Enough already...

[jazzbluescat]

Originally Posted by engelbach

This is one of those rare times when I actually agree with you about a couple of things.

I, too, would like to see far more limitations on guns.

I'd like to see less non-biodegradable plastic.

That's it.

Mental health checks on gun sales are a meaningless bandaid, impossible to objectify.

Limiting video games and Hollywood movies is censorship, and there's no evidence that these lead directly to violence.

I think blood alcohol level maximums are adequate as they are.

Putting usage taxes on items that are consumed by the poor and working class is regressive.

Drugs should all be legalized.

I think any gun clip beyond the stock 13 rounds capacity should be the standard..."stock"/original manufactured is the key word for magazine capacity.

Mental health checks on gun sales could be greatly improved if the gov connected its records to the private sectors' records.

Soft drinks, etc. should not be allowed purchase on gov food cards.

Blood alcohol level at .08 is "reasonable." If you're gonna get clobbered it's by someone with +.08.

No, all drugs should not be legalized, except in your Utopian mind.

The rest I can agree with. *shock*

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

No, all drugs should not be legalized, except in your Utopian mind.

It's practical, not utopian.

The drug war costs a fortune, is ineffective, and keeps the Mexican cartels in business and government officials corrupt.

And I don't need the government telling me what I am and am not allowed to ingest.

[jazzbluescat]

Originally Posted by engelbach

It's practical, not utopian.

The drug war costs a fortune, is ineffective, and keeps the Mexican cartels in business and government officials corrupt.

And I don't need the government telling me what I am and am not allowed to ingest.

You're thinking "all drugs should be legalized" means all drugs(pharmaceutical and illegal)means being available without a prescription? That's nuts/Utopian. But assuming you mean just pot(because the others are available through pharmacies, in one form or another, except heroin & crack) then I agree. Surely you don't advocate legalizing crack, and heroin, like in England?

And, what works down in your neck of the woods or in England probably wouldn't work in mine.

[Jay Norem]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

You're thinking "all drugs should be legalized" means all drugs(pharmaceutical and illegal)means being available without a prescription?

Don't be dense. You know that's not what it means. Use your loaf.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

You're thinking "all drugs should be legalized" means all drugs(pharmaceutical and illegal)means being available without a prescription? That's nuts/Utopian. But assuming you mean just pot(because the others are available through pharmacies, in one form or another, except heroin & crack) then I agree. Surely you don't advocate legalizing crack, and heroin, like in England?

And, what works down in your neck of the woods or in England probably wouldn't work in mine.

Yes, I do. Making the possession and/or use of a substance a criminal offense is dictatorial, barbaric.

Adults can determine for themselves what they want to put into their bodies. Drugs can be regulated like alcohol and restricted from minors.

It's impossible to find accurate figures on drug addiction in the U.S. But from anecdotal evidence and personal experience, it's clear that the great majority of users are casual and not addicts, contrary to the hyperbole of the DEA, which makes no differentiation between physical and psychological addiction, casual and long-term use, and simply lies about marijuana.

The most addictive "drugs" by a huge margin are tobacco and alcohol.

[Homer]

Good morning all,

When I was mentioning drugs, my thought was around prescription meds and having a better way to manage and monitor them. In particular the class of drugs used for psychotic disorders and perhaps the strong pain killers that criminals go out of their way to get.

Reading between the lines on the executive orders, I think there is a movement to link the new health care law data so that it can be used for background checks. The Dr's will be asking all patients if they own a gun or have a gun in the home (I'm thinking about the children) and will pass this info on via linking health databases and background check databases.

To me this is good. For example if you are illegally owning a gun and do not tell your physician but someone else in your family does say that there is a gun in the home, we now have a way to cross check and gather evidence of a coverup. Of course there is this thing called hippa requirements.

Is it true that the NY mayor has restricted the # of bullets/clips for even the police force? That seems a bit extreme if that's the case.

[jazzbluescat]

Originally Posted by engelbach

Yes, I do. Making the possession and/or use of a substance a criminal offense is dictatorial, barbaric.

Adults can determine for themselves what they want to put into their bodies. Drugs can be regulated like alcohol and restricted from minors.

Holy smoke(pun intended), what planet are you on? Anyhow, I would agree with you if people(generally speaking) could control their actions, there was no possibility of others being harmed. Unfortunately there seems to be a shortage of "adults" these days..

