More pro H.4102 propaganda from the Boston Globe

[GOAL C.M.]

Read full/comment here.

■ Limiting gun sales. Governor Patrick is pushing a sensible bill that would make it harder for convicted felons to buy guns on the street from traffickers. Legal firearm purchases would be limited to one a month, which is plenty for legitimate sportsmen but would cut into sales by straw purchasers. According to federal data, 36 percent of all firearms in Massachusetts that were recovered from crime scenes and traced to their source had been legally purchased in the state. That’s ample reason to pass this bill.

 

[terraformer]

Nice abuse of statistics here.

had been legally purchased in the state.

By the person that was in possession when recovered? Nope.
Had been sold by the person who legally bought them to the person in possession at time of recovery? Nope.
A-holes.

 

[FrugalFannie]

i saw last night that the governor was saying he would allow one location with slots if some of the other bills would get passed. i just knew one of them would be 1 gun a month! We have to stop that from happening. Any news on if it is getting a vote?

 

[LoginName]

And in the same editorial... we have this plea for sentencing reform...

■ Criminal justice. The state House has passed legislation overhauling the flawed criminal-records system, which can keep ex-cons from finding work long after their release. The Senate bill also includes much-needed reforms to some excessive prison sentences. Compromise has been elusive. House negotiators may be wary of violating tough-on-crime orthodoxy not once but twice. Senators, after mustering the courage to vote for sentencing reform, don’t want to give up on it. Sadly, the Senate’s principled position threatens to derail any progress at all. Legislators should pass the criminal-records reforms now and take up sentencing in the future.

I can understand the desire to change sentencing laws for non-violent/victimless crimes (drug possession for example), but if "reform" would apply to certain felonies (violent/nonviolent), it only proves how much this state has it's head up it's ass.

 

[Coyote33]

What I posted in prediction of thisIN ANOTHER THREAD ON THE SUBJECT (click)

Its not over yet. There is still time for them to sneak it in.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Glob had a new opinion piece about it tomorrow.

I don't trust them one bit.

As far as the Globe, GOAL should pre-empt this, and send in an article or ask for an interview themselves!!!!

 

[Bob P]

Added my response

So let's look at this. The author bemoans the rising tide of crime and proposes to fight it by limiting legal, regulated sales of guns based on some very questionable statistics in an effort to reduce a activity that is already illegal AND carries a life sentence if convicted - and in the same editorial bemoans harsh sentencing and calls for reform.

Am I the only one that sees the inconsistency here?

 

[pipmaster1971]

Added my response

So let's look at this. The author bemoans the rising tide of crime and proposes to fight it by limiting legal, regulated sales of guns based on some very questionable statistics in an effort to reduce a activity that is already illegal AND carries a life sentence if convicted - and in the same editorial bemoans harsh sentencing and calls for reform.

Am I the only one that sees the inconsistency here?

These people aren't capable of forming logical thoughts.

 

[Zappa]

According to federal data, 36 percent of all firearms in Massachusetts that were recovered from crime scenes and traced to their source had been legally purchased in the state.

And of that 36%, how many were reported stolen by the lawful owner? (99.8%) ?

What about the "time to crime" stat stating that the average gun used in a crime was already 13 years old ?

Expect a very long wait if this law is to ever shows any positive results.

 

[MA_Shooter]

Added my response

So let's look at this. The author bemoans the rising tide of crime and proposes to fight it by limiting legal, regulated sales of guns based on some very questionable statistics in an effort to reduce a activity that is already illegal AND carries a life sentence if convicted - and in the same editorial bemoans harsh sentencing and calls for reform.

Am I the only one that sees the inconsistency here?

Nope, you nailed. How many times have we read about criminals using illegally-obtained guns but yet received fairly light sentences? We've been saying the same thing all along..we don't need more laws just enforce the ones already on the books. (well, and get rid of the BS licensing practices but that's another thread)

 

[Horrible]

Legal firearm purchases would be limited to one a month, which is plenty for legitimate sportsmen but would cut into sales by straw purchasers.

Can this claim be proven? How do we even know that straw purchases are happening in MA? Where are the convictions of straw sales to prove this?

A few other states like VA, CA, and NJ have passed one-gun-a-month laws. Are there any statistics from these states (like reduced crime/straw purchases) that justify infringing upon someone's god-given and Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms?

Such bs.

 

[mass]

...........................What about the "time to crime" stat stating that the average gun used in a crime was already 13 years old ?....

One gun per month...we should all have 126 more guns by then