A Modest Proposal to Reduce Gun Violence

[_Tarski]

It's true that people "could" and "do" do this, but the problem is it's utterly negligible.

and you know this because you have been keeping tabs using your all seeing eye?

I spent years associated with Law Enforcement

associated? LOL

[_Analytics]

My "assumptions" are not seriously flawed Analytics..... Yours are.

I spent my whole life up until I was 25 preparing for a career in Law Enforcement, which means it was my passion and expertise, and which means I was very much involved with those in law enforcement in the many places I lived, and also means I studied, observed etc.

Your "cherry-picked" liberals articles and examples are just that, cherry picks, not the actual trends and stats, nor are they including the experts, the law enforcement officer who daily deals and investigates criminals with guns.

Again, you choose liberal slight of hand, I choose reality and facts by actually knowing them first hand. You're just willingly gullible.

Since the only thing you are doing here is appealing to your own authority, let's qualify the nature of your expertise. You are the one that raised the issue. How come somebody with passion, preperation, and expertise never actually landed a job in law enforcement? I'm guessing it was because you either weren't intelligent enough, or because you got screened out during psychological/psychiatric evaluations. Can you shed some light on this?

[_subgenius]

The government was not able to recover and/or track about 70% of the weapons that were intentionally made available to straw purchasers during operation fast/furious...these straw purchasers with the intent of supplying them to violent criminals...yet, you think this same debacle of a program and ineptitude in execution should be broadened in scope to the greater public?
You would give the cross-eyed marksman who never hits the target a bigger gun and more bullets...brilliant!

Furthermore, you have no ability to account for the "gun was stolen" defense. I can make a straw purchase and then claim i was robbed...thus putting the guns into the criminal system and absolving myself of liability.
Your "modest proposal" is not modest, it is just absurd.

As usual you guys think more regulation is the cure for bad regulation.

[_Res Ipsa]

The government was not able to recover and/or track about 70% of the weapons that were intentionally made available to straw purchasers during operation fast/furious...these straw purchasers with the intent of supplying them to violent criminals...yet, you think this same debacle of a program and ineptitude in execution should be broadened in scope to the greater public?
You would give the cross-eyed marksman who never hits the target a bigger gun and more bullets...brilliant!

Furthermore, you have no ability to account for the "gun was stolen" defense. I can make a straw purchase and then claim i was robbed...thus putting the guns into the criminal system and absolving myself of liability.
Your "modest proposal" is not modest, it is just absurd.

As usual you guys think more regulation is the cure for bad regulation.

Logical fail: false analogy. The purpose of F&F was to gather evidence of and break up a gun racketeering organization -- not to track guns. The reason it's hard to track guns is you gun worshipers block every attempt to make them trackable. You give law enforcement piss poor tools to work with, and then use that argue laws can't work. Total. Logic. Fail. The solution to piss poor laws is better laws.

My suggestion completely accounts for the "stolen gun" defense. If you choose to own a gun, you're responsible for it. Period.

[_subgenius]

The government was not able to recover and/or track about 70% of the weapons that were intentionally made available to straw purchasers during operation fast/furious...these straw purchasers with the intent of supplying them to violent criminals...yet, you think this same debacle of a program and ineptitude in execution should be broadened in scope to the greater public?
You would give the cross-eyed marksman who never hits the target a bigger gun and more bullets...brilliant!

Furthermore, you have no ability to account for the "gun was stolen" defense. I can make a straw purchase and then claim i was robbed...thus putting the guns into the criminal system and absolving myself of liability.
Your "modest proposal" is not modest, it is just absurd.

As usual you guys think more regulation is the cure for bad regulation.

Logical fail: false analogy. The purpose of F&F was to gather evidence of and break up a gun racketeering organization -- not to track guns. The reason it's hard to track guns is you gun worshipers block every attempt to make them trackable. You give law enforcement piss poor tools to work with, and then use that argue laws can't work. Total. Logic. Fail. The solution to piss poor laws is better laws.

as usual the facts elude and contradict you.
emphasis provided by me below, because you seem to miss the obvious stuff:

The Fast And Furious Operation Tracked Weapons Sold To Illegal Buyers In Hopes Of Arresting Mexican Drug Cartel Members; The Failed Operation Lost Track Of More Than 2,000 Weapons And Resulted In The Death Of A U.S. Border Patrol Agent. “The term ‘gun walking’ is central to the failure of Fast and Furious. Agents with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them. But they lost track of more than 2,000 weapons, and the Mexican government says some of them have turned up at about 170 crime scenes there. Two were recovered at the scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent’s slaying in Arizona in December.” (Richard A. Serrano, “Emails Show Top Justice Department Officials Knew Of ATF Gun Program,” Los Angeles Times, 10/03/11)

My suggestion completely accounts for the "stolen gun" defense. If you choose to own a gun, you're responsible for it. Period.

and so your logic means that if someone steals my chosen-to-own-car and uses it to run over school children then i will be needing a good defense lawyer....got it!...that is a mighty fine suggestion.

