When Conservative Logic Supports a Progressive Cause: Guns & Voter ID

Screen Shot 2014-01-05 at 1.40.08 AMWhenever I try to debate gun policy with conservatives, I always hear the same arguments. The most common one is that new gun laws, such as universal background checks, only affect law-abiding gun owners. Well, it’s time to use a little conservative logic for a liberal cause. It’s time to look at this exact argument in relation to the way new voter ID laws affect law-abiding voters. Conservatives need to understand that if they want to make this argument, they need to apply it equally to voting rights. Gun violence in America is at an all time high, yet many conservatives oppose all regulations, including universal background checks. At the same time, voter fraud is at an all time low, yet these same conservatives are strong proponents of voter ID laws. If we as a country are not allowed to use legislation to attempt to solve a problem that exists (gun violence) because of concerns that even the least burdensome regulations will be too much of an encumbrance on the 2nd Amendment, then we surely should not be allowed to use voter ID legislation to combat a voter fraud problem that just doesn’t exist.

I’m sure you’ve heard this argument from someone who is a proponent of gun rights: “No matter what laws are passed regarding gun control or ownership, criminals aren’t going to abide by them. Only law-abiding gun owners will be hurt by placing restrictive rules or bans on gun ownership.” How many times have you heard someone mention Chicago? They might have said something like, “Look at Chicago, they have the strictest gun laws in the country but they also have the highest crime rate.” The funny thing is, the same conservatives who make arguments against stricter gun regulations, are the same conservatives that make arguments for stricter voter ID laws. This makes using conservative logic on gun laws to argue against voter ID laws a pretty simple task.

The Founding Fathers of this country set in place a foundation by way of our founding documents, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The United States stands on that foundation and the right to vote is equally as fundamental as the 2nd Amendment. Criminals commit crimes with guns, and criminals commit voter fraud, albeit voter fraud is committed at a much lower rate than gun crime is (even Fox News has published an article stating that voter ID laws target rarely occurring voter fraud), but we shouldn’t make reactionary laws that unnecessarily (emphasis added) infringe on any of our constitutional rights. The point is you can’t practice selective constitutional ideology. If it’s not okay to infringe on some constitutionally protected rights (gun rights; like conservatives claim) even when there is a large gun violence problem, then it’s definitely not okay to infringe on others (voting rights), when there is hardly a problem at all. The means must always justify the ends. Moreover, in my opinion, the voter ID laws that are currently being pursued have nothing to do with protecting the integrity of our elections; rather they are purposely being propagated to purge those who tend to vote for Democrats from the voter rolls. If this is not the case, then I believe the requirements I lay out in this article for providing free ID for citizens must be met before any voter ID laws can go into effect. Otherwise, these laws will only serve as cleverly veiled attempts to control who is allowed to vote in the first place, which is the most pathetic and un-American way any group could attempt to win an election.

This logically raises another argument that should also be addressed, the argument that, “if one must be an American citizen to vote and each citizen only gets one vote, then it should be alright to require a photo ID to prove that one is a citizen and is only casting one vote.” My response is that I believe this might be acceptable, depending on how it was to be implemented. The government would need to pay to provide each and every citizen a free voter photo ID card; the Constitution prohibits poll taxes so it would be unconstitutional to make anyone pay. The government would also have to make the process effortless, as not to disenfranchise anyone who was a lawful citizen. For example, take the 93 year old Vivette Applewhite, who has been alive for so long, she no longer possesses the documents she needs to get a photo ID. Without it, she would not have been able to cast a ballot in this past election, something she had been doing practically her entire life. Thankfully, a Pennsylvania court blocked the law, but for voter ID to work, we would have to ensure that people like Ms. Applewhite would not be disenfranchised. If we are unable to provide IDs in this uncomplicated manner we should not have voter ID laws.

Additionally, if we consider the costs that the government would incur to provide these IDs and to ensure all legal citizens could obtain them, as compared to the minuscule amount of voter fraud cases over the past ten years, from a utilitarian perspective, I am not sure the laws would be worth the money. Moreover, if it is acceptable to force citizens to show ID in order to exercise their constitutional voting rights, it should be acceptable to make prospective gun buyers pass a universal background check, to ensure they are not felons nor mentally unstable and to ensure that guns do not end up in the hands of criminals. If you are a law-abiding citizen who is perfectly okay with the idea of having to show ID to exercise one Constitutional right, you should be equally okay with the idea of having to pass a background check to exercise another.

Then there is the argument that you have to show ID to drink, smoke, and enter certain venues so it shouldn’t be an issue to show ID to vote. But, the thing is, there is no fundamental constitutional right to drink or to smoke. While the 9th Amendment serves not to deny rights maintained by the people, it has never been interpreted to grant a fundamental constitutional right to drink or smoke. In fact, laws regarding drinking and smoking are subject only to rational basis review (the lowest level of scrutiny under the law) as compared to freedom of speech, which is subject to strict scrutiny (the highest level of review under the law) because it is a fundamental constitutional right.

Conservatives bring up the situation in Chicago, they point out that even though Chicago has the strictest gun laws, the city still has a high crime rate. They claim that no matter what laws are passed, criminals will not abide by them. They say that law-abiding gun owners are hurt by regulations. Well the same goes for voter ID. If you are someone who believes stricter gun laws do not prevent gun violence, then what makes you think stricter voter ID laws will prevent voter fraud? By that logic, criminals would not abide by voter ID laws and the laws would only hurt law-abiding, honest voters.

Voter ID laws disenfranchise lawful voters, because these reactionary laws that some states have tried to pass (some or most of which have been struck down by courts as unconstitutional), put an increased burden on elderly and poor citizens of all races and backgrounds. Many of the law-abiding citizens, who usually only need to travel a short distance to vote, are forced to travel greater distances to obtain the proper documentation. Other people, who cannot afford a day off of work, are forced to take one, in order to obtain the proper documents. If these law-abiding citizens do not have the wherewithal to do so, they are disenfranchised; that’s just not very American.

Ilyssa Fuchs

Ilyssa Fuchs is an attorney, freelance writer, and activist from New York City, who holds both a juris doctor and a political science degree. She is the founder of the popular Facebook page Politically Preposterous and a blog of the same name. Follow Ilyssa on Twitter @IlyssaFuchs, and be sure to check out her archives on Forward Progressives as well!

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Charles Vincent

    Dear Iyssa,
    The 2002 federal Help America Vote Act
    requires any voter who registered by mail and who has not previously
    voted in a federal election to show current and valid photo
    identification or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement,
    government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the
    name and address of the voter. Voters who submitted any of these forms
    of identification during registration are exempt, as are voters entitled
    to vote by absentee ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

    The lady you use as an example probably gets SS and therefore has ID to vote. But why stop there why not include the homeless or those under 18 where do you want to draw that line for disenfranchisement at?

    Gun laws dont work the Virginia tech shooter passed the background checks that is real world empirical evidence they dont work.
    The naval yard shooter passed background checks and he shot up a naval yard yet again the checks didn’t work to stop thew shooting and again more empirical real world evidence.
    Arapahoe High school shooting shooter passed a background check after the new more strict laws were passed yet he passed the checks and shot two people before he was confronted by and armed person at the school and took his own life.
    the Aurora Shooter Passed the background checks, more empirical evidence checks dont work.

    Your theory is bunk people are disenfranchised regularly as voters and have been for a long time but I see no articles or protests for those under 18 to get the right to vote or for homeless to be able to vote, what about illegals they are disenfranchised where is your outrage for them Ilyssa?

    • Brad Rogers

      The current ones don’t work.

      • Charles Vincent

        In case you didn’t know we have Universal background checks in CO as of July 1 2013 and guess what they still didn’t work learn to read.

      • Brad Rogers

        Those are still the current ones…

      • Charles Vincent

        Umm No we had the Brady law aka the background check system from circa 1992-3, we now have Universal back ground(in effect since July 2013) check where all transactions either from a dealer(covered under the Brady bill) and all private sales and temporary transfers are now required to have a nics background check performed at the cost of 25 dollars. So yes they are the new more strict laws and not they did not work period. Learn to read and then bone up on the laws concerning gun control. Secondly Gun laws do not prevent crime they never have and never will.

    • Dennis McBreen

      A Social Security card is not a picture ID in fact it states right on it “Not for identification purposes” When I got mine when I was kid in the 60’s I showed no ID at all I just filled out a form at the bank. My parents were born at home and never had a birth certificate. Many women of my mothers generation never drove so they never had a automobile license. There has to be regulation in place to assure only those eligible can vote and only legal votes be counted. But the current republican voter ID laws real purpose is to prohibit voting by democrats.
      The claim that gun laws don’t work is bunk. All data shows states with tighter gun laws have fewer gun deaths.

      You can always cherry pick examples but federal background checks have stopped 2 million criminals from getting guns, who know how much mayhem was prevented. In Colorado 72 criminals would be walking around with a gun right now if not for the new law. That is not a good thing?
      The claim that gun laws don’t work is bunk. All data shows states with tighter gun laws have fewer gun deaths. The laws that don’t work are in the states with lax trafficking laws and no background checks
      It’s easy to see why the pro gun lobby wants pro-criminal laws. Despite their bombast about liberty and patriotism, They are gun manufacturers trade groups trying to sell product. Illegal sales are still sales—the criminal market represents 25 percent of all gun sales each year and the NSSF and NRA does everything they can to protect this shadow market. It then doubles and triples legal sales by yelling “the criminals have guns”–in a mendacious business plan that plays the two sides against each other.”
      The real purpose of universal background checks is keep guns off the black market. Every gun was legal before it became illegal.
      There are many laws that prohibit the criminal to have guns. But the laws that prevent a law biding person to buy a gun then sell them on the black market are lax. It can be done with little risk and for great profit. The result is guns are exported from states with lax laws into the states where laws are strict. In 2009, just ten states supplied nearly half – 49% – of the guns that crossed state lines before being recovered in crimes. Together these states accounted for nearly 21,000 interstate crime guns recovered in 2009. When controlling for population, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alaska, Alabama, South Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, and Georgia export crime guns at the highest rates. These states export crime guns at more than seven times the rate of the ten states with the lowest crime gun export rates.

