LOS ANGELES – The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to consider new ways of preventing violence in the community and workplace, including potential gun buyback programs and stricter controls on rapid-fire weapons.
Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas proposed that the sheriff, district attorney, probation chief and health officials develop a set of recommendations within 30 days.
“The recent horrific events in San Bernardino are tragic reminders that the Board of Supervisors must ensure it is doing all that it can to prevent violence in the community and the workplace,” Supervisor Ridley-Thomas said in his motion, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors.
The county has taken steps to combat the underlying causes of violence, including creating school threat assessment teams and mental health first-aid training for community members and county staffers, but Ridley-Thomas said it wasn’t enough.
“Much more needs to be done in the face of a deeply troubling and recurring pattern of mass shootings,” Ridley-Thomas said.
His motion laid out a short list of options for consideration, including further background checks on the sale of guns within Los Angeles County, insurance for gun buyers (similar to car insurance) to cover any taxpayer expenses incurred from the injurious use of a gun, and taxes on firearms and ammunition. [Read the motion here.]
Supervisor Michael Antonovich said he couldn’t support the motion because it included those options.
“I support the efforts at improving workplace safety,” Antonovich said.
Antonovich asked county lawyers to provide a legal opinion on the constitutionality of the proposed gun policies.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused last week to hear a Second Amendment challenge to a Highland Park, Illinois, ordinance banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, which was interpreted by some pundits as an opportunity for more local regulation.
Gun owners raised their own objections before the board Tuesday.
“You’re stereotyping all gun owners as bad people,” one Antelope Valley resident told the board.
–
William says
Why would the guys who wrote the 2nd Amendment want a ‘A well-regulated militia’ but as far as the rest of the populace, very little, if any, regulation?
Anyway, the whole discussion is hopeless. There are so many weapons now in the country that there’s no turning back. Does anyone think that the gun manufacturers will stop pushing the sale of guns when the market is fully saturated?
It does seem that the most fearful and paranoid of all the citizens are the right wingers who have guns. Meanwhile, everyone else is out Christmas shopping and waiting in line for the Star Wars movie or otherwise living their lives.
The GOP/fox ‘news’/NRA et al keep telling us how fearful the citizens are. It’s good for business. Really it is.
Remember, if you are the big fantasy hero with a concealed gun in a crowded area when the shooters start shooting, the moment you fire your weapon, you will be the most important target for them. If not then, the cops might shoot you when they arrive.
I know that’s not how your fantasy plays. But, remember, it’s just your ‘fantasy’.
pirrurris says
The republicans, NRA, and the gun manufacturers do it every election season….they scare people by telling them that the government is coming after your guns, and that they are going to put you a FEMA camp. What do the ammosexuals do? They go out and buy more guns, and the only ones getting rich are the gun manufacturers and NRA.
Andy says
William…look past your own eutopian fantasy and realize that people like you standing in line to watch star wars ARE the targets. Just ask the theater shooting victims in Aurora Colorado. What liberals like you fail to realize is…laws restricting guns will not stop criminals. Criminals obtain guns illegally and do not subscribe to the law. It is the law abiding gun owner who will be victimized by stricter gun control. Criminals will still get their guns on the black market just like they already do, only, the black market will grow because of the laws you support.
So the next time you are standing in line, or in a crowded mall, look around, because I’m willing to bet my paycheck there’s a crook packing heat somewhere nearby…you’re just too naive to spot him. But don’t worry. Those of us who can legally carry a concealed weapon will save your sorry self.
Chris says
This conversation wont end til we are all jihadist or russian….im votin on russian…I’ll probably be dead cuz I will fight for me n mine n you n yours
Stinger says
Just one question for my friends who believe that it is the access to guns that causes these tragedies… When is the last time that you ever heard of a massacre at a gun show?… Ever?
Maybe, just maybe, it ain’t the guns that are the problem.
Tm says
Thank you..agree.
My Dixie Wrecked says
What Tim Scott doesn’t seem to know is that there are hand guns that are made specifically for close quarters fighting. Bring your knife. I take one of my guns and we’ll see what happens. You won’t get close enough to cut me. As for your argument that all guns were legal at some point, what about the guns that mexican gangs and the cartels send over the borders to their soldiers here in America? think that all of those guys get all of their guns here? You are not being realistic. I know that you will retort with that I am not being realistic. Ok whatever you say. Typical lefty that can never see past their own opinion.
Tim Scott says
Here’s the thing, Dixie…if someone wants to kill another person, they can. If you set up a meeting somewhere between two people set on killing each other, the best armed has the better chance. But that isn’t even remotely what we are talking about.
