01-25-2018, 12:30 PM
(01-25-2018, 12:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thanks for this link. More info from this study.
62% of gunowners who had their gun end up in the hands of a criminal do not know how they lost possession of the gun. 30% of the guns were reported stolen but over half of those were never reported stolen until the police recovered them and asked the owner.
Sure, and there's a lot of reasons for this that don't include the owner refusing to report their firearm as stolen. Most gun owners own one or two guns, a hand gun for protection and possibly a long gun. Most of them never go to the range after the first time they take their new gun there to practice. They put it away and hope they never have to use it. Not sure what point you're trying to make here other than most gun owners don't use their gun very often.
Quote:thius study also highlighted the fact that half of gun dealers are willing to participate in a "straw" purchase where they know the gun is for someone other than the purchaser
Which is totally illegal and should be prosecuted to the extent of the law.
Quote:In fact this entire study supports my position that since firearms are so deadly we need the ability to track them and determine their ownership.
Maybe you should actually read what you link instead of just taking one small nugget out of context in a lame attempt to spin it in your favor.
Maybe you should try and post any link instead of spouting your ill informed opinion. I'd be all for a gun registry, as long as it was accompanied by a federal law that forbid banning fire arms based on features or banning certain classes of firearms that are not already covered by federal law. In short, I have no problem with a registry as long as it is patently impossible to ever use it to track down and confiscate legally purchased firearms.
(01-25-2018, 12:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "If Obama gets elected he will outlaw all guns!"
"The founding fathers wanted a militia in order to fight against our own government"
"There is no market for "smart gun" technology. People don't want it."
For those of us who are discerning and pay attention it is startlingly obvious how much you and your ilk indulge in insane levels of hyperbole. You engage in it the most when you have no fact based argument to shore up your position. As for "smart gun" research, blame the law in New Jersey for why people don't want them. There's also the fact that adding another mechanism to a firearm, especially a brand new and untested one, significantly adds to the chance the firearm will fail to operate properly when used. While firearm owners hope never to have to use their firearms in a life and death situation they fear the firearm not working if such a situation occurs even more.
In regards to the NJ law.
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/06/24/325178305/a-new-jersey-law-thats-kept-smart-guns-off-shelves-nationwide
Quote:Basically, the Childproof Handgun Law of 2002 says that once "personalized handguns are available" anywhere in the country, all handguns sold in New Jersey must be smart guns within 30 months.and
Quote:"It actually doesn't matter if the gun has been sold," says David Kopel, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute. "If there's just one available for sale anywhere in the United States, then that triggers the handgun ban. So who would want to sell a smart gun knowing that, by doing so, they'd be imposing a handgun ban on New Jersey?"
As usual, anti-gun legislation, written by peope with zero firearms knowledge, actually hurts their own ca