      In some states the laws are so lax that it is perfectly legal if you can pass a federal background to buy as many guns as you wish and sell anybody with no background check required while not breaking a single law. The problem with the current law is clear: although it is illegal for a person who is a felon or has been committed to a mental health facility to purchase a firearm, it is only illegal to sell a firearm to that person if the seller is aware that they are a felon or have been institutionalized (it’s very hard to prove what a person does or not know and they can always say “I forgot”). While a private seller can sometimes request a background check, there is little incentive to do so – because there is no penalty for unknowingly selling a firearm to someone who is legally prohibited from possessing one. Granted the person buying the gun maybe breaking laws in in his state but the person who sold it is still a “law biding citizen”. The transactions can be completed anonymously and leave no paper trail. That gun has now slipped into the realm of the black market.
      What I don’t understand is why a law abiding gun owner would be against changing laws to close loop holes that allow the unscrupulous to be immune from laws that the law abiding obey.
      It is often said only the law abiding obey the laws. But when it comes to gun laws, while the law abiding are having their guns checked at a FFL, The unscrupulous and criminal have loop holes big enough to drive truckloads of Smith and Wesson’s thru.

      • Charles Vincent

        Your gun control argument fails according to the Obama CDC requested study, the Harvard study and this most recent study;
        http://foxnewsinsider DOT com/2014/01/06/new-gun-control-study-murder-rates-higher-states-restrictive-concealed-carry-laws

        “You can always cherry pick examples but federal background checks have stopped 2 million criminals from getting guns, who know how much mayhem was prevented. In Colorado 72 criminals would be walking around with a
        gun right now if not for the new law. That is not a good thing?”

        How many of those denials were false positives., And where is your source material for your numbers. I use the FBI violent crime statistics which are used by all there of the studies I mentioned.
        You sir are daft criminals by definition do not follow laws they dont need loop holes your argument here is a false premise

        and you still cant explain away these;
        “Virginia tech shooter passed the background checks that is real world empirical evidence they dont work.
        The naval yard shooter passed background checks and even more thorough government military checks he and he still shot up a naval yard.
        yet again the checks didn’t work to stop thew shooting and again more empirical real world evidence.
        Arapahoe High school shooting shooter passed a background check after the new more strict laws were passed yet he passed the checks and shot two people before he was confronted by and armed person at the school and took his own life.
        The Aurora Shooter Passed the background checks, more empirical evidence checks dont work.

        As far as the types of ID needed to register to vote the federal law is pretty clear there are more than a few so pipe down, and answer the questions I posed that you seem to be avoiding.

      • Dennis McBreen

        The CDC report is called Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence and it lists past studies on both sides of the gun control issue. The pro gun people have been cherry picking quotes out of context from it, and claiming that they are the conclusions of the study.

        That study is a report on what The CDC should cover in the gun studies order by Obama. It reach no conclusions and doesn’t expect any for 3 to 5 years.

        What is being touted as a “Harvard Study”, is not a research study done by Harvard University. It is an article (if you read it you see the authors themselves call it an article) that was published in 2007 in The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy which is published by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., an organization of Harvard Law School students. Neither author has any affiliation with Harvard, whatsoever. It was not peer reviewed, and they are pro-gun ideologues, neither of whom have ever published a peer reviewed study on the effect of guns.
        Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser try to disprove what study after study has shown, that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns mean fewer deaths. They attempt to do so by cherry-picking and conflating data out of context then adding some falsehoods.
        Calling their article pseudoscience would be a generous description

        The REAL HARVARD School of Public Health, Harvard Injury Control Research Center has numerous peer reviewed academic studies published in a variety of professional Journals contradicting most all of the conclusions Kates, Mauser, Lott, Kopel et al present as facts.
        http://www DOT hsph.harvard DOT edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

        The abstract of this new study you cited uses the words “the results of the present study suggest” and “These results suggest ” Suggestion is not conclusion. The abstract goes on to say “The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).”
        The Lott and Mustard study has since been debunked by many researchers. So the best study can say is it reach the same results that have long been discredited.
        In the Fox news interview study author Mark Gius admits the results of his study has conditional conclusions and the are other factors that affect his results and more research is needed.

        The numbers I used are from Bureau of Justice
        Background Checks for Firearms Transfers, 2009
        and the Colorado Department of Public Safety
        The data shows out of 107,845,000 applications there were 1,925,000 denied of which 248,317
        were appealed and out of that 94,882 were reversed that works out to be 0.08% of backgrounds checks are false positives.

        Finding three examples out 108 million is hardly empirical evidence checks don’t work.
        In fact the examples you cited illustrate the weakness in the law concerning mental health issues. Some of those issues were addressed in the Manchin-Toomey amendment but that law was blocked by the pro gun lobby.

        On the ID it isn’t the federal requirements at issue but the requirement being put in place at the state level

      • Charles Vincent

        “Finding three examples out 108 million is hardly empirical evidence checks don’t work.”

        Every publicized mass shooter pass background checks;

        http://www DOT sfgate DOT com/crime/article/Mass-killers-often-pass-background-check-4208675 DOT php
        The studies seem to conclude that its not guns that are the problem its people that are the problem guns are just a better tool. The genie is out of the bottle and no matter how hard you try or what laws you pass you are not going to get the genie back in the bottle. Making gun laws is akin to a doctor treating the symptom rather than the disease. secondly there is no basis for a group of people to infringe on an individual right to self defense(OR ANY INDIVIDUAL RIGHT) ever because people commit criminal acts. True laws are and should always be a negative concept in that they should only be felt by people that break them, Gun laws are a positive law in that they effect every one not just people who break them. Murder is against the law but it is a good example of the negative concept I have of law in that it effects no one until one individual murders another individual. I read about this concept in Frederic Bastiat’s work The Law.

      • Dennis M

        The SFagte acticle said the same thing I said about weakness in the law concerning mental health issues.
        The case you are making is not background laws don’t work but rather the laws are too weak.
        Of course all these mass shooters pass background checks or find a way around the system. Any person who fails a background check and doesn’t circumvent the system doesn’t become a mass shooter, because they don’t get a gun.
        But just because a background check didn’t prevent pass tragedy, that doesn’t mean a background check won’t prevent a future one. No one is saying that universal background checks are going to stop all shootings or even most shootings. But they could make a difference on the margin. Given that both the compliance costs and infringement on freedom are tiny, that marginal difference is worth it.
        As far as the genie being out of the bottle that was addressed in DC v Heller
        “Finally, consider the claim of respondent’s amici that handgun bans cannot work; there are simply too many illegal guns already in existence for a ban on legal guns to make a difference. In a word, they claim that, given the urban sea of pre-existing legal guns, criminals can readily find arms regardless. Nonetheless, a legislature might respond, we want to make an effort to try to dry up that urban sea, drop by drop. And none of the studies can show that effort is not worthwhile.

        In a word, the studies to which respondent’s amici point raise policy-related questions. They succeed in proving that the District’s predictive judgments are controversial. But they do not by themselves show that those judgments are incorrect; nor do they demonstrate a consensus, academic or otherwise, supporting that conclusion.”
        Saying criminals do not obey laws is a flawed argument. It could be used to dismiss the utility of virtually any law because criminals will disobey it. The illogical exemption of private gun sales from background checks is the very reason that criminals don’t currently have to obey existing background check laws.

        State laws prohibiting high-risk groups — perpetrators of domestic violence, violent misdemeanants and the severely mentally ill — from possessing firearms have been shown to reduce violence. Studies found that a number of state laws prohibiting individuals under a domestic violence restraining order from owning guns produced an reduction in intimate partner homicides.

        Meanwhile, research has shown that state universal background checks — along with other state laws designed to increase gun seller and purchaser accountability — significantly reduce the number of guns diverted to the illegal market, where the above high risk groups often get their guns.

        At the same time, the success of these state gun laws in reducing the diversion of guns to criminals is undermined by gaps in federal laws which facilitate interstate gun trafficking from states with the weakest gun laws to those with the strongest gun laws. States without universal background check laws had 30 percent higher levels of exporting across state lines guns that were later recovered from criminals. Failure to require background checks for firearms sales by private gun owners is associated with significantly higher levels of guns diverted to criminals both in-state and out of state.
        Tightening background checks and trafficking laws are laws the treat the disease and not the symptom, as are meant to keep guns away from criminals . These are laws that would have no effect on the law abiding as they already undergo checks and only buy legal guns.
        It is often said only the law abiding obey the laws. But when it comes to gun laws, while the law abiding are having their guns checked at a FFL, The unscrupulous and criminal have loop holes big enough to drive truckloads of Smith and Wesson’s thru.
        There are many laws that prohibit the criminal to have guns. But the laws that prevent a law biding person to buy a gun then sell them on the black market are lax. It can be done with little risk and for great profit.

      • Charles Vincent

        “But just because a background check didn’t prevent pass tragedy, that
        doesn’t mean a background check won’t prevent a future one. No one is saying that universal background checks are going to stop all shootings or even most shootings.”

        Then instead of making new laws fix the existing ones. UNiversal Background checks according to the DOJ will only work if there is mandatory firearms registration, something that’s Illegal under federal law(Firearms owners protection act)

        “Finally, consider the claim of respondent’s amici that handgun bans cannot work; there are simply too many illegal guns already in existence for a ban on legal guns to make a difference. In a word, they claim that, given the urban sea of pre-existing legal guns, criminals can readily find arms regardless.”

        Then why keep trying to ban whole classes of guns(like the 1994 AWB)? And why ban machine guns they are useful military/militia weapons.

        “As far as the genie being out of the bottle that was addressed in DC v Heller”

        Heller did not address that it addressed the question about firearms use/ownership being and individual right unconnected to militia or service in a militia(See lord Blackstone’s writings on the natural right of self defense).

        “Saying criminals do not obey laws is a flawed argument. It could be used to dismiss the utility of virtually any law because criminals will disobey it.”