To play off your example…you tell me your name and where to find you. I’ll keep an eye on you for a while, learn your schedule. You go ahead and carry your gun. Do you really think you’d be able to say “you won’t get close enough to cut me?” under those circumstances? Of course not.
Somebody busts in my door spraying lead at everything that moves…I’m dead. But under that circumstance your gun isn’t going to save you either.
My point all along has been that the “if you don’t have a gun you can’t defend yourself” claim is just flat wrong. I’ve not tried to say that guns are ineffective, or useless.
Tim Scott says
By the way…those “guns the cartels send over the border”? I’m not actually sure that happens, since guns are a lot easier to get here anyway. One of the Mexican government’s big complaints about their neighbor to the north is that Mexican criminals are usually armed with US bought weapons. Why would anyone bring a gun from Mexico to the US, after having gone to all the trouble of having operatives straw purchase the gun in the US and smuggling it to Mexico in the first place?
Brian says
What is being forgotten here is the legal guns in the US are at roughly 350 million, the Government guesses at another 300 plus million unregistered weapons with no trace. These weapons have been handed down or grandfathered and or are in the area of stolen weapons etc., Virtually no way to track to a single individual. It is simply way too late to think your going to disarm the country. I am all for background checks, I think you should have to pass a test of some form, I would make it more logical to have a legal gun Vs. people thinking if I hide it..those weapons when stolen are not reported or have any ability to track. Talking with current Police officers the are so under staffed and spread so far that the average 911 call is NOT going to have a officer there in time to protect yourself or family during your average immediate threat. Its simply a fact.Sad as it may be to those of us that remember better times, The world has taken a big change and not for the best. You cannot expect the average person to be skilled enough to take on a criminal with a knife, its up close and personal and body strength size numbers etc. all change the defense with a knife. My wife is not going to overpower your average sized man face to face with a knife, A skilled shot(which she is) will but the target on a different playing field. Have you been a victim? I know several I also know the laws being pushed here only effect the law abiding person and with over 300 million guns of unknown ownership those will still be in the hands of possible criminals. Registration, Training, Background checks most people are open too and its what we should be focused on.
Tim Scott says
Brian, when you say “most people are open to registration” I think you must have missed any number of attempts to introduce registration that have been refused by the gun lobby.
The illogical but apparently convincing “registration leads to confiscation, muh freedums!” outcry never changes.
Laughing says
To purchase we have to fill out a few documents then wait. The information is basically registration. The statement that most law abiding gun owners are open to registration is true… in California. Not true in other states that do things differently and vocally.
Tim Scott says
Understood. The problem is that all that stands between here and there is a state line, and a state line is a completely uncontrolled border. Federal regulation is the only thing that has any possible impact, and the lunatics are running the gun lobby asylum on the national level.
Gambrinus says
What about all the bombs the Muslim couple left behind at the party and their apartment. How is gun legislation going to address that? Besides, they broke at least three existing gun laws. Are we to believe that terrorists with Islamic motives will obey county laws although they ignored state and federal rules?
Laughing says
I know right?! How about those terrorists with White Supremacist motives? At least they only use fire bombs.
Come on now, you could have left it at terrorists, they come in all shapes, colors and belief systems.
pirrurris says
Agree 100%. No one talks about the God loving christian (US citizen) domestic terrorist that killed in the planned parenthood clinic. Or the white supremacist domestic terrorrist that killed christians in the chirch in S.C.
Tm says
Well maybe if everyone had the right ..well most educated and responsible adults….have the right to carry a weapon in the public..when [removed] goes down ..we would have the opportunity to protect ourselves and others in harm of the psychos ..and maybe would just have the chance to stop chaos before it begins…think about it…either way..however the outcome will be regarding fun control..if they are confiscated from people..they will ALWAYS find a way to get one..so maybe if we all carry one …problem solved
Stelnikov says
“Rapid fire weapons”? All machine guns are barred by federal law and have been for decades. Additionally, none were used in this attack – and, in fact, never are used due to the difficulty in obtaining them under current law. But, sure, go ahead and add another layer over that. Should do the trick. This time.
Laughing says
They are trying out new scary terms since many people are now educated on the difference between assault weapon and assault styled weapon. Plus if a chubby person tummy bounces the rifle it can become rapid fire.
I think they only want revolvers and single shot weapons in civilian hands.
