Gun Control

[Junior]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/gov-hickenlooper-cites-stats-showing-stupid-criminals-are-caught-by-gun-background-checks

DENVER - Gov. John Hickenlooper unleashed a barrage of jaw-dropping numbers for critics who often tell him, “Criminals aren’t stupid, they’re not going to sign up for (gun) background checks.”

“Well, no one told the criminals that, and it turns out that many criminals are stupid," Hickenlooper said Wednesday after signing legislation requiring universal background checks for gun purchases.

In 2012, he said, background checks prevented 5,000 gun purchases out of more than 320,000 applications.

Of those blocked gun sales, Hickenlooper said:

- 38 were individuals either accused or convicted of homicide.

- 133 were people accused or convicted of sexual assault.

- 600 were people accused or convicted of burglary.

- Over 1,000 were people accused or convicted of felony assault.

- “400 individuals had restraining orders against them from a court and we’re trying to buy a gun.”

“Indeed, if you want any proof positive that criminals are not as smart as some people give them credit for, 236 individuals when they showed up to pick up their newly purchased gun, we arrested them because there were outstanding arrest warrants for them,” the governor said.

“I don’t see how you can argue that this isn’t (of) significant value. Over 2,000 people who had violent history were stopped from buying a weapon” in 2012, he added.

 

[MidnightRider]

Its interesting that the article you quoted mentions the NCIS as a preventive measure to prevent mentally ill people from purchasing firearms. They're doing a bang up f#ucking job in that respect, aren't they? What a joke. You seriously couldn't do better than that tripe?

Perhaps they would be doing a better job of it if the NRA hadn't worked so hard strip the ATF and FBI of their ability to track gun sales.

If you want better data, It's out there, trust me. I'm not your errand boy.

"I'm not your errand boy." Huh, that sounds really familiar but I'll give you an A for originality anyway because its Friday and I'm in a really good mood. Why the hell do they need to track gun sales? It is simply none of their business and if they think they can really effect any change, they are clearly delusional.

 

[Junior]

Its interesting that the article you quoted mentions the NCIS as a preventive measure to prevent mentally ill people from purchasing firearms. They're doing a bang up f#ucking job in that respect, aren't they? What a joke. You seriously couldn't do better than that tripe?

Perhaps they would be doing a better job of it if the NRA hadn't worked so hard strip the ATF and FBI of their ability to track gun sales.

If you want better data, It's out there, trust me. I'm not your errand boy.

"I'm not your errand boy." Huh, that sounds really familiar but I'll give you an A for originality anyway because its Friday and I'm in a really good mood. Why the hell do they need to track gun sales? It is simply none of their business and if they think they can really effect any change, they are clearly delusional.

See my above post. In 2012, 2000 felons, in Colorado alone, were stopped from the purchase of guns by background checks. That isn't "real change"?

 

[MidnightRider]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/gov-hickenlooper-cites-stats-showing-stupid-criminals-are-caught-by-gun-background-checks

DENVER - Gov. John Hickenlooper unleashed a barrage of jaw-dropping numbers for critics who often tell him, “Criminals aren’t stupid, they’re not going to sign up for (gun) background checks.”

“Well, no one told the criminals that, and it turns out that many criminals are stupid," Hickenlooper said Wednesday after signing legislation requiring universal background checks for gun purchases.

In 2012, he said, background checks prevented 5,000 gun purchases out of more than 320,000 applications.

Of those blocked gun sales, Hickenlooper said:

- 38 were individuals either accused or convicted of homicide.

- 133 were people accused or convicted of sexual assault.

- 600 were people accused or convicted of burglary.

- Over 1,000 were people accused or convicted of felony assault.

- “400 individuals had restraining orders against them from a court and we’re trying to buy a gun.”

“Indeed, if you want any proof positive that criminals are not as smart as some people give them credit for, 236 individuals when they showed up to pick up their newly purchased gun, we arrested them because there were outstanding arrest warrants for them,” the governor said.

“I don’t see how you can argue that this isn’t (of) significant value. Over 2,000 people who had violent history were stopped from buying a weapon” in 2012, he added.

Do you know anything about this stain, Hickenlooper? You could very well live in Colorado so it could be but the dude is no friend to 2nd amendment proponents. Where is the source for his data?

Sorry for the formatting issues, my tablet does not agree with this site for some reason.

 

[Junior]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/colorado-background-check-law-private-sale_n_4428828.html

Colorado's new background checks law is working, according to recent stats released by the state's Department of Public Safety.