        Reread my comment criminal do not obey laws its a fact criminals murder and steal and rape, the difference is law is a negative concept(Bastiat the law) and laws should only have an effect if they are broken by said criminals. Gun laws effect people that are neither inclined to or have ever broken the law and they don’t effect the criminal element of society ever. In Great Britain they banned all firearms and criminals still have them. The CDC report concluded that there is no evidence that more strict gun laws have an effect on gun crimes.

        “State laws prohibiting high-risk groups — perpetrators of domestic violence, violent misdemeanants and the severely mentally ill — from possessing firearms have been shown to reduce violence.”

        the virginia tech shooter had mental issues and still passed a background check. James Holmes was seeing a Psychiatrist and still passed a check.

        The Navy yard shooter passed not only a background check but he passed government checks for top secret clearance and his superiors were warned that he was having violent behavior and he still had a gun and still shot people.
        http://www DOT bing DOT com/search?q=navy+yard+shooter+mental+illness&form=U147DD&pc=U147D

        The kid that shot up Arapahoe HS passed a check despite Colorado having Universal background checks you say work and he still got a gun and still perpetrated a violent crime.

        “Failure to require background checks for firearms sales by private gun owners is associated with significantly higher levels of guns diverted to criminals both in-state and out of state.”

        Two problems here states cant regulate private sale of firearms as they do not fall under the ICC. And those mass shooters passed an FFL NICS background check period new laws wouldn’t have prevented them from buying guns. Criminals will steal guns before they buy them and if they buy them they buy them from another criminal that stole them not from a private gun owner or gun show and you cannot prove different.

        “At the same time, the success of these state gun laws in reducing the diversion of guns to criminals is undermined by gaps in federal laws which facilitate interstate gun trafficking from states with the weakest gun laws to those with the strongest gun laws. States without universal background check laws had 30 percent higher levels of exporting across state lines guns that were later recovered from criminals.”

        Where are your sources?

        “There are many laws that prohibit the criminal to have guns. But the laws that prevent a law biding person to buy a gun then sell them on the black market are lax. It can be done with little risk and for great profit.”
        Skip to 2:50 where he is talking to criminal;
        http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=682JLrsUmEM

      • Dennis M

        I addressed in a previous post there is no CDC study that says gun laws have no effect.

      • Roger Goodman

        Yes there is.

        http://www.cdc.Gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

        Also a study proving that the Brady Bill had no effect.

        http://www.guncite.Com/JAMABradysurvey.pdf

        Finally a recent study that proves the AWB had no effect again and that states with shall-issue CCL had lower firearm murder rates

        http://www.tandfonline.Com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294#.UsblyNK1y-2

      • Dennis M

        The CDC report you cite summery states

        “The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.”

        One of the JAMA conclusions is

        “the pattern of imple- mentation of the Brady Act does not permit a reliable analysis of a potential effect of reductions in the flow of guns from treatment-state gun dealers into secondary markets. ”

        The abstract of the tandfonline study you cited uses the words “the results of the present study suggest” and “These results suggest ” Suggestion is not conclusion. The abstract goes on to say “The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).”
        The Lott and Mustard study has since been debunked by many researchers. So the best the study can say is it reach the same results that have long been discredited.
        On a Fox news interview study author Mark Gius admits the results of his study has conditional conclusions and the are other factors that affect his results and more research is needed.

        Study after study have shown states with strict gun laws have lower gun deaths than states with lax laws.

      • Charles Vincent

        “The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws”

        This statement means they could find no evidence that the laws reduced gun crime period.

        “Study after study have shown states with strict gun laws have lower gun deaths than states with lax laws.”

        Please explain Utah, Wyoming, and other states with less than 1 death per 100k population due to fire arms.

        www DOT theguardian DOT com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

      • Dennis M

        The Guardian article is only counting homicide. When you look at total gun deaths, Utah comes in at number 15 and Wyoming comes in at number 5
        http://kffDOTorg/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/
        A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually.
        http://archinteDOTjamanetworkDOTcom/article.aspx?articleid=1661390

      • Charles Vincent

        “Universal background checks are a fix to existing law”
        “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation,” according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration.”

        FOPA bans gun registrations.

        “There are no laws blocking registration on the state level,”

        Reread FOPA it blocks registration on federal state and local levels ” or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established”

        And your assertion that gun crime comes from guns transported across state lines is false;

        “contrary to the conventional wisdom that crime guns were being trafficked across state borders from places with less stringent regulations, such as Arizona and Nevada, we found that a majority of the guns used in crimes were purchased in Los Angeles County.”

        Source;
        http://www DOT fromthetrenchesworldreport DOT com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/nij-gun-policy-memo DOT pdf

        Page 5 highlighted in yellow.

      • Dennis M

        Six states and the District of Columbia require registration of some or all firearms. Hawaii and the District of Columbia require the registration of all firearms, and New York requires the registration of all handguns through its licensing law. Hawaii, New York and four other states also have a registration system for certain highly dangerous firearms, such as assault weapons. These states generally ban such firearms, but allow the continued possession of grandfathered weapons if they were owned before the ban was adopted and are registered.
        http://smartgunlawsDOTorg/category/state-retention-of-gun-records/
        The Rand study you cite covers gun in Los Angeles and one state. Interstate gun trafficking is much more complex and in it conculions on page 51 it reads “The nature of illegal gun markets varies across states and metropolitan areas, and, as such, other local law-enforcement agencies partnered with ATF field divisions will want to tailor these indicators appropriately.”

        “• In 2007, just ten states supplied more than half of the guns that crossed state lines before being recovered in crimes.

        • The ten states that supply crime guns at the highest rates do so at roughly 17 times the rate of the ten states with the lowest crime gun export rates.”
        The Rand study you cite covers gun in Los Angeles and one state. Interstate gun trafficking is much more complex and in it conculions on page 51 it reads “The nature of illegal gun markets varies across states and metropolitan areas, and, as such, other local law-enforcement agencies partnered with ATF field divisions will want to tailor these indicators appropriately.”

        “• In 2007, just ten states supplied more than half of the guns that crossed state lines before being recovered in crimes.

        • The ten states that supply crime guns at the highest rates do so at roughly 17 times the rate of the ten states with the lowest crime gun export rates.”
        http://www.mayorsagainstillegalgunsDOTorg/downloads/pdf/trace_report_final.pdf

      • Charles Vincent

        http://www.mayorsagainstillegalgunsDOTorg/downloads/pdf/trace_report_final.pdf

        This really disqualifies your whole argument I do not believe they are a credible source for any thing. they will lie and manipulate base statistics to make their argument look plausible and that is the definition of sophistry.

        “Six states and the District of Columbia require registration of some or all firearms. Hawaii and the District of Columbia require the registration of all firearms, and New York requires the registration of all handguns through its licensing law. Hawaii, New York and four other states also have a registration system”

        These states are in violation of federal law.

        “The Act also forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (http://www DOT law DOT cornell DOT edu/uscode/text/18/926) being:
        No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.”

        In fact one of the few reputable links you posted confirms this fact.(the CDC one I believe)

        “such as assault weapons.”

        Inanimate object do not commit assault people do this is proven in that it is people who sit in the defendants chair when they assault someone not the weapon they used.

        “The Rand study”
        It wasn’t a rand study it was an NIJ study(says so right in the header) and the conclusion was that weapon are far less likely to travel that you claimed.

      • Dennis M

        You can shoot the messenger but Mayor against guns reports are footnoted with solid sources. probably better sourced than a video from Stefan Molyneux.
        Call the FBI and arrest those states.The fact is in Six states and the District of Columbia registration of some or all firearms is require. Here’s the break down of laws in those states.

        http://smartgunlawsDOTorg/registration-of-firearms-policy-summary/
        I clicked the on the link that was in your From the Trenches World Report it brought me here

        http://wwwDOTrandDOTorg/pubs/technical_reports/TR512.html

        It says “In 2001, with the support of a grant from the National Institute of Justice, RAND initiated a research and program-development effort to understand the nature of illegal gun markets operating in the city of Los Angeles, California”

        Again this was a study about Los Angeles, California not the United States as whole.

        as much as you don’t like Mayors aginst guns their data is sourced by ATF, CDC and many others

        http://wwwDOTmayorsagainstillegalgunsDOTorg/downloads/pdf/trace_the_guns_report.pdf

        BTW the NIJ study is often cited by pro gun controllers to show most illegal gun come from the black market and not stolen from private owners. From the Trenches World Report took one paragraph out of context to make an invalid point.

        Calling a gun an inanimate object is a canard. The first assertion of gun advocates is that we cannot blame the gun. The cornerstone of the pro-gun position is reduced to seven vexing words “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” This phrase, as obvious as it is useless in solving the problem, casually overlooks the fact that no one is blaming the gun, only what the gun enables someone to do. Gun rights advocates constantly make the fallacious leap from claiming the gun is not solely responsible to pretending the gun plays no role at all. They similarly assume the false premise that a device should be free from regulation simply because it lacks a pulse.
        In the alternative world where guns are faultless, gun rights advocates attempt to peddle an absurd false equivalence between guns and other objects. The mere mention of gun control invites a host of derisive quips about how liberals will next want to ban cars, cooking knives or any household item that might be involved in a fatality. Even the language surrounding firearms is now sanitized, referring to guns as tools instead of weapons. We are meant to believe there is no difference between a hammer and a device that can, with minimal effort, continuously hurl steel slugs through a human skull with stunning accuracy from great distances. This raises the obvious question, if there’s nothing unique about a gun, why is the right to own one so important? Why not defend your home with a hammer or kitchen knife?

      • Charles Vincent

        “probably better sourced than a video from Stefan Molyneux.”

        Did you check the sources he listed? My guess is no judging from your comment.

        “The cornerstone of the pro-gun position is reduced to seven vexing words “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” This phrase, as obvious as it is useless in solving the problem, casually overlooks the fact that no one is blaming the gun, only what the gun enables someone to do.”

