I still don't understand how it is illegal for a 13 year old to drive a car, but it is legal for him to handle and fire a gun with no training or legal restrictions whatsoever. You have to be 18 to have sex, 21 to drink, 16+training+license+insured to drive, but no restrictions whatsoever on handling and shooting guns. Nuts. Absolutely nuts.
I thought it varied on state. I don't really want to Google this at work, but I skimmed something recently about two minors having sex and one being charged with statutory rape.
That is possible because of an age difference, but two 16 year olds having sex isn't a crime (at least in Texas.) The crime would be a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old.
Statutory depends on the state. In New Jersey, the younger participant has to be at least 16 is one party is 18 or over. Otherwise, it allows for four years if between minors(unless the minor is under twelve).
I disagree. I am not saying we shouldn't try to improve gun control laws. But to simply try to ram something through legislation that isn't going to pass is silly. We did that with healthcare and we are still left with a clusterfk, a clusterfk that won't be dealt with for a couple more decades. Pass something meaningful. Even Biden understands this. Pass something that we all can agree on and the next time, the NRA will be more likely be cooperative. A loophole is legally circumventing a law. Dealers going to gun shows and claiming they are selling at a private event to escape the background checks is a loophole. Encouraging something but not requiring it isn't a loophole. Every gun purchased through an FFL or store has a record of who purchased it. Every gun sold outside of state residency (including private sale) is required to go through an FFL. If a gun has been sold a few times, somewhere along the lines it will likely have gone through a background check a couple times. Currently I do not need to worry too much about selling to a potential criminal, so I really don't care if it can be tracked back to me.
The health care law was passed and is being implemented and hasn't turned into a clusterfk. More people have insurance now than they did before and with the implementation of the mandate and insurance pools we are going to see even more people get insurance. That is a distinction with no difference. You are creating a situation that makes it very easy to circumvent the intent of the law. Again though you are leaving open a huge loophole to avoid going through an FFL. Further since you are talking about selling a gun a few times anywhere along the line a seller could just bypass the FFL procedure. Further while you aren't worried about selling a gun to a criminal who says that gun you sell won't be sold to someone down the road? My argument is simple. We register cars car sales are also required to be recorded. Why not do the same thing with guns? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about registration or tracking of sales. It is only the paranoia of the NRA et al that prevents something as sensible as registration and universal background checks from happening.
You clearly have your own definition of a loophole. It is not a loophole now to sell guns as a private sale and I am advocating that we keep the laws the same, provided you are not acting as a dealer. (someone selling guns frequently, essentially closing a real loophole). The only addition is that the seller *could* be held liable, which is not the case now. Whether the gun can be tracked back to the seller is irrelevant. That is up to the seller to take a risk. Here is the issue at hand with your argument. It can sound all peachy and wonderful and filled with shiny stars, rainbows and unicorns in the real world. You can pull stats and studies about how this will dramatically drop gun violence. You can claim this has no violation of the 2nd amendment. At the end of the day, a typical gun owner and the NRA are not going to go for it. You can call them insulting names all day long. In the end, you're going to end up with a bastardized bill, at best, likely nothing at all, while ticking off the NRA and gun owners to where they refuse to work with you at all, regardless of the idea. (ie: the last 4 years). There is a word that gets thrown around often but rarely used. Its called compromise.
Anyone see a contradiction here? To the majority who believe there are needed changes in the gun laws and regulations, the stubbornness of those that don't is frustrating. Gun owners wish to own things that carry an obvious additional safety risk, but refuse any reasonable additional law or regulation that will at least reduce that risk. At some point, the numbers will be there to outright remove guns. Then gun owners that resisted less drastic approaches will only have themselves to blame.
If you bothered to take note of some of my opinions in other posts, you will find them a bit more aggressive than many gun owners...as opposed to taking my words out of context in a single sentence.
Of course that is a loophole. That is why it is called "The gun show loophole" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole#Controversies [rquoter]Those seeking to close the "Gun Show Loophole" argue that it provides convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers (i.e., domestic abusers, substance abusers, those who have been adjudicated as "mental defectives," etc.) with opportunities to evade background checks, as they can easily buy firearms from private sellers with no accountability or oversight.[/rquoter] If the gun can't be tracked back to the seller that means there is no risk to the seller regarding liability. Except you're not even offering a real compromise given that what you are proposing is purely voluntary with no enforcement mechanism behind it.
Only in America would they believe giving a 12 year old a shotgun as a positive. Why in the world would a person give a 12 year old a weapon? (unless there is a zombie apocalypse)
I didn't know teenagers can get fake IDs. My god, if they can, let's just throw all laws in the toilet because someone can break them. Are we back in 1800s again?
Regardless of which side of the isle your at, I think we can agree that it is a good idea to try to keep guns from being bought/sold for criminal activity. This was a very interesting read for me but unfortunately, they only have figures for 2009. In addition, it does not really specify what type of crime was done whether it was drug related or not. You can go to their homepage and look at each states statistics on export/import numbers, gun laws implemented, time to crime, etc. They also have whole report on those figures... http://www.tracetheguns.org/report.pdf Notable statements: "Every year, tens of thousands of guns make their way into the hands of criminals through illegal trafficking channels. These firearms contribute to the more than 12,000 gun murders in the United States each year.1 This report seeks to explain where crime guns originate, where they are recovered in crimes, and whether state gun laws help curb the flow of these illegal weapons." "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." "Traced Guns Purchased and Recovered in the Same State - 70% = 102,067 Traced Guns Purchased in One State and Recovered in Another - 30% = 43,254 Total 145,321" With exception to Nevada, the states that exported most of these crime guns voted republican in the last presidential election. Same states who's majority are pro-gun advocates. There is a correlation between less gun laws == more guns being exported that are used for criminal activity. Based on these figures, is the NRA really trying to protect gun ownership or gun sales?
So you would be OK with allowing 12-year-olds the right to drive, smoke, vote, have sex with people over the age of 18, and drink?
You are correct. Please remind me, at what age are you allowed to drink in america? Or smoke pot for that matter?