AV Observer says
Maybe Rex can weigh in on this. He’s had some experience with guns, or at least making up excuses why his wife went on a plane packing heat.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/lancaster-mayors-wife-cited.html
notagain says
Again, the BOS need to cease and desist attempting to legislate our daily living. CAs majority supposed left-wing, bleeding heart liberals are becoming increasingly more like Stalinitsas, infringing ever more into our lives, trying to legislate away our right to protect ourselves. No doubt they are making backroom deals with insurance companies to make gun ownership available only to those who will be able to afford hight premiums…to what end? What a joke. The thieves will still steal weapons and commit crimes; especially with the ever increasing early release prisoners being given golden handshakes so they can become repeat offenders, instead of becoming productive citizens. New CA state motto: The Welfare State
Tim says
That was hilarious! She took the wrong purse. Yeah, right. Try this at home kids. Put down two purses. Put the stuff you normally take with you in a purse. In one, put your pistol. Pick them both up.
Took the wrong purse. Save the excuses for the morons who follow you.
Tim Scott says
The really hilarious part of this lying excuse is…what if we accept it as true?
So her INTENT was to take the other purse and head off to the airport…LEAVING HER GUN SITTING IN THE PURSE SHE LEFT HOME.
So, let’s hear what some of our responsible gun owners think of that?
Lozano says
14 people dead in San Bernardino and a stupid, misguided pronouncement by the LA BOS and all you two can talk about is the mayor’s wife? Obsess much? Sad.
Tim says
It’s about being responsible with guns. Why should the mayor and his wife get to carry concealed weapons? Why are they so special? Her actions showed she isn’t responsible enough. His lying about it shows he’s not to be trusted.
Laughing says
Sadly it happens all too often. Some gun owners get lazy about their weapons. Laziness is almost as dangerous as craziness when it comes to firearms.
Perry Mason says
She should not be allowed to carry a concealed weapon since she has proven to be irresponsible. He should not be allowed to carry a concealed weapon for trying to cover up for her idiocy of trying to bring a gun on a plane. Case closed.
Cerberus says
Another no name politician trying to invent one for himself by conviniently joining the choir of opportunistic individuals who are peddling constitutional issue as a vehicle for notoriety. Shame on us for voting and accepting this sort of political specimen!
Rf says
Wait, LA County is going to pass laws & expect terrorists to follow them? Seriously??
Terry Work says
So let me get this straight you will pay me $50 to be able to NOT protect my family, what a deal! Hmm, maybe you should offer gun training classes fo $50 to be given by our Police Departments and train people to handle guns.
Tim Scott says
If you define “must have a gun” as a prerequisite to protecting your family I suggest self examination, because you are missing something.
f. ramirez says
If someone’s breaking into your home and threatening your life and safety and the life and safety of your loved ones, are you supposed to say:
“…stop, please! I beg you not to kill us or take everything we have…”
Give me a break! What fantasy land do you live in, in your mind! The only person who needs “self examination” is you! If I were your wife and you didn’t shoot whomever was breaking into our home, and we both survived, you’ll have wished the criminals took you out!
Tim Scott says
LOL…so you live in a binary universe where there is NO POSSIBLE RESPONSE between having a gun and pleading for your life? Interesting place, but it makes you look pretty silly when you try to discuss possibilities in what the rest of us consider reality.
Here’s a clue…if a person is in your house, assuming that over there in your strange reality houses are similar to what we have here, how far from that person are you going to be? Now, given that distance would you, who are a fan of guns, say that the most useful weapon to have is a gun? Or would you think that just maybe there might be a better weapon for that sort of close in work?
If you haven’t figured it out, go ahead and bring your gun to my house and I’ll slice you up and feed you to my dogs. The fantasy that is very common is that just having a gun will solve all problems, which is a big part of why so many gun owners get themselves killed, often with their own gun.
Roac34 says
What’s your data on the number of gun owners killed by their own guns? Why don’t you try googling it and you’ll see that it rarely, if ever, happens (not accounting for suicide). You can’t just blather out idiotic statements and that makes it true. You seem to forget, Mr. Scott, that we live in the age of the Internet when your comments can be easily checked and debunked!
Tim Scott says
Roac, what I said was THEY GET THEMSELVES KILLED. Their own guns may well be involved in that, but for the most part it is when they let their cold steel courage incite them into “standing up” when they don’t have the genuine courage that turns out to be required.
“I have a gun, so instead of letting a kid run off with my lawn statue I’ll turn this into a death match…” and they lose.
“I have a gun, so I can bombast my way out of any responsibility for this fender bender in the parking lot…” oh, wait, they have one too and now the fender bender is the OK Corral for someone, and they lose.