        Knives and clubs and hand and fists kill people and have killed far more people than guns over the history of mankind we aren’t banning them grow up banning a weapon because people use it to kill is absurd gun laws are in essence telling people who did nothing wrong that their rights depend on the actions of a few criminals.

        This raises the obvious question, if there’s nothing unique about a gun, why is the right to own one so important? Why not defend your home with a hammer or kitchen knife?

        This is a great premise until the guy breaking in has a gun. also I said this be fore the gun is a better tool.

        ” The mere mention of gun control invites a host of derisive quips about how liberals will next want to ban cars, cooking knives or any household item that might be involved in a fatality.”
        Is that why Bloomberg and the Nanny staters have banned Fountain drink sizes in NY to 16oz by law your assertion fails they will take and take and take as long as we give them an inch just like they spend and spend and spend and now we have a 17 trillion dollar debt and growing.

      • Roger Goodman

        >”The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.”

        Meaning that nothing was found to indicate effectiveness of the laws. Thus it proves my point. The 2004 national academy of sciences also found no gun control law in the US that has reduced crime, homicides or suicides.

        “the pattern of imple- mentation of the Brady Act does not permit a reliable analysis of a potential effect of reductions in the flow of guns from treatment-state gun dealers into secondary markets. ”

        Again, irrelevant. If you look at states like California, the vast majority of guns used in the commission of a crime in California originate FROM California. Not Nevada, Arizona, or Texas.

        http://www.atf.Gov/files/statistics/download/trace-data/2011/2011-trace-data-california.pdf

        Page 7.

        “The Lott and Mustard study has since been debunked by many researchers. So the best the study can say is it reach the same results that have long been discredited. On a Fox news interview study author Mark Gius admits the results of his study has conditional conclusions and the are other factors that affect his results and more research is needed.”

        First off Gius controlled for many factors in his study, factors such as age, demographics, income, poverty, etc, etc. He still found zero correlation with gun ownership and homicides. He also found that the AWB had no effect. The DOJ study found the same thing.

        I love how you claim that Lott and Mustard study has been “debunked” yet you turn around and link to studies by Kellermann which have also been debunked.

        http://hsx.sagepub.Com/content/5/1/64.abstract

        http://guncite.Com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

        “Study after study have shown states with strict gun laws have lower gun deaths than states with lax laws.”

        Notice how your shifting the goal posts to “gun deaths”. I was originally discussing homicides.

        I do not care about gun deaths, yes you will have less gun deaths if you have less gun ownership. Precisely the same as saying less pool ownership would correlate less drowning deaths, less cars would equate to less car accidents, etc.

        The only relevant question here is if more countries or states with higher gun ownership have more homicides and whatnot.

        https://www.ncjrs.Gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=191355

        ” No significant correlations with total suicide or homicide rates were found, leaving open the issue of possible substitution effects.”

        There you have it. Gun control in Canada and New Zealand also did not reduce overall suicides, yes gun suicides dropped however hangings rose. Thus the overall rates did not change significantly.

        Homicides ROSE in the UK after the handgun ban, again proving my point.

        Do states with more gun ownership have higher homicide rates?

        http://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

        Only ONE states in the top 10 US states with the lowest homicide rate has strict gun control and low gun ownership. That is Hawaii.

        Friend, I am Canadian and I know how strict gun control plays out. It didn’t do a damned thing in my country as well:

        http://jiv.sagepub.Com/content/27/12/2303.short

        In fact we got rid of our gun registry back in 2012 and homicides dropped to a RECORD LOW.

      • Charles Vincent

        Those were the studies I have been looking for thanks for posting them.

      • Dennis M

        To say most criminal guns are stolen ignores the huge black market that exists in this country.

        In some states the laws are so lax that it is perfectly legal if you can pass a federal background to buy as many guns as you wish and sell or ship them to anybody anywhere with no background check required while not breaking a single law. The problem with the current law is clear: although it is illegal for a person who is a felon or has been committed to a mental health facility to purchase a firearm, it is only illegal to sell a firearm to that person if the seller is aware that they are a felon or have been institutionalized. While a private seller can sometimes request a background check, there is little incentive to do so – because there is no penalty for unknowingly selling a firearm to someone who is legally prohibited from possessing one. Granted the person buying the gun maybe breaking laws in in his state but the person who sold it is still a “law biding citizen”. The transactions can be completed anonymously and leave no paper trail.That gun has now slipped into the realm of the black market.

        Technically straw gun purchases are not illegal, it’s illegal to lie on the paperwork needed purchase a gun. It is also very hard to prove. All the buyer has to say is”When I filled out the paperwork I really was buying the gun for myself,but after I got the gun I didn’t like it so I sold it”

        There are Bills in Congress that would move straw purchases from essentially a paperwork violation – lying on a form – to a federal felony that’s more likely to be prosecuted and carries a heavy penalty. But those bills are being blocked by pro gun groups like NSSF and The NRA.

        The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), they are a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen. FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.

        Over-the-counter purchases are not the only means by which guns reach the illegal market from FFLs, thousands of guns have been reported lost, missing or stolen from FFLs.The “What, me worry?” gun dealer, who supplies multiple murderers with guns he claims were “stolen” from his inventory, guns he never recorded on his books, or guns he sold to straw buyers with a wink and a nod, can operate with virtual impunity, thanks to laws written by the NRA.

        One of these, passed in 1986, drastically reduced penalties for dealers who violate record-keeping laws, making violations misdemeanors rather than felonies. Another established an absurdly high standard of proof to convict dealers who sell to criminals. In 2003, Congress, at the NRA’s urging, barred the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the much-maligned agency responsible for enforcing federal gun laws, from forcing dealers to conduct inventory inspections that would detect lost and stolen guns. Car dealers like to know when inventory goes missing. Gun dealers? Not so curious.

        It is at this point the individual criminals buy all these diverted guns from unlicensed street dealers who got their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, and straw purchases.Google pbs frontline how criminals get guns

        My source for interstate gun trafficing this site is heavily footnoted with solid resources

        Google mayors against illegal guns trace the guns PFD

        Finaly your video of a thug in prison bragging to a reporter is hardly empirical evidence.

      • Charles Vincent

        “But just because a background check didn’t prevent pass tragedy, that doesn’t mean a background check won’t prevent a future one.”

        The shooting at Arapahoe high school in Colorado says different as it happened 5 months after the UBC laws went into effect in Colorado.

        “State laws prohibiting high-risk groups — perpetrators of domestic violence, violent misdemeanants and the severely mentally ill —”

        http://www DOT nytimes DOT com/2012/12/18/health/a-misguided-focus-on-mental-illness-in-gun-control-debate.html?_r=0

      • Dennis M

        Read the last line in the NYTimes
        “But the sad and frightening truth is that the vast majority of homicides are carried out by outwardly normal people in the grip of all too ordinary human aggression to whom we provide nearly unfettered access to deadly force.”
        Background check have stopped 2 million people who shouldn’t have a gun from getting you can not say they don’t work

      • Charles Vincent

        Yep and the conclusion here is even psychologists can not accurately predict who might be a danger.
        “2 million”
        This number is bogus;
        http://www DOT washingtonpost DOT com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-the-brady-law-prevented-15-million-people-from-buying-a-firearm/2013/01/23/77a8c1d4-65b4-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_blog DOT html

  • Jim Bean

    The solution from a person with two degrees was to make my comment disappear? Really, Alyssa? Then you better work the same magic on Charles Vincent quickly because he’s read your piece with a critical eye as well.

    • Charles Vincent

      did you have links in your comment?
      IF so they delete them they do not allow links.
      if you want links in your posts you have to do this;
      http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=uYU58pV4g3s

      • Jim Bean

        Thanks. U da man!

  • FD Brian

    One question to ask any second amendment advocate: Do you think the general public should have access to grenade launchers and surface to air missiles? They will most like say “No”. Then come back and say “well how can I properly defend myself against a tyrannical government if I don’t have these weapons. And then say, so you DO believe in regulating the access to arms, now we are just arguing over to where to draw the line in the sand.

    • Jim Bean

      You should be embarrassed to ask because you should have known. Aspiring home invader/burglars don’t skip over only the homes known to have the biggest arsenal of self defense weapons. He skips over any homes known to contain any weapon just large enough to kill him. The weapons possessed by the US and Russian militaries were wildly superior to those possessed by the Afghanistan and Iraqi inhabitants but in the end, it was the latter who were victorious. Most of the wrongs deterred by guns are not deterred by killing the wrong doer. They are deterred by their discouraging the would-be wrong doer from doing the wrong because he fears their presence (any gun) may result in him being killed. How thoroughly he is killed is not a consideration.

      • Earle Crosswait

        You should be embarrassed to ever suggest that gun ownership deters criminals because you should know that about 80% of all in-home gun homicides are committed by a family member or friend that did not break into the house. You might also be aware that over 1/4 of a million guns are stolen from homes every year. That means, for every 2 minutes, a legally purchased gun is put directly in the hands of a criminal.
        No criminal fears a gun in an empty house.

      • Grazel

        Also a lot of the anti-gun control people have resisted the attempts to list gun ownership/carry permits (in places where they are considered public records) because they fear that will make their houses targets for criminals who want their guns. If they truly believed gun ownership deters criminal activity then they should want that information out there, otherwise how will the criminals know they have a gun in their house to protect it.

      • Jim Bean

        Its not because they fear traditional criminals who want to steal their guns. Its because they fear aspiring criminals like you who want to weasel a way to force them to forfeit their guns.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And why do you think we want them to give up their guns? That is such a bogus argument.

      • Jim Bean

        (Oh, brother) Criminals who break into a home where there is no gun never get shot. Criminals don’t get shot breaking into a home where they know there is an armed person, because they skip that home and look for another. Google ‘criminals fear armed citizens.’ Select whatever source you trust and study until you see where you went wrong.

      • BlackKingHFC

        Jim Bean, only a page and a half of “relevant” results for “criminals fear armed citizens” after that they started dropping words. Of that page and a half none are independent unbiased pages. All of them are right leaning articles written or sponsored gun advocate groups. In other words, “Criminals fear armed citizens” is nothing but propaganda.

