Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. The study reported 10.1% of inmates acquired their firearm through some form of retail source. Of that subset 82% purchased their firearm at a federally licensed dealer. Additionally, of that subset, 66% reported they were subject to AND PASSED a background check. Every prisoner subject to a background check passed. Obviously they weren’t prohibited persons prior to capture and incarceration.
So do I, that’s why my kids have trained at a local martial arts studio. Not only can you learn to defend yourself, BUT, it’s also great exercise, which I love. Considering the rising obesity rates in this country, more kids should learn one of the many martial arts disciplines. And the martial arts studio located right next my gym does an outrageous amount of business with students.
The “assault weapon” ban wasn’t much of a ban.
From the below linked NPR article:
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750656174/the-u-s-once-had-a-ban-on-assault-weapons-why-did-it-expire
@sushiritto
I would love to have my kids do martial arts training(I would have loved to myself as a kid), but like many things it is not available in my town and I don’t have the time or money to drive to a bigger place to make that happen. Actually, I couldn’t afford the lessons anyway, I’m struggling just to pay for the braces they need.
@sushiritto A little discussed fact is that more Americans were killed with rifles during the 10 year assault weapons ban than in the 14 years after it expired that the FBI has records for.
By the way, the second amendment was about making sure the STATES had gun ownership rights when this was an important issue in 1791. A lot has changed since then:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Somehow the ability of individual states to form a militia, if needed, became a right of every single US citizen to own any kind of weapon they want, including automatic weapons. I think we can thank organizations like the NRA for this overreach.
While I believe there is some truth to the argument that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” most of us would agree that the only goal of a semi-auto and automatic weapons is to kill, and kill quickly. One of the reasons we don’t have a god-given right to own live granades or a nuclear weapon. Are these not “arms”?
@socaldad2002 - I urge you to read the sections of the Heller decision that I linked to in post 59 above. You are really off in the weeds with your thinking!
The sociology of gun culture or the American psychology of gun culture…? Either way, Jim Jefferies casts much light on this topic here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
@dropbox77177 An opinion of a conservative SCOTUS/justice. Just an opinion. And you know what they say about those. 
^Then, let’s go back to the text: It says “the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms” and it’s completely illogical to interpret that to mean “the states shall have the right to create militias.”
Maybe I’m just naive but I don’t feel threatened that “the big bad federal government” is trying to take away my guns so they can control its citizens.
If you are on a farm in rural Iowa, yes it makes sense to have access to a rifle for protection or to scare away animals that might kill your live stock. But the older I get the more worried I am that some nut job with an assault rifle can easily take out 100 people at a concert or sporting event. If you step back and really think about it, why is it acceptable to own an assault rifle? A hobby? Take up golf…
This is what the second amendment says:
“"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,…”
Individual gun ownership was about the States having the ability to create a militia. It’s pretty straight forward and appropriate in the context of the late 1700s. It’s the 21st century and society evolves as the centuries go by.
The Bahamas has more than 6 times the murder rate of the United States. And guns are highly restricted - basically illegal - there.
Could you imagine the big one hitting LA?
socaldad is correct about the verbage: The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment. How that’s interpreted is obviously open for debate and depends on the make up of the supreme court.
I have to believe that the founding father’s did not imagine a scenario where semi-automatic weapons are being used to gun down elementary school children.
It wasn’t about the ability of States to create militias. It was about the ability of the people to form a militia, consisting of all adult males, and the only way to do that was to create an individual right to firearms.
There are probably many, many things that the founding fathers could not have imagined.
How is he right about the verbiage. The word States appears no where in the Amendment and thus it is totally implausible to believe it didn’t create an individual right to firearms.
Wow, I could have had a V-8 (picture poetsheart heal-palming herself upside the head)! I suppose military hardware manufacturers realized a Congressional lobby for personal rocket launchers and the like would be a non-starter, especially since the NRA already has the whole 2nd Amendment issue in a hammer lock. Plus, concerning large arms as a commodity, the real money is to be made internationally.
Twice so far, I’ve seen reference to the Nazi led gun confiscation of Germany’s Jewish population prior to WWII. I can see why that historical fact figures significantly into the fear harbored by some gun owners, hence the oft quoted “Cold dead hands” vow. Who wants to picture themselves defenselessly herded by their own government onto trains headed to death camps? I think it’s a mistake to underestimate this fear in the minds of some Americans. Those incredulous to the idea that such a thing could happen in the US are not students of our history of Constitutional disregard. But I firmly believe part of America’s gun culture is steeped in the very DNA of our origins; ironclad belief in the birthright of individual liberty, a right to be defended at all costs (at least if you’re white and male). I remember having to memorize Patrick Henry’s famous speech as a child learning American history in the very cradle of our fledgling Democracy, Williamsburg, Va. As an African American third grader, I remember being stirred and proud, even as I failed to see the ironic fact that such words weren’t thought to apply to me or anyone who looked like me. Still, I have faith in the Constitutional bedrock of this nation, which continually challenges our nation to live up to its ideals, and in keeping with that, I acknowledge the 2nd Amendment as integral to that document.
Personally, I would like to see a consensus to update the 2nd Amendment with clearer language that reflects the current impact of today’s guns , and codifies not just the individual right, but individual responsibilites associated with that right. That’s probably too much to hope for currently. But I hope our grandchildren will seize the courage to meet the needs presented by this issue head on and in good faith. Hmmm…imagine that.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, we are not Europe. And we are not Australia. Our sociology arises from our history, and the values are shaped by it. Any changes to gun laws will likely have to reflect that totally.
The Constitution doesn’t create rights, it simply protects rights from those that seek to undermine them.