Try a simple search string like “gun owner risk” and you should find plenty of references to studies that demonstrate that gun owners are at higher risk for:
Dying from a homicide in their home.
Dying from a gun related homicide.
Dying by suicide.
You will also find references to studies with similar results for people with a “family history of gun purchases.” Meaning that your spouse and your kids are at higher risk for all these things as well.
Tim Scott says
LOL…no room for any response between having a gun and pleading, eh? Pretty simplistic, but not unexpected.
troll hunter says
So enlighten us…what is the “complicated” response to an armed home invasion Mr. Scott?
Tim Scott says
Other responses aren’t complicated. When I said he was being simplistic i was referring to the apparent lack of any responses beyond two; have a gun or plead uselessly. But of course you didn’t catch on in your rush to play the troll, hunter.
f. ramirez says
What are you going to do? “karate-chop” the home invaders?
Seriously????? FLOL!!!!!!!!!!!
You’ve only proven that your good for a laugh.
Those of us that live in the real world know better, so save your platitudes for someone else!
Tim Scott says
Ramirez, your failure to recognize that in close confines a gun is not the best available weapon demonstrates the problem with gun owners perfectly. That reliance on bad information is what leads to so many gun owners being killed with their own guns.
I do acknowledge you for coming up with a third option though. Let’s see, you are up to “have a gun”, “plead”, or “karate chop”. Keep at it and you might actually broaden that tiny mind.
Tim Scott says
Nope. It’s because you could only think of two options, and with prompting managed to work all the way up to THREE. Has nothing to do with the ethnicity that is theoretically connected to your screen name. All I can go by is what you show right here and right now.
Which is…
1) a gun reliant believer.
2) who wants to be insulting.
3) and can’t be bothered with thinking.
f. ramirez says
Besides trolling my posts, and those of practically everyone else here, what can you offer in protecting ourselves and our loved ones in a home invasion robbery sans a gun?
Please, enlighten us O’ Wise & Knowledgeable One!
f. ramirez says
Knowing people who think like you, you’ll probably succumb to Stockholm Syndrome and offer up your wife or a couple of kids and grandkids to the home invaders…as well as whatever merchandise they want to take as well. Then call the cops (the guys you hate so much) and hope they get there in time to chase down the invaders and then hope they haven’t raped your wife or sold off your kids to a child rapist ring. Liberalism is a sick, sick way of thinking and a mental disease!
Tim Scott says
I already did, though it is pending moderation. But I’m sure that now that you are thinking you could come up with a few.
Though it is sort of a wasted effort, since the odds of you being the victim of a “home invasion robbery” are about the same as the odds of you running out in the street and shooting the next person that comes by and happening to hit me.
Tim Scott says
Ramirez, I doubt that you know anyone who thinks like me…because they wouldn’t bother with you.
Artfldgr says
So what your saying Tim is that you would bring a knife to a gun fight? there is a reason why everyone around the world gave up knives in favor of handguns, and why they are called the equalizer, as a 80lb woman with almost no training can take out a man of any size…
by the way, i grew up in an inner city slum, and if you think in your tiny head that you could stand up to someone with your knife, your nuts…
big men keep on coming.. i weigh 230lbs and am 6’2″ and i would go through a knife like a train through the fog… oh, and if the subject your up against is on flakka, well good luck to you.
Tim Scott says
Like a train through the fog…deluded much? If you think you are knife proof there isn’t much to say to you, really, but good luck with that.
Taking the one in 5000 chance of encountering a home invasion robbery and multiplying it by the percentage of the population that shrugs off wounds…okay, I’m comfortable with my odds.
Artfldgr says
But tim
we are not concerned with YOUR odds, we are concerned with other peoples odds. just cause you think your safe and willing to risk it, what makes you the arbiter of others risk?
The man in his 60’s first shot one suspect, who made his way to a hospital and was later arrested. The man also shot a second suspect in his 30’s, who he found in the doorway of a bedroom. That person died in the home. The homeowner was not injured and ran out of his home after shooting the burglars to find help.
i wonder when your old and less firm if you will still think that what you think now is good for you then
Tim Scott says
One in 5000 aren’t MY odds. That’s THE odds. Number of home invasion robberies in the US divided by number of homes.
That’s actually a VAST overstating of the odds. I would guess that at least half of the home invasion robberies that occur involve a house where some sort of shady business goes on, like dope fiends raiding a dealer, or someone who knows that someone has a lot of cash they can’t bank because they dodge taxes or whatever. So if you aren’t in anything shady you are going to be way less than one in 5000, but since I can’t say how much less other than guessing I went with that.