      • Charles Vincent

        Skip to 2:52 in the video;
        http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=682JLrsUmEM

        Criminals want a soft target pal.

      • Jim Bean

        Well, I admire your willingness to look. Its not the kind of subject that a left leaning entity would look at or report on in an unbiased way because they are biased as well. The Wright/Rossi survey done by the University of Massachusetts commissioned by the US Justice Department may be most technically reliable. In the larger picture, I suppose the most compelling argument against more gun control is that after being tried countless times, not a single bit of evidence ever emerged indicating that it helped reduce violent crime in this country and that all reliable statistics point to a phenomenon where violent crime occurs most where gun control laws are the tightest. These too, are statistics the Left leaning outlets keep under tight wraps.

      • Earle Crosswait

        Gun control efforts in this country have all been locally enacted ( a city or county). This is obviously ineffective because anyone can drive over to the next town, county, or even the next state and buy one readily. Therefore the only way to measure it’s effect is if a gun law is applied nationally. National efforts have been effective in other developed nations.
        However, even more than gun restrictions, we need to address our culture that revels in graphic, emotion-numbing violence which teaches our young males to be aggressive and apathetic. Gun advocates love to use Sweden as an example because they have a high rate of gun ownership (due to national militia) but a very low rate of homicides and violent crime. However, Swedes also have grand social programs, lower poverty, lower crime across the board, and strict regulations on graphic violence in media.
        It is time for us to do SOMETHING, either stop glorifying violence and advocating “2nd amendment solutions” and address poverty, or limit the kind of weapons available to the public.

      • Jim Bean

        You and I are on common ground with the first sentence of your second paragraph. And on the subject of Sweden, let me whisper something else – something you’ll find very horrid (but true) – in your ear. Australia has an exceptionally low homicide rate, 1.0 per 100,000 people. Australia is 97% Caucasian. South Africa has an exceptionally high homicide rate, 31.8 per 100,000. The population is 80% Black Africans and there’s little there that points to socio-economic disparities. (Note to hyper-sensitive readers: I’ve merely cited two statistics without suggesting a conclusion. If you come to a race-based conclusion, you did it on your own because you’re a racist.) Personally, I don’t know what it means. Maybe nothing. But no statistician would dismiss it without further investigation.

      • Earle Crosswait

        What is your point for listing those pairs of facts if not to make some kind of implication? At the very least you have brought race into the conversation. It is disingenuous to then accuse someone of being racist for responding.
        What is your basis for claiming there are no socio-economic differences between Australia and South Africa? They have huge differences besides their racial make-up. They have very different histories, one is an island nation while the other is on a continent rife with upheaval, one has strict gun regulations and the other doesn’t, the differences go on and on.
        Researches have shown a much greater correlations between low gun violence and government stability, the treatment of the poor, and many other factors, then they have with the racial make-up of a population.

      • Arcanaknight

        Jim, as a statistician myself, I can tell you that the implication you’re trying to make with those statistics absolutely can be dismissed without further investigation. There are so many differing, uncontrolled variables between those two countries that any conclusions you might draw from cherry picking two different statistics like that would likely be erroneous. You certainly could do further analysis about race & murder rates using those two countries, but it would get ripped apart in peer review.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        If there is no public record of gun ownership, how is a criminal going to know whether or not there is a gun inside? It’s much simpler to wait until no one is home. You’re probably better off with a good alarm system.

  • langranny

    And I have it on good authority that a voting machine has never killed anyone…

    • Zacharia Ashby

      Then you’re an idiot and should go back to the kiddy table.

      • Grazel

        Yeah I can’t say as I’ve heard of a voting machine being used to commit murder. The behavior of elected officials can’t be blamed on the voting machines (unless the machine was used for voter fraud to get them elected). At best you could blame the voters who elected the official, but even then you can really only accuse them of making a bad choice. A gun on the other hand is directly causal to a death it’s wielder is responsible for (unless it was never fired in relation to that death).

  • Jim Bean

    The entire article is based on a false premise. Gun violence is down 49% since 1993. Its the misinformation that’s at an all time high. Google ‘gun violence down 49%’ and take your pick. CNN, Pew, USA today. Whoever you trust.

    • Grazel

      The point isn’t a decrease in gun violence. The point is that there’s been 10,000 times more gun violence incidents since 93 than there’s been voter fraud (which I’m sure is down as well, or maybe steady, and I’d hard call an average of 1/yr a rampant issue in need of restrictive and unnecessary regulation).

      • Jim Bean

        Agreed. But a falsehood was subliminally implanted in the effort to support the point and calling a ‘foul’ for that was appropriate.

      • Grazel

        What falsehood? Even if there’s been a decline, over 100k gun deaths in a decade (averaging 10k per year) is still an issue that needs to be addressed. Also that number is just ‘unjustified homicides’, it doesn’t cover accidental shootings, suicides, and gun related crimes that don’t result in a death.

      • Jim Bean

        The author wrote: “Gun violence in America is at an all time high”. That is a falsehood and no amount of ifs ands, and buts, (or wishing it weren’t so inconveniently true) is going to change it. Don’t take my word for it. Google ‘CNN gun violence down’

      • Dennis McBreen

        That’s right Grazel The Bush Justice Department conducted a massive, five-year investigation into voter fraud that resulted in about 120 people being charged and 86 convicted. Most of those charged were Democrats. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules.

        Proponents often cite fraud or the potential for fraud to justify new ID requirements. There is no question that election misconduct exists, including improper purges of eligible voters, distributing false information about when and where to vote, stuffing of ballot boxes, and tampering with registration forms. But there is no evidence that the type of fraud addressed by stricter voter ID – individual voters who misrepresent their identities at the polls is anything but an anomaly.

        The irony of the big GOP push for voter ID laws seems to be that when it comes to actual voter fraud, Republicans are often the ones who are most responsible. Consider the following examples of voter fraud that have been committed over the past few years:

        The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) has recently closed two cases involving Strategic Allied Consulting, a Republican hired vendor. Although investigators found at least 11 voter registration forms that were of questionable authenticity, no charges were filed due to lack of evidence. Strategic Allied Consulting is the subject of three ongoing cases in Florida. A FDLE spokesperson said that no details could be provided regarding those cases.

        Last November two Republican voters in separate states decided to prove how easy it would be to vote illegally. Both were arrested and charged with voter fraud.

        In February 2012 a jury found Indiana’s Republican secretary of state, Charlie White, guilty on six counts of voter fraud, theft, and perjury.

        Four staffers of Republican congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) were indicted last August 2012, charged with submitting over 1,500 “forged and falsified” signatures in what the Michigan attorney general, also a Republican, called a “blatant” and “disgraceful” attempt to qualify the congressman for last year’s ballot.
        A former employee of Strategic Allied Consulting, a contractor for the Republican Party of Virginia, had been scheduled to appeared before a grand jury after he was charged with tossing completed registration forms into a recycling bin. But state prosecutors canceled Colin Small’s grand jury testimony to gather more information, with their focus expanding to the firm that had employed Small, which is led by longtime GOP operative Nathan Sproul.

    • Dennis McBreen

      Claiming Gun violence is down 49% since 1993 is true misinformation at its best.

      I often see the statistic about the drop in gun deaths since 1993 but
      The decline has not been a steady continuous fall from 1993.There was a dramatic drop from peak number of 9.5 deaths per 100k in 1993 ( due to the crack and gang epidemics of the 90’s) but since 2000 they have stabilized between 5.5 and 4.7 per 100k

      The common focus on gun deaths as a marker to illustrate America’s “gun problem” obscures an alarming trend. The number of persons who suffer nonfatal gunshot injuries―that is, who are shot but do not die―has risen over the same period. This means simply that more people are being shot by guns every year. In other words, America’s gun problem is getting worse, not better. More guns means more shootings.

      The authors of a landmark study in 2002 on the relationship between murder and medicine concluded that advances in emergency services―including the 911 system and
      establishment of trauma centers―as well as better surgical techniques have suppressed the homicide rate. They concluded that “…without these developments in medical technology
      there would have been between 45,000 and 70,000 homicides annually the past 5 years instead of an actual 15,000 to 20,000.”
      That finding is confirmed by anecdotal observations from law enforcement officials and the medical community. “It would be fair to say gunshot wound victims, if they suffered the same
      injury 25 years earlier, their chances of survival would be much less,” Dayton, Ohio, police major Pat Welsh said in April 2011. “It’s a credit to the advances in medical technology and procedures….”
      In Birmingham, Alabama, Dr. Loring Rue, chief of trauma care at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Trauma Center, said in commenting on the fact that while the number of violent crimes was increasing in Birmingham, the number of resulting
      deaths was falling, “I am convinced that not just our hospital, but all those who provide trauma care in Birmingham, make a distinct contribution to keeping the murder rate lower.”
      Driving the advances in treatment is a symbiotic relationship between trauma centers and military medicine. Military doctors honed the use of blood banks and helicopter transport during the Korean and Vietnam wars, said Thomas Scalea, Physician-in-Chief at the R Adams Cowley trauma center in Baltimore.

      Civilian doctors made advances in the treatment of gunshot wounds during the late 1980s and early 1990s, when U.S. homicides peaked. They learned that patients were more likely to survive if doctors first stabilized them and then treated one injury at a time, Dr. Scalea said. That allowed the patient to recover between operations.

      Methods were refined by the military over the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan. War doctors learned how to better deal with blood loss, a major cause of death from such injuries.

      Previously, doctors gave patients red blood cells, along with crystalloid fluids given intravenously, because they thought bleeding victims needed more oxygen from blood cells. Today, based on battlefield experience, patients are instead pumped full of platelets and plasma to aid in clotting.

      Advances by the military also helped refine the work of emergency first-responders. Emergency medical technicians now administer less fluids to patients and maintain a lower blood pressure “so they don’t bleed so fast,” said Norman McSwain, an expert on pre-hospital trauma care and professor of surgery at the Tulane University School of Medicine.

