rumitoid

Here is my simple premise: gun laws help reduce gun violence and crime, and they need to be universal to work. I remember way back when the drinking age in New York was 18 and 21 in Connecticut. The amount of traffic accidents between the two states was epidemic. And back then, unlike now, police where not very strict in enforcing the law. They would sometimes drive you home or tell you to park and get a cup--maybe a dozen cups--of coffee or hold you in a cell overnight until you were sober (not that that ever happened to me). No real consequence. The same thing is happening with guns.

You may want to point out Chicago's strict gun laws and use the outmoded refrain, "How’s that working in Chicago?" as if to settle the argument, yet it a specious point. If, like with alcohol-usage laws, you can drive 2, 5, 10, 50, 100 miles to get what you want in another nearby state that is restricted in your state, varoooom! off you go. It is not working that well in Chicago not because of the laws being ineffective but because of neighboring Loose-Law-States being negligent and complicit in distributing violence. This point is abundantly obvious and absolutely plain, really a "Duh!"

A recent study by the Boston University School of Public Health confirmed what everyone should know by now: Tough gun laws work. That study concluded that waiting periods before a gun purchase, the requirement of a permit to buy a gun, forbidding gun purchases by people with violent misdemeanors on their record, and seizing guns from those convicted of such misdemeanors could result in a cumulative decrease in gun crime of almost 14 percent. That should be Universal by Federal Mandate. In that 14% could be you or your family. That increase in safety is worth the minor hassle of registering and a wait period to get your gun. If you object to "forbidding gun purchases by people with violent misdemeanors on their record, and seizing guns from those convicted of such misdemeanors," people with restraining orders for domestic violence and those seen as mentally ill threats, whose side are you on?

Copy and paste from https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/59c57b73-e578-3adc-b03c-42fda394f47d/ss_states-with-weak-laws-foster.html
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2018/06/24/states-with-weak-laws-foster-gun-crimes-elsewhere/xeZ6zNnvOjh1PlXtezKTsO/story.html

The BU study also found the same thing nationally. It concluded that, for guns used in crimes, “the general pattern of gun flow was from states with weak gun laws to those with strong gun laws: from Southeastern states with weak gun laws up the coast to Maryland, New York, and Massachusetts; from Midwestern states with weak gun laws to Illinois; and from Western states with weak gun laws to California.”

New data from the Boston Police Department highlights the same dynamic. As the Globe’s Danny McDonald recently reported, almost half of the guns – 333 — used in crimes in Boston last year came from out of state, compared with 138 from Massachusetts. (The remainder couldn’t be traced.)

No surprise there: Massachusetts has strict gun laws, including the requirement for a background check and permit before anyone can buy a gun in state.
Still, nearby states like New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont have weak guns laws. In any of those states, one can buy a gun from a private seller at a gun show (or elsewhere) without a background check. New Hampshire and Maine rank prominently as sources of guns used for crimes in Massachusetts.

Rural states sometimes justify their weak gun laws by saying that since they don’t have a high gun crime rate, they don’t need stricter laws. But the more data that become available, the more it becomes apparent that their weak laws are contributing to gun crimes elsewhere.

And that’s just another reason that sensible gun laws should be a priority everywhere.

Gatsby

You nailed the problem in your first paragraph, then proceded to ignore it.

"not very strict in enforcing the law" applies especially to gun law violations.

Chicago brags that they confiscate 10,000 guns per year, why aren' there 10,000 the criminal prosecutions for these crimes?

Answer: Because it costs too damn much to prosecute and incarcerate all of their violent criminals.

Only when their laws are enforced will they find the solution to the problem that they themselves helped to create.

rumitoid

.
Great point and one I am truly sorry that I omitted. Always proper funding and oversight is crucial. Useless without it.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Why thank you Einstein. Now, perhaps you could tell us why those states with lenient gun laws have such a low crime rate? New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine have murder rates comparable to European countries. So does Wyoming and Idaho.
Let me put it another way. Any time you have a sizable black population you will have a higher crime rate. Period. This is not r****t, this is fact proven over and over and over and over again. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, black males aged 15-30 years commit nearly half the murders in this country, and according to the US census are barely 4% of the population. They also commit nearly 70% of the violent crime overall. Canada has strict gun laws. The very small black population of Canada commits crimes all out of proportion to their numbers.
You can compare the murder rate of w****s of European descent in this country with the murder rates of w****s in Europe and they are virtually identical.

rumitoid

If you would google, an easy task, you would see that all the states with the loosest gun laws have the highest gun violence. Yet that is not the point of my thread, which you overlooked. A lack of universal gun control leads to higher gun violence. Pay attention. Your r****m is pathetic and I am done with your dumb sick ass.

greenmountaineer Loc: Vermont

If I recall the statistics correctly, out of some 5500 firearms confiscated in crimes in New York and Mass a couple of years ago, something like 45 were traced to Vermont. We have very liberal gun laws. Mike Bloomberg did manage to get a restriction on 30 round mags last session of the legislature. We now have to cross the river to New Hampshire to get them, but they had enough sense not to try to ban them. Too many Vermonters know enough ancient Greek to understand "Molun Labe!" Now as to gun violence. We have fewer than 500,000 homicides a year in Vermont. About 499,996 fewer. I'll do the math for you. That's about four. We do have a drug problem, so you'd expect lots of crime, but with so many honest citizens armed to the teeth, criminals are a bit wary. Since 1948, I've stopped several attempted home invasions. Criminals do not like the threat of armed resistance. So your assertion that having lots of anti-gun laws is certainly open to question. Now I am as concerned about school shootings as anyone. After all, I spent 33 years teaching high school science. I got curious. We have had semi automatic rifles since the Winchester Self Loader went on the market in 1909. We have had semi autos with 30 round mags since the M-1 carbine was declared obsolete and released to the public half a century ago. But we did not have these mass shootings. So I thought that perhaps drugs might have some bearing on this. I went on line and typed in "mass shootings/ drugs." To my surprise, it was not illegal drugs. There is a strong link between certain anti-depressant drugs and these mass shootings. Later, I typed in "veteran suicides/drugs." Same drugs. You can also find information on You Tube. There are the occasional conspiracy theories but there is loads of info by reputable medical personnel as to the connection between these drugs and mass shootings and suicides. So lay off the Bill of Rights and go after the basic cause of these tragedies.