Things that are more than 5000 to one against can be interesting topics to talk about, but they aren’t likely enough to base life decisions on. Age or infirmity not withstanding.
pirrurris says
Ramirez, i think that all the ammosexuals should join the military put on the uniform, and go fight in Iraq or Afghanistan, instead of trying to play Rambo.
Laughing says
Some of them already did. They experienced it, they lived it, they survived it and now it is hard to let go of as they see terrorism spreading into neighborhoods here. Not just from world terrorism but from gangs as well.
Many have served this country to protect you and your rights. They have fought in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf wars, and countless small raids against drug cartels in foreign states.
Personally I think every citizen should go through a year or two of military service here at home. The training would make them realize the world does not revolve around them.
Pirruris' wife says
@laughing
Sorry, laughing at you since pirruris is in fact a retired military member (over 2 decades of service), I know this because I am his wife. Pendejo, he is a man with cojones bigger than your head so please STFU, you never know people’s background when they are not arrogant pricks like you!!!!
Laughing says
I served too. Just not as long. Notice I did not put him down at all. Thanks for your insults though, classy.
Rereading my comment now the only perceivable possible insult would be the “ti protect you and your rights” statement, which is still true.
troll hunter says
It is not for you to judge what a person decides is a reasonable “prerequisite” to protecting their family. But is so typical of liberals who think that they, above anyone else, know what’s best for all.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Tim Scott says
Actually, the presentation of “what’s best for all” there was when the statement was made that giving up a gun meant being unable to protect a family. I don’t have a gun, and no one in my family has ever doubted that I can and will protect them. So clearly this “take away our guns and we can’t protect ourselves and our families” doesn’t apply universally.
Statistics indicate that gun owners and their families are at GREATER risk, not lesser.
f. ramirez says
Most of the types of criminals that commit home invasions are often bumbling idiots with low IQs who barely know how to use guns themselves, they just pistol whip their victims and make them think they know.
A gun in the hands of a properly trained gun owner is a beautiful things and it goes real far in preventing tragic incidents.
If the home invader is shot and dies, so what? That’s a calculated risk that they were willing to take! I could care less so long as my family and I are safe.
Tim Scott says
LOL…and this “track record” you refer to comes from where, Boob?
Just at a guess, my family is in a better position to judge my ability to protect them than you are. That should be obvious to even the most cursory reader.
Your willingness to just spout off totally unsupportable and obviously made up stuff is why you have no credibility. A lot of people here don’t like what I have to say, but they never catch me in something like that…because I don’t do it. When I say that statistics show something anyone with a simple search engine can verify it for themselves.
Tim Scott says
This “most of the…” is based on what, Ramirez? Been out administering IQ tests to criminals? Or are you just making more stuff up because you think it sounds good?
Go do volunteer work at the prison. You’ll find that there is over representation of poorly educated people, but that assuming criminals aren’t intelligent is a mistake.
Hundred to one odds that almost every one of them if asked “name some ways you can defend yourself” could come up with more than three, so what does that say about your towering intellect?
chris says
How often does a legit american go n mass murder people? Really?Ive owned many guns for many years…for self defense yes…for havin some fun target shooting…yes! It is my right as an AMERICAN CITIZEN to poses these tools! I have never displayed a gun in anger…but I can tell you they have saved not only my well being but that of friends family n even strangers on one occasion.You go live in your gun free world(n complain about the sheriffs that protect your bitch self) Im keeping my guns locked n loaded!
Alex velasco says
I agree with you 110 percent! Tell me why is it that we’re so concern with weapons in hands of good citizens, when the government just made a 1.23 billion dollar deal with Saudia Arabia to sell them weapons. We’re so concern about who’s getting weapons here at home. Why aren’t we concern about who’s getting weapons in the middle east? N who’s hand do you think does weapons are going to end up? N who do you think those weapons are going to kill ? We need to focus on whats really going on. I say we arm our good standing citizens n believe me anyone thinking of doing anything bad to anyone will think twice before doing it! Thank you AV I love living here n I’m willing to protect my home at all cost!
Tim Scott says
Why we are so concerned with “weapons in the hands of good citizens” is that the source of weapons used in crimes IS weapons in the hands of good citizens. As is constantly pointed out, every gun used in a crime was at some point legally purchased by a “good citizen.”
I’m somewhat concerned that you armed good citizens are, statistically speaking, putting yourself at much higher risk. My concern there is that you guys take on that higher risk while, at least mostly, lying to yourselves and pretending that you aren’t. But I’m not your insurance company and if your choices lead to your death or injury it really doesn’t matter that much to me.
