Blocking Scalise Testimony Shows Democrats' True Colors

[Cow Poke]

Blocking Scalise Testimony Shows Democrats' True Colors

[guacamole]

If enforced to the letter, for instance, the proposed law could put millions of gun owners in prison....

The last line sounds especially shrill. Is there any support for this reading? I understand that it would criminalize the vast majority of personal transfers, but that just seems like people who want to sell guns to would either do the extra paper work or "gift" them, in some way.

[Cow Poke]

If enforced to the letter, for instance, the proposed law could put millions of gun owners in prison....

The last line sounds especially shrill. Is there any support for this reading? I understand that it would criminalize the vast majority of personal transfers, but that just seems like people who want to sell guns to would either do the extra paper work or "gift" them, in some way.

I thought so, too, so I'm reading....

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...se-bill/8/text

[Cow Poke]

While I'm sure "gun control" will become the main focus, I was pointing out the fact that Scalise's testimony isn't wanted because it doesn't match the conclusion.

I'm seeing in the bill "exceptions" to the "draconian" measures listed by Cain:



From the bill....

[Cow Poke]

If enforced to the letter, for instance, the proposed law could put millions of gun owners in prison....

The last line sounds especially shrill. Is there any support for this reading? I understand that it would criminalize the vast majority of personal transfers, but that just seems like people who want to sell guns to would either do the extra paper work or "gift" them, in some way.

Here's the kicker, in my opinion (from the actual bill)....

SEC. 2. Purpose.

The purpose of this Act is to utilize the current background checks process in the United States to ensure individuals prohibited from gun possession are not able to obtain firearms.

Does anybody REALLY think that this, or any other law, will keep criminals from obtaining firearms?

[guacamole]

Here's the kicker, in my opinion (from the actual bill)....

SEC. 2. Purpose.

The purpose of this Act is to utilize the current background checks process in the United States to ensure individuals prohibited from gun possession are not able to obtain firearms.

Does anybody REALLY think that this, or any other law, will keep criminals from obtaining firearms?

It comes back to the whether or not we accept the status quo and whether or not we do something about it.

[Cow Poke]

It comes back to the whether or not we accept the status quo and whether or not we do something about it.

Well, the desire to be "doing something about it" is noble, but it actually should be something worthwhile. Rearranging the chairs on the Titanic is "doing something".

I have an idea -- how bout we more strictly enforce the gun laws we already have, and focus on the criminals instead of the legal citizens!

[guacamole]

Well, the desire to be "doing something about it" is noble, but it actually should be something worthwhile. Rearranging the chairs on the Titanic is "doing something".

I have an idea -- how bout we more strictly enforce the gun laws we already have, and focus on the criminals instead of the legal citizens!

How do we guarantee that the gun-control laws on the books are similarly effective? At some point the arguments against putting new laws in place should be the same as the arguments against the old laws--that they wouldn't and don't work.

[Cow Poke]

How do we guarantee that the gun-control laws on the books are similarly effective?

They are certainly not effective if not enforced.

At some point the arguments against putting new laws in place should be the same as the arguments against the old laws--that they wouldn't and don't work.

Lemme work on that one after lunch.

[Starlight]

Does anybody REALLY think that this, or any other law, will keep criminals from obtaining firearms?

I would have thought someone with police experience like yourself would be much less dismissive of laws as a whole. Will any laws prevent criminals from committing crimes? If criminals aren't going to obey the law, why do we bother with any laws? The answer is, of course, that most people do obey laws most of the time, and laws are worth having because they do get obeyed, and the punishments for not obeying them do act as a deterrent.

Furthermore a person who is willing to commit one type of crime is not necessarily willing to commit a different type of crime. A person willing to rob might not be willing to kill. A person who will take a criminal opportunity beneficial to them if they see one jump out at them, is not necessarily willing to go through the effort of getting a gun if the process is complex or likely to exclude them.


In my country it is pretty rare for criminals to have a gun. In the US, 67% of homicides are done with a gun, here only one in 10 are.

Here, having a gun is just a bad idea for an average criminal. There's nothing much you can beneficially do with a gun that you couldn't do with a knife (i.e. threaten people while you rob them). Having a gun illegally and using one in a criminal act is just going to achieve:
(a) an escalated police response which may endanger your life
(b) cause anyone who sees you carrying it to phone the police (I've never seen a gun in my life in a public urban setting, if I saw someone with one I'd phone the police immediately)
(c) add years to your prison sentence as gun crimes are added to your charge sheet
(d) cause a police search of your property and a confiscation of any and all firearms, and a stripping of your right to ever legally own a gun again making obtaining guns in future particularly difficult.