[_Res Ipsa]

I don't miss obvious stuff -- I just think about what it means. You're conflating tracking unregistered guns without serial numbers that are taken to a foreign country with the ability to track registered guns with serial numbers in the U.S. Yes, the F&F folks hoped they could "track" the guns to the racketeers running the operation -- through both physical surveillance and wiretapping. But that's completely different from giving guns serial numbers, registering them, and holding the owners responsible for damage inflicted by the guns.

And, yes, if you're careless enough with your guns to lose track of them, you should be financially responsible for the harm they cause. After all, you're worried about "responsible" gun owners, right?

[_subgenius]

I don't miss obvious stuff -- I just think about what it means. You're conflating tracking unregistered guns without serial numbers that are taken to a foreign country with the ability to track registered guns with serial numbers in the U.S. Yes, the F&F folks hoped they could "track" the guns to the racketeers running the operation -- through both physical surveillance and wiretapping. But that's completely different from giving guns serial numbers, registering them, and holding the owners responsible for damage inflicted by the guns.

And, yes, if you're careless enough with your guns to lose track of them, you should be financially responsible for the harm they cause. After all, you're worried about "responsible" gun owners, right?

guns are stolen from responsible gun owners....and what about any government paperwork snafus...we all know that the government is capable of mishandling documents and information...but to you, if a few innocent people go to jail, then so be it...great philosophy! until a computer error shows that you were the last owner of a gun used in a crime.

again, the facts show a certain inability of the government..and more regulation usually leads to more confusion and less success.
Besides, everything being discussed is illegal already....inability to enforce the law does not require more law...it requires competence.

your "suggestion" is absurd on all fronts.

[_Res Ipsa]

I don't miss obvious stuff -- I just think about what it means. You're conflating tracking unregistered guns without serial numbers that are taken to a foreign country with the ability to track registered guns with serial numbers in the U.S. Yes, the F&F folks hoped they could "track" the guns to the racketeers running the operation -- through both physical surveillance and wiretapping. But that's completely different from giving guns serial numbers, registering them, and holding the owners responsible for damage inflicted by the guns.

And, yes, if you're careless enough with your guns to lose track of them, you should be financially responsible for the harm they cause. After all, you're worried about "responsible" gun owners, right?

guns are stolen from responsible gun owners....and what about any government paperwork snafus...we all know that the government is capable of mishandling documents and information...but to you, if a few innocent people go to jail, then so be it...great philosophy! until a computer error shows that you were the last owner of a gun used in a crime.

again, the facts show a certain inability of the government..and more regulation usually leads to more confusion and less success.
Besides, everything being discussed is illegal already....inability to enforce the law does not require more law...it requires competence.

your "suggestion" is absurd on all fronts.

If you will actually read what I wrote, there's no jail time involved. Once again, you guys who say they believe in accountability and the market run shrieking away when someone talks about shifting the costs of gun ownership onto the people who own the guns.

[_Analytics]

guns are stolen from responsible gun owners....and what about any government paperwork snafus...we all know that the government is capable of mishandling documents and information...but to you, if a few innocent people go to jail, then so be it...great philosophy! until a computer error shows that you were the last owner of a gun used in a crime.

again, the facts show a certain inability of the government..and more regulation usually leads to more confusion and less success.
Besides, everything being discussed is illegal already....inability to enforce the law does not require more law...it requires competence.

your "suggestion" is absurd on all fronts.

A couple of points.

If your gun is stollen once or twice that's forgivable. But I'd have a three-strikes-and-you're out rule--getting your gun stollen three times proves either that you are lying about you guns being stollen or are incapable of preventing the murderer's tool of choice from falling into the hands of criminals. In either case, habitually loosing your guns proves you shouldn't have them.

