define the meaning of "right" as that term is used in the Constitution. You therefore maintain that the DC code is more authoritative than the Constitution--which is perfectly consistent with gun control fanaticism--that is to say, wrong.

Even you understand that it is, ah, technically impossible to say both

A license is a permission slip from the government. Keeping and bearing arms is a right. Rights do not require permission slips
and
The technical term for "people with histories of violent behavior" is "felons." You are correct that they should be prohibited from possessing guns, so you got that detail right.

They are perfectly consistent if you understand the relevant constitutional principles. Free association is also a right, but you can be deprived of that right after due process of law. Only someone totally bereft of knowledge or integrity would still maintain this falsehood.

Unless it's a Tuesday in Neverland and you are standing on your head and singing Yankee Doodle.

It is Tuesday, and I can't deny that Neverland exists in one of the universes you visit. As for your standing on your head...

...The really dumb folks look down their noses at the smart ones, blissfully unaware that they can only do so because they are standing on their heads.

Does the top of your head hurt, iverglas?

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x230951#231267

...I've known about that for some time.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

58. Your 4 suggestions would work marvelously if they were all implementable.

- require that anyone who wishes to acquire/possess a firearm obtain a license for that purpose
- require that firearms in anyone's possession be registered
- prohibit the transfer of firearms to anyone without a license
- prohibit the transfer of firearms without registration of the transfer

The first suggestion sort of diminishes gun ownership as a right and treats it as permission - however I concede that this concept would be worth trading for peace and significantly lowering gun violence. Alone this process cannot lower crime due to grey-market and black-market guns already in existence, but is critical in stemming illegal sales at the source and quick ownership eligibility identification.

The big problem is that the second suggestion is simply not practical to obtain. Primarily, gun registries don't work and there are systems in place in countries already that currently demonstrate this. They are extremely costly and have had very little, if any, return. It's hard to imagine, given other countries frustrations with much smaller registries, that a MASSIVE American registry could ever work given a reasonable budget. Even ignoring the logistical nightmare an American registry would present, the political aspects are daunting as well. The People, for the most part, have witnessed gun registries used as confiscation tools several times throughout history - even here in the US. People will remember these incidents and cite them as reasoning not to comply with any registry. With over 300,000,000 privately held firearms... even if 2 out of 3 gun owners registered their weapons (highly doubtful) there would still be enough black market guns to feed crime for decades. I'm not suggesting that registered firearms would be confiscated, as any such discussion is hypothetical, but that people's preexisting perceptions will lead to quite a few unregistered guns still floating around. And at this point one hasn't even addressed gun smuggling from S.America or other cold war stockpiles. If America can't stop pot from crossing the border, they have no chance at stopping valuable true criminal tools (guns) from crossing the border. There is simply no way to enforce a registry in a country like the US with so many preexisting guns... and no way to track/find all of them without crossing MAJOR constitutional hurdles. Political suicide in this case is an understatement... it'd be more like political genocide.

Points 3 and 4 are symbiotic, but rely on point #2 (the existence of an effective registry) to really have any effect on crime. As such, even if implemented, could never be truly effective without the registry.

[iverglas]

59. isn't it just the strangest thing?

They all been implemented in many jurisdictions around the world, so I guess that makes them, by definition, "implementable"!

The rest of the bumph is so boringly tediously repetitively bumphy that we'll just click on by now.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

60. The implementaion of a registry does not garuntee its functionality or effectiveness.

[iverglas]

62. now now; pick an argument

and try to stick with it, hm?

I agree the last one was bad. That doesn't mean you get to switch horses and set up straw targets and knock them down and pretend to have done something.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

66. How has my argument changed?

A working (effective) registry is practically unimplementable. Look at other nations' registries... operational budgets are overinflated and the results of these expensive programs has been hotly debated. For all practical purposes, the concept is failing and these registries are much smaller than a (not yet created) US registry. That's always been my position: The logistics of creating a good registry in the US would be darn near insurmountable to create.

[TPaine7]

45. *Pulls jaw up off of floor*

People violate laws? People get killed when laws are violated? People get killed when laws are violated, even when guns aren't involved?

Say it ain't so!

<whisper> Just between us, this almost seems like a point other people on this site have made. </whisper>

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. We have someone here who claims that gun control in PR both works and does not work

Depending on which thread they post in:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4109009#4110678

[Tejas]

61. Wonder if their court system is as lax as this?

A man with 18 previous arrests in Nueces County..........


http://www.caller.com/news/2009/oct/20/ccpd-man-with-18-previous-arrest-found-striking-vi/?partner=popular


Reyna, who has been convicted 13 times including 4 times for possession of marijuana,
three times for theft,
twice for driving while intoxicated
and once for assault causing bodily injury.....


-------------------------------------------------


Again (and again and again and agai.....) it's the lousy court system. Scream about making all the laws and "reasonable restrictions" you want but you will still look ignorant until you tackle the actual problem.

[iverglas]

63. well that's a weird one

it's the lousy court system.

Here I thought it was poverty, or lack of mental health care, or the war on drugs, or ... I dunno, I lose track of all the diversionary-grooming "root causes", which nobody here seems to actually give a crap about doing something about anyway.


So, Reyna, who has been convicted 13 times

including 4 times for possession of marijuana,
- and what, he should have been in prison for life?

three times for theft,
- and what, he should have been in prison for life?

twice for driving while intoxicated
- and what, he should have been in prison for life?

and once for assault causing bodily injury.....
- and what, he should have been in prison for life?


You really don't get to go 4+3+2+1 = life imprisonment. Really. Not and claim to have regard for rights. Really.

What he probably *should* have been was not out on bail for three charges of assault against a family member. I'm not averse to a little less of the bail releasing in the case of violent, firearms-related and/or organized crime/gang-related charges. That seems to be precisely when there is an elevated risk of violent offences, quite often against the witnesses to / victims of the initial offence, in cases like partner violence, or just more of the same, in the case of organized crime/gang-related offences.



garble mended

[Tejas]

65. How would Canada have handled it? - nt

[iverglas]

67. probably not a lot differently

Except that no one in Canada would ever have 4 convictions for posession of marijuana. That's just bizarro world. We really just don't have a war on pot smokers here. And I have no idea why you thought those convictions were relevant to anything.

Two drunk driving convictions, I'd have to look it up, but there might be a mandatory 30 days or some such. Certainly loss of licence for a good time -- but we all know, drunks don't care about such niceties, and repeat drunk drivers are one of the thorniest problems in the criminal justice system.

Theft is a minor criminal offence. I don't know what the circumstances of the crime were, but it's unlikely a first theft offence would get a custodial sentence here.

As I said, my main concern is that he was out on bail on three charges of assault against a family member or members. Again, I don't know the circumstances - and especially whether the fresh offence was against a family member. And whether he was released on condition of not contacting the victim(s), etc.

Basically, somebody with two drunk driving convictions is an alcoholic. And the first person to come up with a way of stopping alcoholics from causing harm will win six Nobel prizes. I'll let you know if Canada does. ;)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

70. As a general question, slightly off topic

At what point do one's numerous minor criminal offenses collude into an offense larger than any of the contributors?
Or should this never happen at all?

I ask because if a person has demonstrated, time and time again, disregard and contempt for the social contract that the law outlines, at what point do you assess the problem that seems to be, more or less, the person themselves. If it's obvious that no amount of jail or punishment will "rehabilitate" the frequent offender what is to be done about people who seem to lifetime criminals.

I do not, myself, have a solution or good answer to the question I posted.
I'm just tossing it out for discussion.