The risk/reward ratio works out as simply not worth it for most criminals. Part of the effectiveness of gun regulations is that they change up the cost/benefit analysis for criminals and can often move guns from the "worth using" category to the "not worth using" category if a criminal is considering a crime.

What gun usage there is in crime here is more because the people live on a property that happens to have guns already for farming usage and they get angry, not because they bought them thinking "hey this'll make a great weapon in my criminal career!" For those rare criminals that want a gun, getting one is not at all easy - my signature below links to an article about a disturbed teen here who decided to do a terrorist attack but had a problem because he lacked the means to kill enough people to be worth it - not merely could he obviously not get a gun to the point where he doesn't even seem to have bothered trying, he became dispirited when he found couldn't get any knives of any dangerous kind (knives that are double-sided with a sharp point suitable for stabbing are banned here - they're only allowed to be sharp on one edge which makes them appropriate for cutting food but not stabbing) - and in the end he gave up on the idea of his attack because he simply couldn't get the weapons for it. Hard to do a terrorist attack if you don't have weapons.

[Starlight]

In googling some stats for my previous post I came across this article from my country which has some amusing comments from a police inspector:

In his 28 years in the police [Inspector] Glossop said he had seen a variety of weapons "as wide and broad as you can imagine"...

Overall statistics showed firearms made up about 10 per cent of weapons offences, while sharp instruments; knives, glass bottles etc. accounted for 20 per cent.

Glossop said gun and knife crime had remained steady or declined across most districts, which was an encouraging trend.

But he said he was concerned about people carrying around weapons or keeping them in their car for protection - which could be an offence without a lawful excuse.

The danger, he said, was the risk of weapon escalation.

"If the baddies start thinking everybody's armed with something then they'll carry a bigger weapon and before you know it we're talking about firearms and before you know it we're going to hell in a handbasket.

Too many people think it's OK to keep possession of something that they'll carry with them to protect themselves. If everybody starts doing that then we may as well move to America."

Even dyed in the wool experienced police here think that having everyone have guns would be to go "to hell in a handbasket" and thus be like America. Horror of American gun laws and gun carnage is not some sort of pinko-commie-liberal attitude that is unique to me. People here across the board just think the US is utterly insane in its gun laws (or lack thereof).

[One Bad Pig]

Here, having a gun is just a bad idea for an average criminal. There's nothing much you can beneficially do with a gun that you couldn't do with a knife (i.e. threaten people while you rob them). Having a gun illegally and using one in a criminal act is just going to achieve:
(a) an escalated police response which may endanger your life
(b) cause anyone who sees you carrying it to phone the police (I've never seen a gun in my life in a public urban setting, if I saw someone with one I'd phone the police immediately)
(c) add years to your prison sentence as gun crimes are added to your charge sheet
(d) cause a police search of your property and a confiscation of any and all firearms, and a stripping of your right to ever legally own a gun again making obtaining guns in future particularly difficult.

The risk/reward ratio works out as simply not worth it for most criminals. Part of the effectiveness of gun regulations is that they change up the cost/benefit analysis for criminals and can often move guns from the "worth using" category to the "not worth using" category if a criminal is considering a crime.

That's actually very similar to here. Those with illegally obtained guns are rather unlikely to be openly carrying them. Contrary to your argument, however, a gun is rather a more fearsome weapon than a knife. There are many things which can be used as an impromptu shield against a knife. A gun, not so much. Heck, if you tried to rob a bank with a knife, they'd just laugh at you (and call the police anyway).

[Cow Poke]

I would have thought someone with police experience like yourself would be much less dismissive of laws as a whole.

When there are laws on the books that are not being enforced, it just doesn't make sense to pile on more useless laws.

[rogue06]

Blocking Scalise Testimony Shows Democrats' True Colors

Afraid that he would remind them and the American people that the shooter was a direct by-product of their rhetoric?

The MSM keeps wringing their hands over Trump's often incendiary speech saying that they worry that some day it might lead to violence all the while hoping people forget that the left's inciteful rhetoric has already done just that.

[Roy]

Here's the kicker, in my opinion (from the actual bill)....

SEC. 2. Purpose.

The purpose of this Act is to utilize the current background checks process in the United States to ensure individuals prohibited from gun possession are not able to obtain firearms.

Does anybody REALLY think that this, or any other law, will keep criminals from obtaining firearms?

I think it would make it harder for them to obtain firearms, and may keep some of them from obtaining firearms.

But if, as was seen yesterday, if there is no enforcement it won't do anything.