      • Jim Bean

        The Pew study reveals: “The new study found U.S. firearm homicides peaked in 1993 at 7.0 deaths per 100,000 people. But by 2010, the rate was 49% lower, and firearm-related violence — assaults, robberies, sex crimes — was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993, the study found.

        Those drops parallel an overall decline in violent non-fatal crime, with or without a gun, the study said.”

        Yes, problems remain – specifically black gang violence. That’s not a ‘gun’ problem, its a social problem.

      • Dennis McBreen

        The numbers I used are from the FBI and CDC WISQARS . While gun crime is at a low since peaking in 1993 it is a misnomer. It implies that there has been a continuous decline and improvement. You are also conflating gun crime and gun deaths. The fact is the peak in the 90’s was due to the gang and crack epidemic.There was steep decline in rates as the govt. cracked down on gangs from 1993 to 1999. FBI data shows 9.5 deaths per 100k in 1993 dropping to 5.7 in 1999, since 2000 they have stabilized between 5.5 and 4.7 per 100k.
        The CDC data on gunshot injuries in the US from 1999 to 2010 shows a clear and steady increase in both fatal and non-fatal gunshot injuries, rising from a low of 28,000 fatal gunshot injuries in 1999 to over 31,672 gunshot fatalities in 2010 (the last year for which data is available). Due to advances in emergency medical care the rate of increase for non-fatal gunshot has been even more dramatic going from 63,000 to 81,396.
        Your claim that the gun problem is “black gang violence” besides being racist is dead wrong.
        The FBI Uniform Crime Report puts gang killings at 871 while the CDC number for total gun deaths is 31,672. Add in 81,396 non-fatal gunshot wounds and we have 113,068 Americans with bullet holes in them. That is a gun not a social problem.

      • Jim Bean

        If you google ‘CDC homicide rate by race’ you will see that even though whites own an equal or greater amount of the guns, their homicide rate per 100,000 people is 2.9 and for blacks its 51.5. And when you consider that all the Amish have guns and their homicide rate is zero you can intelligently say, “yes, its a black problem, not a gun problem.” Nevertheless, I hereby christen thee Progressive of the Month in recognition of your unwavering determination to disprove the obvious and defend the indefensible. Anyone who tells me they’ve determined that it is in my best interest for them to render me defenseless is clearly someone who thinks I’m a fool and who has everything EXCEPT my best interest in mind.

      • Dennis M

        So white people get a pass because black people kill each other at higher rates?

      • Jim Bean

        No. They (liberals) are saying black people get a pass for killing each other at higher rates and whites get the blame.

      • Grazel

        And most of us are saying gun violence, or gun-related injuries are part of the issue. Not just gun related deaths. Gun violence includes survivors, not just bodies.

      • Jim Bean

        Knowing that the Amish all have guns and that there are zero gun deaths and zero gun-violence injuries in their society, do you still blame it on the guns or do you blame it on the culture of violence in our society?

      • Dennis M

        Of course it’s about culture.
        Not only is it about changing law it about changing the culture.At one time drunk driving was winked at.People would joke about how wasted they could be and still drive.But once society deemed it was no longer acceptable it declined.It took stricter penalties and education of the public of the dangers of DWI. Did drinking and driving end completely? The answer is no and it never will, but the decline of it was significant.
        Look at the language that gun owners use “don’t tread on me”, “protected by Smith& Wesson” “consider your man card reissued” “going out feet first” “stand your ground” “my cold dead fingers” “I am a gun owner this door is locked for your protection”. It’s all about fear ego and the use of lethal force. We need as a society to change this kind of thinking for any change to occur.

        Gun owners do have a Consitutional right that can not be denied them. But the majority of us have a right to expect and demand an environment where these terrible incidents are minimized.

      • Charles Vincent

        Violence and gun crime has been steadily declining for ~25 years
        http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=g9bRDNgd6E4
        Apologies for the length.

      • Dennis M

        It was too long but it’s absurdity was shown in less than two minutes. First the premise that gangs commit the most murder is false. The FBI Uniform Crime Report shows gang homicide at 871 for 2012. The he goes on to blame the gun problem on single mothers. Give me a break.
        http://wwwDOTfbiDOTgov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2012.xls

      • Charles Vincent

        Hmm your linked page doesn’t exist and had you watched the whole video you would have realized where he was going and he provided links for all the numbers he used. Furthermore he wasn’t blaming moms he was blaming government intervention in the family unit via welfare and poverty caused by several government policy. But i guess you just cant get those liberal bias eyes to look at anything that doesn’t match your narrative.

      • Dennis M

        google fbi Expanded Homicide Data Table 10 2012 So government causes single mothers that is still blaming it on single mothers. I find it ironic you say I have a bias and a narrative after you posted that tripe.

      • Charles Vincent

        NO I said you dismissed the video on a bias lean because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

        “So government causes single mothers that is still blaming it on single mothers.”
        no the mothers are doing the best they can given the circumstances the government intervention In the family unit has cause the problem he plainly talks about it in the video.

      • Charles Vincent

        “fbi Expanded Homicide Data Table 10 2012”
        It doesn’t break down other crimes not associated directly with gang members i.e. if a gang member raped a woman or carjacked someone it wouldn’t necessarily list the offender as a gang member etc…

      • Dennis M

        Now you are just trying to divert. Your video said at the 1:08 mark gangs commit the most crimes partially homicides

      • Dennis M

        Violence and gun crime has NOT been steadily declining. While gun crime is at a low since peaking in 1993 it is a misnomer. It implies that there has been a continuous decline and improvement. The fact is the peak in the 90’s was due to the gang and crack epidemic.There was steep decline in rates as the govt. cracked down on gangs from 1993 to 1999. FBI data shows 9.5 deaths per 100k in 1993 dropping to 5.7 in 1999, since 2000 they have stabilized between 5.5 and 4.7 per 100k.
        The CDC data on gunshot injuries in the US from 1999 to 2010 shows a clear and steady increase in both fatal and non-fatal gunshot injuries, rising from a low of 28,000 fatal gunshot injuries in 1999 to over 31,672 gunshot fatalities in 2010 (the last year for which data is available). Due to advances in emergency medical care the rate of increase for non-fatal gunshot has been even more dramatic going from 63,000 to 81,396.
        The numbers I used are from the FBI and CDC WISQARS

      • Charles Vincent

        “Violence and gun crime has NOT been steadily declining. While gun crime is at a low since peaking in 1993 it is a misnomer.”

        You sir are full of shit;
        http://www DOT wanttoknow DOT info/g/violent_crime_rates_reduction DOT shtml

        Look here New York and Chicago have strict gun laws.

        http://www DOT encyclopedia DOT chicagohistory DOT org/pages/2156 DOT html

        http://wwwDOT cnn DOT com/2012/10/29/justice/us-violent-crime/index DOT html

        Pay close attention to the graphs on the right they are all trending down or are relatively flat;

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

      • Dennis M

        Read what I said again all your links and charts confirm what I said. I will repeat it

        “The fact is the peak in the 90’s was due to the gang and crack epidemic.There was steep decline in rates as the govt. cracked down on gangs from 1993 to 1999. FBI data shows 9.5 deaths per 100k in 1993 dropping to 5.7 in 1999, since 2000 they have stabilized between 5.5 and 4.7 per 100k.”
        That counters what you said and I will quote you:

        “Violence and gun crime has been steadily declining for ~25 years”
        The key word you used was “steadily” the decline was a sharp drop in the 1990’s and been flat since.

      • Charles Vincent

        That flat line at the end is still declining, just at a slower rate.

        Notice the total crime plot line is trending down in this graph;

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/File:Property_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States DOT svg

        This graph shows homicide by age conveniently the18 to 24 group where most gang members fall is going down and overall all but two are trending down and of those two on ticked up slightly and the other is flat.
        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/File:Homoffendersbyage DOT svg

      • Dennis M

        You’re diverting again the topic here is guns The CDC data on gunshot injuries in the US from 1999 to 2010 shows a clear and steady increase in both fatal and non-fatal gunshot injuries, rising from a low of 28,000 fatal gunshot injuries in 1999 to over 31,672 gunshot fatalities in 2010 (the last year for which data is available). Due to advances in emergency medical care the rate of increase for non-fatal gunshot has been even more dramatic going from 63,000 to 81,396.

      • Charles Vincent

        See the last link goes over homicide and I also said overall violent crime was going down in a previous post.

      • Dennis M

        You’ve been diverting since you got here I just didn’t call you on it

        Homicide only accounts for one third of all gun deaths. Guns play a small part in violent crimes. Average annual percent of violent crimes involving a firearm when the offenders are strangers is only 10.4% and falls to 4.5% when the offenders are known to victims.
        see table 9
        http://wwwDOTbjsDOTgov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf#Page=7
        ,

      • Charles Vincent

        And hence why I said overall violent crime is going down and has been. I haven’t been diverting anything your full of it all my posts are on topic
        I have seen those tables and it still refutes your assertion that crime isn’t going down and that gun violence is also going down.

      • Dennis M

        Now you are saying ” overall violent crime is going down and has been.” your original statement was “Violence and gun crime has been steadily declining for ~25 years”
        BTW new data shows an uptick in violent crime and murder in all parts of the country except the northeast where gun laws are the tightest.
        http://wwwDOTfbiDOTgov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/preliminary-annual-uniform-crime-report-january-december-2012/tables/table_2_percent_change_by_region_2012.xls
        Read what I wrote CDC data shows more people being shot and that curve been increasing even as crime went down.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes overall violence and gun crime. Violence as in violent crime are you unable to make that leap in logic?
        ok here are the nine states that make up the north east in your numbers
        Connecticut-strict
        Maine-not strict
        Massachusetts-Strict
        New Hampshire-not strict
        Rhode Island-not strict
        Vermont-not strict
        New Jersey-strict
        New York-strict
        Pennsylvania-not strict

        http://www DOT fbi DOT gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/preliminary-annual-uniform-crime-report-january-december-2012/tables/table_2_percent_change_by_region_2012 DOT xls/@@template-layout-view?override-view=data-declaration

        and

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29

        Seem like 5 of the nine states dont have overly strict laws imagine that, and only a couple of the other 4 recently enacted tough laws your assertion fails.