The latest data published on the Colorado House Democrats website Wednesday shows that of the 4,792 background checks on private sales that were performed since the law went into effect, "72 sales were blocked because the would-be buyer was convicted of or charged with a serious crime, or was under a domestic restraining order."

Colorado's expanded background checks law closed a loophole that previously allowed gun buyers to purchase a weapon without having to undergo a background check if they bought it through a private sale. It was one of the contentious gun bills that passed and prompted the successful recalls of two state Senators, the resignation of a third and lawsuits by gun groups and most of the state's elected sheriffs.

 

[MidnightRider]

Its interesting that the article you quoted mentions the NCIS as a preventive measure to prevent mentally ill people from purchasing firearms. They're doing a bang up f#ucking job in that respect, aren't they? What a joke. You seriously couldn't do better than that tripe?

Perhaps they would be doing a better job of it if the NRA hadn't worked so hard strip the ATF and FBI of their ability to track gun sales.

If you want better data, It's out there, trust me. I'm not your errand boy.

"I'm not your errand boy." Huh, that sounds really familiar but I'll give you an A for originality anyway because its Friday and I'm in a really good mood. Why the hell do they need to track gun sales? It is simply none of their business and if they think they can really effect any change, they are clearly delusional.

See my above post. In 2012, 2000 felons, in Colorado alone, were stopped from the purchase of guns by background checks. That isn't "real change"?

Can I see the source for those stats? That's really not the point though. If a man is intent upon getting his hands on a gun, he will find one. Hell, I could go down to the west end right now and have one in 30 minutes or less. Point being, you will never prevent evil people from doing evil things? A gun is but one of many tools they may use to facilitate this violence.

 

[MidnightRider]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/colorado-background-check-law-private-sale_n_4428828.html

Colorado's new background checks law is working, according to recent stats released by the state's Department of Public Safety.

The latest data published on the Colorado House Democrats website Wednesday shows that of the 4,792 background checks on private sales that were performed since the law went into effect, "72 sales were blocked because the would-be buyer was convicted of or charged with a serious crime, or was under a domestic restraining order."

Colorado's expanded background checks law closed a loophole that previously allowed gun buyers to purchase a weapon without having to undergo a background check if they bought it through a private sale. It was one of the contentious gun bills that passed and prompted the successful recalls of two state Senators, the resignation of a third and lawsuits by gun groups and most of the state's elected sheriffs.

You rail against Fox yet link to a HuffPo article? Wow. Mind. BLOWN!

 

[Junior]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/lindsey-grahams-claim-that-no-fugitives-have-been-prosecuted-after-gun-background-checks/2013/04/03/5d20c1fa-9ca9-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html

Here’s what Pennsylvania’s 2010 annual report said:



The instantaneous background check process yielded warrant information that led to the arrest of 114 individuals while they were attempting to purchase a firearm last year. The coordinated efforts of PICS [Pennsylvania Instant Check System] staff and law enforcement agencies, who respond to these notifications, have resulted in the arrest of 1,365 fugitives since PICS was established in July 1998.
Here’s what Virginia’s 2010 annual report said:



During 2010, 145 wanted persons were identified for extraditable offenses, which resulted in the arrest of 63 individuals wanted in Virginia and 2 individuals who were named in an outstanding warrant from another state. In 2010, the State Police requested 942 criminal investigations related to the illegal sale or attempt to purchase firearms. Additionally, during 2009, 1,286 criminal investigations for the illegal sale or attempt to purchase a firearm resulted in 871 (68%) cases.

 

[Junior]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/colorado-background-check-law-private-sale_n_4428828.html

Colorado's new background checks law is working, according to recent stats released by the state's Department of Public Safety.

The latest data published on the Colorado House Democrats website Wednesday shows that of the 4,792 background checks on private sales that were performed since the law went into effect, "72 sales were blocked because the would-be buyer was convicted of or charged with a serious crime, or was under a domestic restraining order."

Colorado's expanded background checks law closed a loophole that previously allowed gun buyers to purchase a weapon without having to undergo a background check if they bought it through a private sale. It was one of the contentious gun bills that passed and prompted the successful recalls of two state Senators, the resignation of a third and lawsuits by gun groups and most of the state's elected sheriffs.

You rail against Fox yet link to a HuffPo article? Wow. Mind. BLOWN!

You asked for data, I gave you data. If you care to refute the numbers in their article, by all means do it. But you should probably do so with sources and links of your own.

Maybe you prefer the Washington Post article I linked to above? Or just tell me what sources I'm allowed to cite and we'll go from there.