It's impossible to find accurate figures on drug addiction in the U.S. But from anecdotal evidence and personal experience, it's clear that the great majority of users are casual and not addicts, contrary to the hyperbole of the DEA, which makes no differentiation between physical and psychological addiction, casual and long-term use, and simply lies about marijuana.

Unbelievable about the lies and misconceptions about pot, eh?

The most addictive "drugs" by a huge margin are tobacco and alcohol.

Aside from those, black market prescription drugs are the biggest culprit here, in my neck of the woods, at least. Seems like crack is the recreational drug of choice for the prescription crowd.

........

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

"Adults can determine for themselves what they want to put into their bodies. Drugs can be regulated like alcohol and restricted from minors."

Holy smoke(pun intended), what planet are you on? Anyhow, I would agree with you if people(generally speaking) could control their actions, there was no possibility of others being harmed. Unfortunately there seems to be a shortage of "adults" these days ...

I thought you guys were opposed to the "nanny state," treating people like children.

I'm an adult, and I'm responsible for what I put into my body. Nor have I the right to tell others what they can put in theirs.

People use alcohol and tobacco, and people are going to use drugs whether they're legal or not. It's the illegality of drugs that leads to more crime and more harm. Make them legal and regulate them, and the crime will diminish.

And thousands of non-violent drug felons will be freed from the expensive, counter-productive, draconian prison system.

[jazzbluescat]

Originally Posted by engelbach

I thought you guys were opposed to the "nanny state," treating people like children.

I'm an adult, and I'm responsible for what I put into my body. Nor have I the right to tell others what they can put in theirs.

People use alcohol and tobacco, and people are going to use drugs whether they're legal or not. It's the illegality of drugs that leads to more crime and more harm. Make them legal and regulate them, and the crime will diminish.

And thousands of non-violent drug felons will be freed from the expensive, counter-productive, draconian prison system.

It's all a part of the "dumbing down of America" movement. ??

A great part of our society has lost sight of what is really important. ...Therefore we need regulations that make a feeble attempt, facade?, to protect the rest of us, and the kids, from the overflowing irresponsible behavior. You forget in America it's perfectly legal to be a jerk/shithead. Hell, we even glorify such crap, whereas down where you live a shithead would probably be ostracized by the community, or "forced" to shit somewhere outside the community, at least. In America we shit not only all over the world, but in our own communities as well.
Plus, all these regulations, e.g. War on Drugs, provides a great deal of employment opportunities. God bless America!

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Originally Posted by engelbach

According to the ATF, only 10-15% of guns used by criminals are stolen.

Stolen “street guns” were the weapons of choice for the person or persons who killed 7,600 of the estimated* 8,600 gun related murders during 2011.

Originally Posted by engelbach

A black market in guns would be nothing like the black market in alcohol during Prohibition or that in drugs now. It's much harder and more expensive to smuggle guns than alcohol or drugs.

Actually, it's much easier and cheaper to get a gun on the black market.

A stolen “police caliber” handgun that typically sells for $500 and up at a dealers will typically bring six “dime rocks” from the neighborhood pusher. The pusher will sell that gun, which he has perhaps $25 in, to an addict or a known criminal for $140 to $150.

Besides the difference in price, a gun purchased at a dealer requires an elaborate form to be filled out, and an FBI instant background check. A gun from the local pusher costs less than one fifth the dealer price, and requires only money. So stolen “street guns” obtained from a drug dealer or a friend or family member who is a criminal are criminals weapons of choice. Because a criminal would be pretty dumb to pay four to seven times as much for a crime gun and leave a paper trail leading straight to himself.

http://extranosalley.com/?p=29887

[jazzbluescat]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

Stolen “street guns” were the weapons of choice for the person or persons who killed 7,600 of the estimated* 8,600 gun related murders during 2011.



Actually, it's much easier and cheaper to get a gun on the black market.

A stolen “police caliber” handgun that typically sells for $500 and up at a dealers will typically bring six “dime rocks” from the neighborhood pusher. The pusher will sell that gun, which he has perhaps $25 in, to an addict or a known criminal for $140 to $150.