All I really want in terms of gun control is something to make you good citizens be responsible about keeping legal guns legal. The number of guns that shift from the legal market to the illegal market every single day is grotesque, and that’s on you guys.
Rick Lindstrom says
Mr. Scott,
You obviously haven’t researched existing California firearms laws. You can’t simply sell or transfer a firearm from one person to another, without going through a licensed dealer who must perform a background check on the buyer.
Not reporting a stolen legally owned firearm is also against the law. The majority of guns used in crime are either stolen or acquired on the black market, no amount of additional laws will impact this situation. They only serve to penalize responsible gun owners, who aren’t the problem here.
Exactly how many guns that “shift from the legal market to the illegal market every single day” are you claiming? Do you have a verifiable number?
It’s no secret that those intent on mass carnage choose venues where they will encounter no armed resistance. How many more deaths are needed before we figure out that “gun free zones” are nothing more than killing fields for those with some twisted desires? Perhaps it would be more effective looking at who is pulling the trigger, than the gun itself. Guns don’t go around committing crimes, people do.
I would find your arguments for even more laws to be ignored by criminals and jihadists laughable, if they weren’t so dangerous and short sighted at the expense of the rest of us. Your perspective, like so many misguided others seems to be “Guns make me nervous. So YOU shouldn’t have one!”
You probably haven’t been the victim of what’s now being called a “gun crime.” I have, several times. And I know first hand, that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, before mass carnage ensues, is personal armed defense. To deny this is living in a fantasy land.
Perhaps you should get some firearms training so you can speak from experience, rather than pontificate about what’s right for responsible gun owners, without your possessing a shred of personal knowledge. Just sayin’.
Tim Scott says
Rick…you point, yourself, to exactly the same thing that I said. You say “The majority of guns used in crime are either stolen or acquired on the black market.” I agree. Those are guns that WERE purchased as legal firearms, and SHIFTED into illegal firearms. If there were NO legal firearms there would be no source of illegal firearms, but I’ve never said that I would like to see such a situation.
What I HAVE said, and will continue to say, is that we need legislation to force LEGAL gun owners to be responsible for KEEPING their guns legal. Sure, California law requires that if you sell a gun you have to do it in the designated manner. BUT there is absolutely no provision for enforcing that law until AFTER the gun is used in a crime. It’s a little late then, don’t you think?
The only practical and workable solution involves registration, and the gun lobby always plays the “registration leads to confiscation” panic card so it never happens. I get that registration would be a burden to responsible gun owners, and that there is inherent unfairness in that. But the fact is that the source of illegal guns IS legal guns. There’s no factory making illegal guns. You can’t go down to the gun store and buy an illegal gun. Someone, somewhere, has to turn their legal gun into an illegal gun, and that person is a gun owner.
Laughing says
Tim Scott, actually there have been cases of small time illegal gun manufacturing. Zip guns, Saturday night specials, etc. have been in the news off and on. A well organized gang enterprise could easily afford the machines required to make the lowers of rifles and then buy the rest of the parts or machine those as well. There are books explaining the whole process for many types of single shot, semi-auto and full automatic weapons.
In short, new laws may help a tiny bit of the time, but very often the ‘criminal’ guns come in across borders, or are stolen, including from locked safes. Yes, straw man purchases happen as well.
Tim Scott says
True enough Laughing, but those illegal gun manufacturing operations are more in the “exception that proves the rule” category. The vast majority of illegal guns were, originally, legal guns.
Criminal guns do come in across borders, but that’s AFTER they become criminal guns, generally. The transition from legal gun to illegal gun is a WHOLE lot easier in Arizona, for example, so a lot of illegal guns come from there. That applies not only in other states, but other countries as well.
The issue remains that there is no way to identify an illegal gun until AFTER it is used in a crime. Then we go through this drama of “where did it come from?” “how did a criminal have it?” blah blah blah. We have no process for “is that your gun?” because our responsible owners of legal guns insist that having to answer such questions is just too much to demand of them.
