Keep beating the drum. No one is listening
Esten, why do you continue to beat the drum for more background checks when the DOJ does not prosecute those violating the laws now?
The question of do you support background checks for firearms purchases is pretty ambiguous. I support the background check system currently in place if they would enforce it, which they do not with over 48,000 documented violations and only 44 prosecutions in 2010.
The question should be how many people support expansion of those checks to the point of constitutional infringement of privacy?
Keep beating the drum Esten, no one but the liberal media is listening. The issue is dead, the majority has spoken, stop crying about it.
Facts about gun denial prosecution
Anyone wanting to know the truth about the ratio of prosecutions to gun purchase denials should read the article below. The gun-pushers try to argue we should increase prosecutions before enacting new laws. Aside from being an obvious ploy to evade new laws (that could help reduce gun violence), there is some great exaggeration and deception in the claims of how poorly we enforce current laws. Not surprising at all, though.
[URL]http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/feb/03/mayors-against-illegal-guns/us-files-criminal-charges-fraction-gun-denial-case/[/URL]
[QUOTE]So, there are indications that federal law enforcement authorities could file more criminal charges in cases in which a gun purchase application is denied. But it’s also clear that large numbers of the denials don’t involve any crime at all and some cases are not provable.[/QUOTE]
Another missed point by Esten
Your politifact article also points out two nteresting facts that should not be ignored.
The reporting laws found 71000 people who shouldn't be buying a gun, but only lead to less than 77 who they considered prosecuting. It notes that many of these violations were by the same person. Let's be generous and say these 77 violations were committed by 50 people. That means the millions of dollars spent on this backgroud check system achieved a consideration for prosecution in about 0.07% of cases. Note that it doesn't tell us these people were successfully prosecuted and I suspect if known this percentage would approach zero. On the other hand the background check system found that about 25% of the time that they denied a purchase, they were denying a legal citizen with the constitutional right to buy a firearm their rights. So it potentially puts away a criminal 0.07% of the time while denying constitutional rights 25% of the time and you think we need more laws like this Esten? Apply this to any other constitutional right or freedom of you choice and tell me you would support it. What we need are for criminals to go to jail and stay there. Oh, and by the way, the entire cost of the current law's enforcement should be paid by those who attempt to buy a firearm and are found to have a legal reason they shouldn't be in the gun store or at the gun show making a purchase in the first place. Since this would mean that about 3% of the people who try to buy a weapon carry the entire cost. This "fine" alone would stop the vast majority of "illegal" purchases.
Pete.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433523]Still beating the drum I see.
Let me see if I have this right, laws already on the books that you seem to admit work, but since it takes time and money to prosecute violators it's Ok to let them slide? Perhaps you don't get the concept that the only laws which work are the ones which are ENFORCED. Folks tend to ignore laws which are not enforced. What is the point of having a law if it's too expensive or inconvenient to enforce it? Now you want more laws to not enforce?
Regarding your little article, some key points you seem to gloss over is they determine which cases they will prosecute and those violations they will let slide. Since you don't seem to know this, lying on the ATF form IS A VIOLATION! So do you want the law enforced or not?
Love the way you think people are "suckered in" when asked a straight forward question regarding what they think the most important problems are. Here we go again, we poor dumb smucks are just too stupid to understand the English language and tell a pollster what we think is the most important issue facing the country. Yep, just too stupid so we need the Liberal Media and the Liberal Elite to tell us what is the most important.
If you assertion the lawmakers just turned their back on 90% of their constituents was true we should see million man marches on the capital, not happening. Give it up Esten, you lost. Even your Liberal Media buddies have folded their tent and moved on.[/QUOTE]
How about the CDC's numbers
Esten, let's cut to the real stats that say it all beyond the continued falling firearms death rates, according to the CDC 60% of the firearms deaths are self inflicted I.e. Suicide. Sort of takes all the bluster out of your "rampaging murder" rates. Any response?
Perhaps we should look into the causes of violence on the Federal Plantation known as welfare, since that's what the study indicated with the 70% number of black on black homicides in Chicago?
Esten--you are wasting your time
This is not a rational arguement unless you understand that the root reason is based upon to factors:
1. The arms industry is paying big money for pr and political loyalty.
2. A certain % of the population must seriously believe that they could fight off the government and armed forces in the USA.
3. There are places in this country--USA--where there is a real legit need for firm arms for self protection.
There is not really concerns for anything you are posting. The vast majority in the USA share more in common with your beliefs re firearms than the US Senate.