Besides the difference in price, a gun purchased at a dealer requires an elaborate form to be filled out, and an FBI instant background check. A gun from the local pusher costs less than one fifth the dealer price, and requires only money. So stolen “street guns” obtained from a drug dealer or a friend or family member who is a criminal are criminals weapons of choice. Because a criminal would be pretty dumb to pay four to seven times as much for a crime gun and leave a paper trail leading straight to himself.

http://extranosalley.com/?p=29887

That's right, because guns sold legal retail are registered with the state along with a bullet or its "footprint," in NC, anyhow.FWI, as far as the bullet is concerned it applies only to NEW guns, because I bought two preowned guns and they didn't have bullet thing. Don't know why the decrepancy.

Coincidentally, and I don't mean to hijack, I had a handgun stolen from me that turned up a couple of months later thru a drug bust. [It stayed in police evidence for over a year, until after the trial. Meanwhile the gun lays around and is neglected and abused.... grrrrr]

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

Stolen “street guns” were the weapons of choice for the person or persons who killed 7,600 of the estimated* 8,600 gun related murders during 2011.

Actually, it's much easier and cheaper to get a gun on the black market.

A stolen “police caliber” handgun that typically sells for $500 and up at a dealers will typically bring six “dime rocks” from the neighborhood pusher. The pusher will sell that gun, which he has perhaps $25 in, to an addict or a known criminal for $140 to $150.

Besides the difference in price, a gun purchased at a dealer requires an elaborate form to be filled out, and an FBI instant background check. A gun from the local pusher costs less than one fifth the dealer price, and requires only money. So stolen “street guns” obtained from a drug dealer or a friend or family member who is a criminal are criminals weapons of choice. Because a criminal would be pretty dumb to pay four to seven times as much for a crime gun and leave a paper trail leading straight to himself.

http://extranosalley.com/?p=29887

I'll stick with the ATF statistic. It means that when the great majority of guns first change hands, they are through legal transactions.

Since so few guns are stolen, it doesn't make sense to think that guns originally purchased at retail prices would be cheaper on the black market. Someone along the way would have to be losing money.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html

I notice that your report only covers murders. That may explain the discrepancy in figures. But it doesn't explain why guns would be cheaper on the black market, except for the relatively few that are stolen.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Originally Posted by engelbach

I'll stick with the ATF statistic. It means that when the great majority of guns first change hands, they are through legal transactions.

That is obviously true. However, the statement is pointless. It's like saying that when the great majority of cars first change hands, they are through legal means.

Originally Posted by engelbach

Since so few guns are stolen, it doesn't make sense to think that guns originally purchased at retail prices would be cheaper on the black market. Someone along the way would have to be losing money.

Even though you quoted my post you seemed to have overlooked this:

A stolen “police caliber” handgun that typically sells for $500 and up at a dealers will typically bring six “dime rocks” from the neighborhood pusher. The pusher will sell that gun, which he has perhaps $25 in, to an addict or a known criminal for $140 to $150.

The people along the way who are losing money are those these guns were stolen from. If I steal a gun from you it it is you who loses in the "transaction". If I then sell it for $50 I've made a $50 profit on an item that cost me nothing. Or maybe I bought the gun that was stolen from you for $50 and I sell it for $100. The vast majority of the guns sold on the black market were originally purchased at gun shows or from legitimate gun dealers by someone else. However, the person who sold it on the black market is not the original buyer. It was stolen from the original buyer and then, whether sold for a dollar or a thousand dollars the profit to the seller is 100%

Originally Posted by engelbach

I notice that your report only covers murders.

Yes. It does. This thread was started in reference to murders committed by someone using guns. More specifically guns that were taken from someone without their knowledge. That also qualifies as stealing and makes these stolen guns.

Originally Posted by engelbach

That may explain the discrepancy in figures. But it doesn't explain why guns would be cheaper on the black market

Yes it does. See above for the explanation.

Originally Posted by engelbach

except for the relatively few that are stolen.

This statement may or may not be correct depending on what you are trying to say. If you are saying that of all the guns in the US relatively few are stolen then you are correct. If you are saying that relatively few of the guns sold on the black market are those that were stolen from someone else then you are wrong.

And, as also stated earlier, the vast majority of guns used in murders in the US are not used by those who originally purchased them legally. They are used by those people who steal them or buy stolen guns on the black market.

[engelbach]

We're not disagreeing; we're talking about two different things.

But still, I'd like to know the source of the statistic that most murders are committed with stolen guns. The link you provided is not an original source.