Artfldgr says
Tim your making a non point… at one time blimpys in ny got in trouble as someone was selling mac10s they made in machine shops in nj… no its not the dominant way, but thats a non point because ease is what makes the choice, and as you remove one thing, you open up the door to a bunch of worse stuff.
take away legal stores who have to do a check of some sort, have a license, and all that review, including alarms and cameras…
and what you have is people making them and selling them – like tiny methamphetamine labs but a lot easier to get the ability, tools, and materials than a meth lab… and you will have people who will bring them over the pretty open border… even more so if its more lucrative than drugs or expands the market. and dont forget that police officers and others who are allowed to have something become targets.
i would say out of that the guys that will import them that also run tons of drugs in single shipments will just buy from the open markets in africa, pakistan, and those countries who have been flooded with weapons from socialist russia and socialist china… in fact they sell more weapons than us… russia almost matches the US and their economy is so much smaller given the depredations of socialism and leaders cut from those cloths
with an open market there will be demand for other items that can be bought in the same markets. in mogadisu, and afghanistan you can get russian made grenade launchers, and more. heck a few years back russia authorized venezuela to manufacture ak74s (a newer model), dragunof sniper rifles, and launchers.
so maybe those are coming anyway…
alex velasco says
Mr tim scott tell me what do you think about our government selling weapons to saudia arabia? How does this make our country safer from the radicals that are trying to hurt us? N what do you think our citizens can do to protect themselves from these acts of cowardness?? Im all ears
Tim Scott says
I think that the Saudi Arabian government is reprehensible, and that forty years of us propping them up is a huge part of why the US is so thoroughly despised in the Middle East. In that regard continuing to sell that government weapons certainly does nothing to “make us safe.”
That said, our economic position in the world is dependent on maintaining control of Saudi Arabian oil exports, so propping up their government is a dirty necessity, unless we are willing to accept a more cooperative role in the world economy. My entire lifespan has been spent in a country where 5% of the world’s population consuming 50% of the world’s resources has been considered “our just due,” so I can’t even speculate on what that cooperative role in the world economy would look like, but I’m pretty sure I’ve never met a US citizen that was eager to find out.
troll hunter says
Apparently the moderator disapproved of an earlier post…so I’ll mention a couple of items for you to consider in your rush to judgement towards private firearms owners.
1. Operation Fast and Furious – The US AG (0bama appointee) Eric Holder approves of the ILLEGAL sale and transfer of all manner of firearms to those not permitted to possess or own. US Border Patrol agent is murdered by Mexican drug runners on US border.
2. There are already over 20,000 firearms laws on the books in these United States…”shall not be infringed”? Yeah, right. And 1 more law is going to solve all of the problems? It is but to laugh.
3. California decriminalizes the possession of a STOLEN firearm, to wit;
PRESS RELEASE: THE PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 47
Effective immediately, the passage of Proposition 47 will have the following effects on the custody and policing practices of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department:
1. In most instances, many crimes that were previously “arrestable” as a felony will now only be “citable” as a misdemeanor. That means they may not be booked into jail but rather given a citation (similar to a traffic ticket) with a court date to appear, and released in the field. They will not be held pending trial. Such felony crimes that are now misdemeanors include:
• Commercial burglary (theft under $950)
• Forgery and bad checks (under $950 value)
• Theft of most firearms
• Theft of a vehicle (under $950 value)
• Possession of stolen property (under $950 value)
• Possession of heroin, cocaine, illegal prescriptions, concentrated cannabis, and methamphetamine
2. Inmates awaiting trial on any of the above felony charges in most instances will be able to have their charges immediately reduced to the new misdemeanor level, and will be let out of jail on a citation. A determination as to each person’s eligibility is somewhat time consuming, but could result in up to 420 releases.
3. Inmates who are sentenced on the above felonies can petition the court for reduction of their felony convictions to misdemeanors and many of them would be also be eligible for immediate release.
4. Convicted felons with the above felonies in their history can petition the court to have their prior felony convictions reduced to misdemeanors. If successful, many of the prohibitions they faced would then be reinstated, such as the right to vote, the right to purchase a handgun, the ability to apply as a peace officer, etc
NOTE carefully item 4 which states that FELONS can petition the court to have felony convictions reduced to misdemeanors…and somehow, private firearms owners are the problem?
Scapegoating responsible firearms owners is a non-starter. Gun control has never been about stopping criminals, it’s all about controlling the general population. Increased crime rates are great from the gun controller perspective – more reasons to enact more gun control legislation. And far too many buy into it.
Tim Scott says
I got as far as item one. Your complete failure to understand what operation Fast and Furious was about and how it went wrong indicates that either you are happily parroting Faux News in their misrepresentations because you didn’t bother to find out for yourself, or you are just willing to misrepresent it yourself. Either way, it makes it hard to be bothered with the rest of your post.