 

[MidnightRider]

If I say "Barack Obama worships the devil", is it incumbent upon me to provide evidence to fit my claim or you to go out looking for it?
Seems to me knowing who is purchasing weapons is useful when you need to crosscheck who is allowed by law to have guns. Felons, for example are not. In turn, this aides the ATF in tracking gun dealers who sell illegally.

Um, unless you were living in a cave for the weeks following the Ft Hood shooting, there is absolutely no way you could have missed those reports. I lurked this site for quite a while before joining and I noted early on that this was your go to move. I'm not your errand boy and I won't do your research for you.

I don't need the federal government keeping track of how many lawn mowers, food processors or guns I own. Its none of their damned business. Period. Your definition of "useful" and mine are light years apart. How many felons do you think actually go to a gun store to purchase a weapon? That's a very weak support statement.

BTW, you never answered this question: "are you cool with them tracking everything you say on the Internet while exercising your 1st ammendment rights?" Why is that? You strike me as the "well, I'm not doing anything wrong so I'm cool with it" type. Is this correct?

My go to move is to ask people to supply evidence to support their claims? Guilty.

No, I'm not a fan of people tracking my internet movements. But then that's not really an analogous claim to background checks on gun sales. It is illegal for felons to own weapons, so somehow we have to be able to check for that. It isn't illegal for felons to use the internet or send an email.

Of course its analogous. You are exercising your 1st amendment rights in the same way that I exercise my 2nd amendment rights. How would you feel if I came on here and told you to STFU and go get whatever you're saying approved by some federal keyboard jockey before you post it? You cool with that? You don't get to f#cking cherry pick the Constitution!

 

[MidnightRider]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/colorado-background-check-law-private-sale_n_4428828.html

Colorado's new background checks law is working, according to recent stats released by the state's Department of Public Safety.

The latest data published on the Colorado House Democrats website Wednesday shows that of the 4,792 background checks on private sales that were performed since the law went into effect, "72 sales were blocked because the would-be buyer was convicted of or charged with a serious crime, or was under a domestic restraining order."

Colorado's expanded background checks law closed a loophole that previously allowed gun buyers to purchase a weapon without having to undergo a background check if they bought it through a private sale. It was one of the contentious gun bills that passed and prompted the successful recalls of two state Senators, the resignation of a third and lawsuits by gun groups and most of the state's elected sheriffs.

You rail against Fox yet link to a HuffPo article? Wow. Mind. BLOWN!

You asked for data, I gave you data. If you care to refute the numbers in their article, by all means do it. But you should probably do so with sources and links of your own.

Maybe you prefer the Washington Post article I linked to above? Or just tell me what sources I'm allowed to cite and we'll go from there.

You provided "data" from an aggregate, liberal leaning website. I think I'll pass on that. Hey, I'm gonna go grab a beer. You want one? I have Heineken and Guinness.

 

[Junior]

The Washington Post is liberal leaning?

 

[MidnightRider]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/colorado-background-check-law-private-sale_n_4428828.html

Colorado's new background checks law is working, according to recent stats released by the state's Department of Public Safety.

The latest data published on the Colorado House Democrats website Wednesday shows that of the 4,792 background checks on private sales that were performed since the law went into effect, "72 sales were blocked because the would-be buyer was convicted of or charged with a serious crime, or was under a domestic restraining order."

Colorado's expanded background checks law closed a loophole that previously allowed gun buyers to purchase a weapon without having to undergo a background check if they bought it through a private sale. It was one of the contentious gun bills that passed and prompted the successful recalls of two state Senators, the resignation of a third and lawsuits by gun groups and most of the state's elected sheriffs.

You rail against Fox yet link to a HuffPo article? Wow. Mind. BLOWN!

You asked for data, I gave you data. If you care to refute the numbers in their article, by all means do it. But you should probably do so with sources and links of your own.

Maybe you prefer the Washington Post article I linked to above? Or just tell me what sources I'm allowed to cite and we'll go from there.

The Washington Post? Seriously? I was having fun but now I'm beginning to think I may have overestimated you a bit.

You can post whatever you want, obviously. I'm just pointing out the absurd amount of irony at play here...

 

[MidnightRider]

The Washington Post is liberal leaning?

Do you seriously read that rag? Sadly, I usually utilize foreign desks for my news on what's happening in America. That's the only place you can get any semblance of truth, these days.

 

[Junior]

you obviously will only accept links from websites that you like. So why don't we cut the BS and you can just tell me what websites I'm allowed to cite.

alternatively, you could post your qualms about the data itself, rather than trying to muddy the waters complaining about liberal sources