      • Dennis M

        Actually according to Guns and Ammo magazine only three of those Northeast states make it to the top half of states with lax laws(BTW Rhode Island is strict). Few of the states in top 10 of strict laws are in the regions of the country that saw increases in in crime and murder in 2012.
        http://wwwDOTgunsandammoDOTcom/2013/03/14/ga-ranks-the-best-states-for-gun-owners-in-2013/
        States with stricter laws have less gun deaths. If those northeast states with lax laws had stricter laws the rate for the northeast would had been lower.

        http://wwwDOTnewsbatchDOTcom/gc-regionowndeath.jpg

      • Charles Vincent

        ” If those northeast states with lax laws had stricter laws the rate for the northeast would had been lower.”

        This is a crock you have no clue if it would have made a difference. as for your other link I cannot buy it cause I cannot see the source data the chart uses to see if whom ever created the chart manipulated the data.

        As for Rhode Island the only thing that really hurt them was not allowing NFA owners.

        California has strict laws and a very high murder rate Chicago and Illinois have strict laws and a high murder rate, also DC has a high homicide rate and they are listed as the strictest. Your hypothesis is nothing more than sophistry. Gun control doesn’t work or it is marginal at best. I also see how gun control played out in history which makes your argument false. As to your comment “But the majority of us have a right to expect and demand an environment where these terrible incidents are minimized.” your right only covers people who break the law you have no right to effect people who have not damaged you or your property nor broken any laws. This also falls in line with your comment about right having limits.

      • Charles Vincent

        http://wwwDOTgunsandammoDOTcom/2013/03/14/ga-ranks-the-best-states-for-gun-owners-in-2013/

        Camden 60.6 murders per 100,000 residents
        Camden is in NJ an admittedly strict state #49 on the list in GnA

        New Orleans 57.6
        Louisiana # 17 on the list

        Flint 50.8
        Michigan # 33
        Same argument as Detroit

        Detroit 48.2
        Michigan #33

        I would argue this is from a lack of police force due to democratic fiscal policies bankrupting the city not from lax gun laws

        Gary 37.2
        Indiana # 16

        York 36.5
        Pennsylvania #20

        St. Louis 35.3
        Missouri #9 only one rated top ten for gun friendliness would also argue along the lines as in Detroit and flint

        Newark 33.8
        New Jersey has strict gun control #49

        Wilmington 32.1
        Delaware has strict laws #41

        Ft. Myers 31.7
        Florida # 12 possible outlier because of the drug trade from the cartels

        Baltimore 31.3
        Maryland #43 strict laws as well
        Your stats dont look good for your argument Chief.

        Hmm rights have limits… well the only limit I see is if what I do violates another persons rights and that is the only way you get to regulate any rights. The law should protect rights and only has moral ground to use force when someone violates another persons rights.

      • Dennis M

        HA! now it the democrats fault. Oh that’s right, they are for welfare that cause single mothers that led to gangs who are really the ones shooting everybody. And you say my arguments don’t look good?

      • Charles Vincent

        MHMMM its a bad argument you say well Who has been running Detroit since the 1950’s?
        that’s right the democrats and liberal ones at that go check it for yourself. I never blamed democrats for the gun violence I blamed the lack of funding for things like fire departments and police departments due to democratic fiscal policy and if you bothered to look you would see that the primary reason behind the Detroit bankruptcy is unfunded liabilities like pensions for government workers.

        And yes your argument is sophistry you try to manipulate data and when I exposed the subtle manipulation you were trying to perpetrate and now your upset, sorry your data manipulation shot you in the butt.

        “Oh that’s right, they are for welfare that cause single mothers that led to gangs who are really the ones shooting everybody.”
        Did you even see the sources for that video? my guess is still no. Had you, you wouldn’t have uttered such foolishness as the quote of yours I pasted into this post. This is a poor attempt to obfuscate the points my post made which were good one considering your lack luster retort.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re really not going to like this chief;
        http://www DOT guns DOT com/2014/01/17/new-research-mass-shootings-shows-increase-frequency-assault-weapon-use-rare/

        And

        http://hsx DOT sagepub DOT com/content/18/1/125 DOT full DOT pdf+html

      • Jim Bean

        I agree we ‘have a right to expect and demand an environment where these terrible incidents are minimized.’ But the solution starts with accepting that the ‘terrible incidents’ are not perpetrated by those people actively working to defend the 2nd Amendment. Start by proposing scientific studies to determine whether some whites might be genetically predisposed to committing mass murders and whether some Blacks might be genetically predisposed to violence in general. Ten bucks says the 2nd amendment activists would all support it and the Left would break out in hives and have uncontrollable bouts of incontinence.

      • Dennis M

        Well we know the 2nd amendment activists would all support it, studies show a link between gun ownership and racism. Suggesting we test whites for mass murder but blacks for violence in general, is racist logic at it’s best.
        http://wwwDOTplosoneDOTorg/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2FjournalDOTponeDOT0077552

        But maybe you are on to something, studies have shown that maybe your genes can predict whether you’ll be a conservative or a liberal.
        “An unprecedented analytical opportunity existed to evaluate how the political views of these young adults related to assessments of them when in nursery school, prior to their having become political beings. Preschool children who 20 years later were relatively liberal were characterized as: developing close relationships, self-reliant, energetic, somewhat dominating, relatively under-controlled, and resilient. Preschool children subsequently relatively conservative at age 23 were described as: feeling easily victimized, easily offended indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and relatively over-controlled and vulnerable.

        http://wwwDOTberkeleyDOTedu/news/media/releases/2006/03/blockDOTpdf

        I would seem to me people who are racist feeling easily victimized, easily offended indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and relatively over-controlled and vulnerable, would not be good candidates for gun ownership.
        Your idea of “gene testing” is just absurd.

      • Dennis M

        o

      • Grazel

        I’ve never blamed it on guns. We’re not asking for background checks on the guns, we’re asking it on the gun owners. Sure these checks won’t stop all the loonies from getting guns, nor all the criminals, but they’re needed. Just as passing a driving test and getting a driver’s license doesn’t guarantee the driver will be safe or responsible, a background check won’t prevent future activities or catch all unsafe gun owners. We don’t see an argument not to require driver’s licenses just because some drunk drivers and bad drivers manage to pass the tests. That’s why we want REASONABLE regulation, something that adds accountability and can catch at least some bad people before it’s too late without insurmountable or expensive hurdles for everyone.

      • Dennis M

        Why do so many white middle-American men view any effort to regulate firearms as an assault on their very identity — and thus fight sane and rational laws as if their lives and liberties were at stake.
        Imagine if African American men and boys were committing mass shootings month after month, year after year. Articles and interviews would flood the media, and we’d have political debates demanding that African Americans be “held accountable.”
        But when the criminals and are white men, race and gender become the elephant in the room.

        Nearly all of the mass shootings in this country in recent years — not just Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, Tucson and Columbine — have been committed by white men and boys. Yet when the National Rifle Association (NRA), led by white men, held a news conference after the Newtown massacre to advise Americans on how to reduce gun violence, its leaders’ opinions were widely discussed.
        Unlike other groups, white men are not used to being singled out. So we expect that many of them will protest it is unfair if we talk about them. But our nation must correctly define their contribution to our problem of gun violence if it is to be solved.

        When white men try to divert attention from gun control by talking about mental health issues, many people buy into the idea that the United States has a national mental health problem, or flawed systems with which to address those problems, and they think that is what produces mass shootings.

        But women and girls with mental health issues are not picking up semiautomatic weapons and shooting schoolchildren. Immigrants with mental health issues are not committing mass shootings in malls and movie theaters. Latinos with mental health issues are not continually killing groups of strangers.

        Societal and cultural programming makes it easy for conservative, white-male-led groups to convince the nation that an organization led by white men, such as the NRA or the tea party movement, can represent the interests of the entire nation when, in fact, they predominately represent only their own experiences and perspectives.

        If life were equitable, white male gun-rights advocates would face some serious questions to assess their degree of credibility and objectivity. We would expect them to explain:

        What facets of white male culture create so many mass shootings?

        Why are so many white men and boys producing and entertaining themselves with violent video games and other media?

        Why do white men buy, sell and manufacture guns for profit; attend gun shows; and demonstrate for unrestricted gun access disproportionately more than people of other ethnicities or races?

        Why are white male congressmen leading the fight against gun control?

        The majority of gun owners are white middle class male it’s time to put the gun problem on their door step

        http://hnnDOTus/article/154225

      • Jim Bean

        Studies should be done to determine whether there is a genetic component in Caucasians that predisposes them to mass murders. If identified, maybe screenings can be done and a cure found. I support that. That said, if you took all the people shot and killed by African American men and boys and put them into groups of 20, you would have multiple ‘mass’ shootings every month of every year. And yet we are NOT seeing ‘articles and interviews flood(ing) the media’, and we are NOT ‘have(ing) political debates demanding that African Americans be “held accountable.” And that’s my point. Why aren’t we? Even you recognize it would happen if they were white.

      • Dennis M

        So eugenics is the solution? Not only are you a racist but you’re Nazi too

      • Jim Bean

        (I can’t tell whether you don’t understand the definition of the word or whether you’re projecting because you lack a credible counterpoint.) Eugenics is selective breeding. We currently study the role of genetics in cancer but not with any eye toward prohibiting select people from reproducing. There are other medical options.

      • Dennis M

        Eugenics is selective breeding based on the idea that one group is genetically superior to an other which what you are trying to claim

      • Dennis M

        Your attitude proves the results of this study.
        “Symbolic racism is a measure of modern racism. Whereas old, open racism manifested itself in Jim Crow laws and segregated restrooms, symbolic racism consists of the same traditional values and sentiment that underpinned blatant racism, but its expression is less open. Symbolic racism most often manifests itself in opposition to policies and programs that are perceived as being beneficial to African-Americans such as welfare and food stamps.”

        http://wwwDOTrawstoryDOTcom/rs/2013/11/01/study-links-racism-gun-ownership-and-resistance-to-gun-laws/

  • Russ

    all this means is that our representatives are abject cowards who are more concerned with reelection than they are in protecting citizens.

