Originally posted by Raptor22God, the U.S sounds scary.
r u sure about that?"Below is a list of private gun sale laws by state, including background check requirements."
Start with the section labeled-
"Additional Regulations on Private Gun Sales"
https://consumer.findlaw.com/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html
Originally posted by shadowknightMy only answer to that is to push for further restriction. The only purposes I can think of owning a gun is in millitary combat or shooting small animals. I mean how many ****ing enemies do you have to defend against?
It sounds good it theory but it fails in practice. Let me give some easy example that have documented history.1. Someone can be model citizen for 40 yrs but 1 day he finds out his wife cheating on him with a guy that works with her. He goes off and shoots half the office trying to kill the guy whose banging his wife.
2. some kid gets pick on in school and steals a gun from his father collection and goes to school and do his best Rambo impression.
3. Criminals don't usually buy guns from legit store or gun shows so no matter what laws you pass they'll bypass it.
Originally posted by Blakemore
My only answer to that is to push for further restriction. The only purposes I can think of owning a gun is in millitary combat or shooting small animals. I mean how many ****ing enemies do you have to defend against?
According to FBI statistics in 2019 there was an estimated 1.2 million violent crimes committed in the US.
Originally posted by ArtolYeah but let's not. I recall an old ep of P&T: Bullshit where Penn said every gun should be pink and sold to women to defend against men, mostly because men are usually more violent. He wasn't serious though.
1.2 million, pff, I think we can easily double that...or triple even!
Originally posted by Raptor22
and u have made it abundantly obvious that u don't actually want equal laws for gun sale ids and voter ids.
If you want voting in a government election to be as difficult as buying a gun from a licensed dealer, I'll support you. though, I find that level of restriction rather extreme.
In the wake of Trump's defeat six months ago, Republicans launched a desperate search for illegally cast ballots to help justify the GOP's conspiracy theories. But despite all the hysterical rhetoric, only a handful of legitimate allegations have been raised, and all involve Republicans casting illegal ballots for Trump on behalf of dead relatives.
Take Bruce Bartman, for example. The Washington Post reported this morning:
"Weeks before Election Day, Bruce Bartman mailed his mother's absentee ballot with a check mark next to President Donald Trump's name. The problem was, his mother had been dead since 2008. Bartman, 70, pleaded guilty on Friday to a charge of felony perjury and unlawful voting — and blamed his decision to cast the fraudulent ballot on consuming too many false claims about the election."
Expressing regret for his crime, the Pennsylvanian conceded, "I listened to too much propaganda and made a stupid mistake."
The Post's report added, "In addition to Bartman, two other men in Pennsylvania face charges of fraudulently voting for Trump, according to the [Philadelphia] Inquirer. Ralph Thurman of Chester County allegedly tried to cast his son's vote and Richard Lynn of Luzerne County allegedly attempted to obtain an absentee ballot for his deceased mother. Both cases are pending."
My first thought after seeing this news was to remember the case of Crystal Mason, who cast a provisional ballot in 2016 while on supervised release for a federal conviction. She didn't know she was ineligible to vote, and her ballot was never counted, but Mason—a Black woman—was convicted of illegal voting and sentenced to five years in prison.
It's hard not to notice that Bruce Bartman—a White man—received a far more lenient sentence: five years of probation.
My second thought after seeing the report out of Pennsylvania was the expectation of Republicans seizing on the news. "See?" I assume they'll say. "Voter fraud is real after all, which means sweeping new voter-suppression laws are fully justified."
That's clearly the wrong response. What the Bartman story actually helps show is that fraud is extremely rare, and when would-be criminals try to cheat, the existing system is strong enough to catch them, charge them, and convict them. This doesn't prove the need for voter-suppression laws; it helps prove the opposite.