Second, if you legally sold your gun under GORE, you would have your own documentation proving it. So in the extremely unlikely event that the government couldn't keep track of a simple transaction like this, you'd still be able to easily prove what really happened.

Third, the GORE law would replace the current hodge-podge of state-based laws with a federal law that makes sense, is simpler, and is easier to enforce. Currently, it’s totally legal to sell a gun to a felon for cash in a parking lot if you don’t happen to know he is a felon. And if you purchase a gun in a straw sale for a bad guy, the government must spy on you and see you give it to the bad guy and prove that that was your intention when you purchased it. Under GORE, the responsibilities of a gun owner is clear, and whether or not you are complying with those responsibilities is crystal clear.

This also protects responsible gun owners, by the way. Currently, if you sell a gun you have to make a judgment call about whether or not the person you are selling to is suspicious and whether you should notify the ATF of the sale, and you have to wonder if the government is spying on you and trying to read your mind about whether you know that the guy you are selling your guns to is a buyer for a Mexican drug cartel. Under GORE, if you verify the buyer’s identity and transfer ownership on the GORE.gov website, you can rest assured that the government isn’t spying on you and trying to build a case based on what they think your intentions are.

GORE isn't about more laws--it's about better laws.

[_ldsfaqs]

My "assumptions" are not seriously flawed Analytics..... Yours are.

I spent my whole life up until I was 25 preparing for a career in Law Enforcement, which means it was my passion and expertise, and which means I was very much involved with those in law enforcement in the many places I lived, and also means I studied, observed etc.

Your "cherry-picked" liberals articles and examples are just that, cherry picks, not the actual trends and stats, nor are they including the experts, the law enforcement officer who daily deals and investigates criminals with guns.

Again, you choose liberal slight of hand, I choose reality and facts by actually knowing them first hand. You're just willingly gullible.

Since the only thing you are doing here is appealing to your own authority, let's qualify the nature of your expertise. You are the one that raised the issue. How come somebody with passion, preperation, and expertise never actually landed a job in law enforcement? I'm guessing it was because you either weren't intelligent enough, or because you got screened out during psychological/psychiatric evaluations. Can you shed some light on this?

As usual you people make things personal rather than dealing with the facts.

But, I'll entertain you more to further show your bigotry and elitism.

As most of you know, I was in the Marine Corps. I however did not serve a full term due to health reasons. Because of the nature of those reasons, and the situations resulting, I did not get an honorable discharge. I didn't do anything wrong, I simply had to leave, take a leave, and they wouldn't allow it. Thus, that resulted in not getting an honorable discharge. Not dishonorable, but not honorable either.

Anyway, I was a week away from starting the Police Academy. Had passed ALL tests, had my equipment, had taken 2 years of Criminal Justice, learned from prior officers, and even the Academy Director and some of the instructors, etc. I had been assured, and was friends with the Director himself that my military discharge wouldn't be a problem. Problem was, he missed a little detail. The agency that did the background check did so in a manner as if they were going to hire someone themselves. They had a strict pass/fail rule that if you were in the military, you HAD to have had an honorable discharge, period. So, at the last minute I found out my background check didn't go through because of that, and years of planning went down the toilet because it was then too late to have another agency that wasn't that strict do the check.

So, I had other options..... could have continued in another year or so, maybe with another program, but then a change came over me and I decided I simply didn't want the erratic schedual of most law enforcement, and instead wanted a 8-5 type career for family, Gospel, etc., and so I decided likely teaching, since that was my other passion. Anyway, here I am, not a teacher either because of a sad marriage and bad luck. That's another story.

by the way, because of growing up foster child and being involved in various government programs, schooling etc. I am perfectly psychologically normal. Been tested many times in all kinds of ways. Sorry to disappoint you.... I know you were hoping.

Oh, there is "one" difference though that has been found about me.
You know that test that determines (what was it?) the four different quadrants personality type someone is? Well, while I do have a "dominante" quadrant like everyone else, I'm different from everyone else in that while everyone else has a clear particular dominant quadrant or two, I'm actually almost fully EQUAL among all four quadrants. My dominante quadrant is only a couple of points higher than all the others, making all four almost exactly equal. In other words, I'm talented and use all parts of my brain, at least in reference to behavior patterns and talents. No, I don't have super powers.... haa haa Anyway, those kinds of results are very rare, that the person testing us had never seen it before (some psychology class or something I took once).....