  • Dennis McBreen

    Criminals do not skip over homes with guns. They wait until no one is home then they clean it out. Guns are the most highly prized and easy to fence loot a criminal can find.

  • Dennis McBreen

    Good article on guns and voting. DC v. Heller ruled that although guns can be regulated, regulations can not be so strict as to prohibit guns. I think voter ID laws are the same. There has to be regulation in place to assure only those eligible can vote and only legal votes be counted. But the current republican voter ID laws real purpose is to prohibit voting by democrats. The right to vote is only implicit in the Constitution. The 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments only establish that voting by citizens age 18 and older cannot be restricted on the basis of race, gender or failure to pay a tax. They do not, however, clearly state a positive right to vote. I would like to see a Constitutional amendment that explicitly guarantees the right to vote and it be the government’s duty to ensure it.

  • EW Lyles

    Love the logic…The fact is they have to restrict voting hoping that Democrats wont get elected because they might change the gun laws. It all make perfect sense.

  • Well, beyond that a good background check and closing the gunshow loophole would cut off a pipeline between the legal market and the black market

  • scott

    Man, where to begin. Voting can only be done at one place, your polling place (I’m leaving off absentee balloting, but that is another discussion for another time) guns can be bought, stolen, etc at lots of places from lots of different people. Attempting to use the logic “argument” from above, if guns could be gotten from one place only, used and used up on the premises like a vote is, laws requiring background checks would work with few, if any exceptions.

    Ok, now that we understand that the two examples, buying guns and voting are different actions with different options and environments, lets try the reverse side of the discussion. Since some argue there should be no checks, no requirements, etc, just make your mark and vote, let’s apply that rule logic to gun laws. I can buy any gun (machine gun, anti-tank weapon, etc) with nothing other than my say so that I should be able to have it. Works for me.

    Flawed logic, like the kind in this article, is why we have the problems we do today. Neither the author’s logic, or mine from above, fit the problems, voter fraud or gun control, but that does not stop either of us pushing our “flawed” thinking to prove a point.

    I will sign up for universal background checks for all gun transactions when others agree with the premise that for voting, getting food stamps, or any government services, meet the same ID check.

  • DreamAgain

    So both sides use their particular version of the facts. that is how ideology moves forward vs reality. I certainly feel for anyone who is “infringed” upon. But to clarify your point.. the voter id is not to resolve “fraud” per se.. but to insure that citizens of these united states are the ones voting. Not foreigners who get benefits of this society without the responsibility of citizenship.

    I personally think every young person should HAVE to serve in the Military. Like switzerland (which liberals tout as a wonderful country). Put your blood on the line before casting your opinion. The second amendment was not designed with the intent of defending ones home and life as a sole premise. The second amendment was designed and clearly defined to insure that the individual rights (read that again individual rights) are defended from the government as well as those outside.

    • Dennis McBreen

      When was the last time someone in the Swiss Army put blood on the line? It’s seems to it was the chicken hawk republicans who did not go near a battlefield when it was their turn but latter sent hundreds of thousands latter on.

      Brave men like
      John Ashcroft: Did not serve
      Roy Blunt: Did not serve
      Michael Bloomberg: Did not serve
      George W. Bush: Texas Air Nat. Guard; skipped duty; didn’t take physical; suspended from flying
      Jeb Bush: Did not serve
      Saxby Chambliss: Did not serve. Attacked Max Cleland’s patriotism
      Dick Cheney: Did not serve
      Tom DeLay: Did not serve
      Bill Frist: Did not serve
      Newt Gingrich: Did not serve
      Rudy Giuliani: Did not serve
      Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer
      Phil Gramm: Did not serve
      Dennis Hastert: Did not serve
      Jack Kemp: Did not serve. “Knee problem,” continued in NFL for 8 years
      Trent Lott: Did not serve
      Mitch McConnell: Did not serve
      Richard Perle: Did not serve
      Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard
      Dana Rohrabacher: Did not serve
      Karl Rove: Did not serve
      Rick Santorum: Did not serve
      Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base
      Richard Shelby: Did not serve
      JC Watts: Did not serve
      Paul Wolfowitz: Did not serve
      Andy Card – no service
      Condi Rice – no service
      John Bolton – no service

    • Dennis McBreen

      The 2nd is not about an individual right to bear arms but about the rights of states to raise militias.
      The reason they wanted Militias was because they didn’t want expensive large standing armies. At the time of this country’s founding the 13 colonies thought of themselves as independent sovereignties and each had their own militias for their defense. They were leery of a new centralized government that the Constitution created and thought it did not need its own army since the current system seemed to be working fine.

      Also looking back into pre-revolution history. The French Indian War (1754–1763) was a long costly war for the British and the defeat of the French expanded British held territory and that required a large standing army to defend it.Up until that time colonial America paid no taxes to the crown.The French Indian war and it’s aftermath left Britain with a huge debt that required heavy taxes in England to pay it back. So the sentiment in England was that the America colonists should be taxed for the war that fought in their defense and the expenses now required to defend their borders.
      The Americans hated the taxes and hated the large standing British army that was often quartered in colonist homes (this is the root of the 3rd amendment).It was these events that set the table for The American Revolution.
      In the aftermath of the Revolution under the Articles of Confederation the 13 colonies wanted to rule as independent sovereignties with a minimum centralized government and wanted no part of a large standing army like the one they suffered from under British rule and felt the State Militias in place would work just fine for their defense.
      Since they hated taxes too, the Articles of Confederation gave the feds no power to levy taxes. This soon led to large debt so when the Constitution written Congress was given the power for taxation.

      The irony was the Colonies that were getting basically a free ride, hated the small taxes that were levied so much they went to war to overthrow the tyranny of taxation without representation.And ended up paying more taxes once they were freed from the crown.

      All this is explained in the Virginia bill of rights adopted in 1776 thirteen years before the 2nd Amendment. It still in effect today.
      “Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

      If you want to know what the founding fathers idea of a well regulated militia is look up The Militia Act of 1792.It was enacted to put down The Whiskey Rebellion which was a tax protest beginning in 1791. And some think the 2nd is about keeping the government in check, I guess old George Washington never got the memo about that.
      It provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every “free able-bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)
      Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

      In 1792 the 2nd Amendment restricted more freedoms than it granted.
      A central point of the Constitution was to create a peaceful means for the United States to implement policies favored by the people but within a structure of checks and balances to prevent radical changes deemed too disruptive to the established society.”
      The preamble of the Constitution reads” insure domestic Tranquility”,
      “Within this framework of a democratic Republic, the Framers criminalized taking up arms against the government. Article IV, Section 4 committed the federal government to protect each state from not only invasion but “domestic Violence,” and treason is one of the few crimes defined in the Constitution as “levying war against” the United States (Article III, Section 3).”
      Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution states, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, UNLESS WHEN IN CASES OF REBELLION OR INVASION THE PUBLIC SAFETY MAY REQUIRE IT.” Meaning, the government can CONSTITUTIONALLY quell an armed uprising of the citizens

  • Dennis McBreen

    It is oft repeated that Chicago has the strictest gun laws, but the city still has a high crime rate. it just not true. If you believe that then you have heard too much pro gun propaganda.
    A simple fact check of FBI crime statistics that are publicly available would reveal over two dozen cities with higher homicide rate’s than Chicago’s rate of 15.9 murders per 100,000 residents. Chicago is not even close to having the highest rate for murders. Of cities over 100,000 population, Chicago does not even crack the top 25. It ends up in 26th place. If you include all of the cities above 40,000 that the FBI keeps homicide data for, Chicago winds up ranking 41st, a far cry from number one.
    2011 Homicide rates for cities more deadly than Chicago

    Camden 60.6 murders per 100,000 residents

    New Orleans 57.6

    Flint 50.8

    Detroit 48.2

    Gary 37.2

    York 36.5

    St. Louis 35.3

    Newark 33.8

    Wilmington 32.1

    Ft. Myers 31.7

    Baltimore 31.3

    Jackson 29.9

    Baton Rouge 27.6

    Trenton 27.0

    Oakland 26.3

    New Haven 26.2

    Birmingham 25.3

    Pine Bluff 24.3

    Kansas City (MO) 23.4

    Dayton 23.3

    Hartford 21.6

    Philadelphia 21.2

    Atlanta 20.7

    Rocky Mount 20.6

    Cincinnati 20.5

    Stockton 19.7

    North Little Rock 19.1

    Little Rock 19.0

    Cleveland 18.6

    Kansas City (KS) 18.4

    Memphis 17.9

    Gulfport 17.6

    Washington DC 17.5

    Compton 17.4

    Richmond 17.4

    Miami 16.8

    Albany (GA) 16.6

    Canton 16.4

    Danville 16.1

    Harrisburg 16.1

    Chicago 15.9 murders per 100,000 population

  • Gabriel Gentile

    There’s no question that new laws regarding the ownership of firearms will decrease instances of preventable gun-deaths significantly. The question is; How do we enforce them without criminalizing otherwise harmless citizens, much like the “War on Drugs” did for recreational and, in some cases, medical marijuana users?

    • Dennis M

      Regulating is not outlawing. Pot was outlawed not regulated. Harmless citizen will not be criminalized as long as they obey the law which is what law abiding citizens do.

      Regulation of a right is not restriction a right. It may take a little longer and invole filling out more forms but in end as long as you law abiding you still get your gun. It maybe inconvenient but inconvenience is not loss of liberty.

      What I don’t understand is why a law abiding gun owner would be against changing laws to close loop holes that allow the unscrupulous to be immune from laws that the law abiding obey.
      It is often said only the law abiding obey the laws. But when it comes to gun laws, while the law abiding are having their guns checked at a FFL, The unscrupulous and criminal have loop holes big enough to drive truckloads of Smith and Wesson’s thru.