Basically, anyone still crying about Fast and Furious five years after is just a crybaby.
troll hunter says
Sheesh, Tim Scott, not everyone who disagrees with you gets their information from one news source…I guess it’s because it upsets the narrative you swallowed from sources that one should question, the media as a whole.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/americas/operation-fast-and-furious-fast-facts/index.html
FROM CNN…ok…read the timeline and note how 0bama asserts executive privilege over the investigation…stopping it cold. There’s no crying, it’s well known that the investigation was interfered with…and please, please go to Brian Terry’s family and accuse them of “crying” over something that happened years ago.
By the way, I’d like to introduce you to one Dontray Mills, purchased 27 firearms with a false ID and sold them to felons. He faced 55 felony counts of firearms trafficking and is a free man today because of a plea bargain, he received probation. From 0bama’s DoJ…
Just how are responsible firearms owners and the NRA the problem again?
SMHx2 says
@chris:
Gosh, I thought this was 2015, I keep forgetting we are in the 1800’s and we need the guns for huntin’ good ole raccoons. LOL, modernize much? We are a military family and don’t own a gun, must be because my husband is a “real” man that does not need to hide behind a gun barrel to feel brave. RIDICULOUS.
By the way, AMERICAN CITIZENS do go on crazy mass shootings, you must not watch television. The San Bernardino incident took effect by an AMERICAN CITIZEN, oh, unless you mean a “white” AMERICAN CITIZEN, which is truly what you want to say but will not dare- hahaha, Chris you coward!!!!
Chris says
How brave would he feel with his family or friends shot in front of him with no chance of defending them? I am no coward maam! I believe whole heartedly in my country and its constitution and the rights of every citizen residing in it. If you would like to call me a racist or a bigot go right on ahead…you have every right to do so as I have every right to shoot a criminal in the face if he or she intends to harm myself or ANYONE around.
Tim Scott says
Ummmm…actually, if you shoot someone in the face based on their INTENTION you better have a really good lawyer, because intent is really hard to prove. Not saying that you shouldn’t do it, but when the chips are down let your lawyer do the talking because that “I had every right to…” line is going to land you on the wrong side of the bars.
Thing is that one of those rights that you are so properly defending is the right not to get shot in the face based on someone’s “best guess” that you are “up to no good.”
Eric says
Maybe your husband is just afraid of the scolding he’d get for bringing one home. I served in the military for 13 years, I’ve owned firearms privately since I was 21. I was raised in a home by a man who owned firearms his entire life, as was he. Funnily enough, nearly 75+ years of gun ownership, not a single one of us has been shot (stateside at least.)
So does that make me less of a man, wanting to have the option of a firearm in my house to protect my family? Of course you can always count on the dependas to sort out who is a “real man” and who isn’t.
pirrurris says
Chris, so you should not have any issues registerinb your guns like we register our vehicles…correct?
Laughing says
I have often wondered about that argument. For the last 20 plus years when I go in to purchase a rifle, shotgun or pistol I have had to fill out an information sheet about myself. Then of course wait to pick up the weapon while a background check occurs. In my eyes, that is already a registered weapon since they know who purchased it, checked on me, and then chose to allow me to have the weapon.
Why the fuss over registering?
Tim Scott says
The key is “like we register our vehicles.” While you do all that to purchase your guns, I could go to Arizona and purchase one without doing that, because I could buy a “used” gun. Can’t do that with a used car. Vehicles must be registered no matter how or where they were purchased. New guns too, effectively. Used guns, not so much.
It always strikes me odd when a Californian opposes federal regulation of resale (not saying that you are opposing) because all it would be is applying regulation nationwide that California gun owners already deal with and don’t seem terribly put out by. California could pass enforcement up to the feds, saving our state money and problems, and our neighboring states would not be the illegal gun supply stations that they are. Win-win. But whenever the idea of federal regulation of resale gets floated the NRA sends out a call to panic, and gun owners do.
pirrurris says
Laughing, exactly. Why are people making a big deal about registering their guns? Law abiding citizens do not have a problem registering their guns.
Scott Daly says
If you have more gun buy back programs, you need to make it worthwhile. A guy pays $500 for a semi-auto pistol and you offer to buy it back for $50. $200 would be more worth it.
Artfldgr says
one of the problems that happens from buy backs is that some people make a few dozen zip guns… cheap, easy, and earn them $50 or more per gun… you can look it up and read it.
Laughing says
Easy answer, make zip guns worth $1 at the buyback
Tim Scott says
Easier answer…buybacks for commercially produced weapons only. If the problem is reduced to the point where most criminals are running around using home made weapons we can move on to dealing with that.