justtray

Did you just out another of your sock puppets by mistake?

Now - back to my original question here, what is your point?

This was not your original question. In fact, this is the first conversation we've had in this thread.

Mike, however, asked me the question you're claiming for yourself.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mike_1962: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Uranus Is Huge!: Gun free zones = juicy target for criminals because there's no guns

Houses with guns = juicy target for criminals because there's guns

Gun threads are very educational.

Hey, look everybody, someone on fark is being deliberately obtuse!

Um, no. It is not obtuse to point out through ridicule the ridiculous.

In the way it was done, it sure is. Do people who want to kill others want to find people who can't offer resistance? Yes, they do!

Do people who want to steal guns target gun owners. Yes, they do!

The intent here, which is to convey an absurd no win scenario, relies on the fact that you conveniently omit the fact that each of these situations is from different criminals with vastly different motives. It also relies on ignorance of the fact that very simple concessions be given to law abiding gun owners would neutralize the risks associated with each scenario. The first would be to end "gun free zones" since they've been working such wonders with keeping psychopathic murderers at bay, the second would be to end any collection of data on who owns guns. So if it wasn't "deliberately" obtuse, then you're both useless in the realm of critical thought and have no place in this or any other debate which is more substantial than what brand of hand soap smells the best.

Um, first of all, the term you're looking for is ad absurdum. Second, this is not an example of that fallacy. It is instead a straightforward simple statement of two arguments in the same cause that flatly contrdict each other. The rest of your screed doesn't really follow any logical line. Eliminate gun free zones and any gathering of info on guns in your society? Those are not even close to 'simple' concessions.

justtray: says the dude who went Godwin

lol, just had to. If you are worried about the answer, don't ask the question.

;)

LOL

HeadLever: Mike_1962: Really? REALLY? Try to think rationally about the differences and stop masturbating to your underdog lonely hero/rebel fantasies.

Lol, I was just responding to a request for information and you start foaming at the mouth.

Are you mad for some other reason as to lash out at someone that is simply responding to a question, or are ad homimems all you have?

Your response was out of context, from a hyper biased source and contains gaping holes in both fact and logic. I'm not angry. I just pointed out that you are jerking off in public.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: richard_1963: LaPierre's only goal is to sell more guns, whether they end up in the hands of felons or insane people, it's all good to him and the gun industry that he lobbies for.

I'm pretty sure they realize that the revenue generated by the mentally unstable segment of the market doesn't offset the risk posed to the entire industry, but keep clinging to that delusion if it makes you feel better.

Sorry, but such concerns didn't stop the NRA in 2007 after the Virginia Tech massacre...


After a Virginia Tech student killed 32 students and faculty in April 2007, the Bush administration proposed legislation that would require all states to share the names of residents involuntarily committed to mental health facilities. The information would be provided to a Federal Bureau of Investigation database.

The idea, in part, was to help gun dealers get important information about whether potential customers were mentally ill.
In order to get the support of the NRA, Congress agreed to two concessions that had long been on the agenda of gun rights advocates - concessions that later proved to hamstring the database.

The NRA wanted the government to change the way it deemed someone "mentally defective," excluding people, for example, who were no longer under any psychiatric supervision or monitoring. The group also pushed for a way for the mentally ill to regain gun rights if they could prove in court that they'd been rehabilitated.

Here's how it worked. It would cost money for states to share their data: A state agency would have to monitor the courts, collect the names of people who had been institutionalized, and then send that information to the FBI on a regular basis.

So, to help pay for data-sharing Congress created $375 million in annual federal grants and incentives. But to be eligible for the federal money, the states would have to set-up a gun restoration program approved by the Justice Department. No gun rights restoration program, no money to help pay for sharing data.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who once joked he'd like to bring a gun with him to the Senate floor, blocked the legislation, citing concerns about privacy and spending.

He negotiated language that, among other things, would allow a person's application for gun restoration rights to be granted automatically if an agency didn't respond within 365 days of the application and allowed people to have their attorney's fees reimbursed if they were forced to go to court to restore their rights.

The final bill was sent to President Bush for his signature in January 2008.

The NRA praised Coburn and released a statement calling the law a victory for gun owners: "After months of careful negotiation, pro-gun legislation was passed through Congress today." (The NRA didn't respond to calls for comment.)
Since the bill's passage, two analyses have shown that the NICS database has significant gaps, partly because of the way the NRA managed to tweak the legislation. The NRA-backed language creates problems for these states.

As a New York Times investigation found, many states haven't qualified for federal funding to share their data because they haven't established gun rights restoration programs.

In 2012, only 12 states received federal grants, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

While mental health data has remained sparse, some states have made it easier for the mentally ill to restore their gun rights. As the Times noted, in Virginia some people have regained rights to guns by simply writing a letter to the state. Other Virginians got their rights back just weeks or months after being hospitalized for psychiatric care. It's difficult to know just how many people in Virginia have had their gun rights restored because no agency is responsible for keeping track.

Facetious_Speciest: justtray

Did you just out another of your sock puppets by mistake?

Now - back to my original question here, what is your point?

This was not your original question. In fact, this is the first conversation we've had in this thread.

Mike, however, asked me the question you're claiming for yourself.

Heh, not an alt for me. Well, time to head out to work. Cheers all.

Bye, you guy/s.

Mike_1962: Your response was out of context,

It was perfectly within the context of the request. You just did not like the answer. Again, if you don't want a response that you don't like, it may be best to not ask the question.

Mike_1962: I just pointed out that you are jerking off in public.

I just answered the request. Not sure where you are getting this except for to cover up the butthurt with ad hominem attacks

richard_1963: While mental health data has remained sparse, some states have made it easier for the mentally ill to restore their gun rights. As the Times noted, in Virginia some people have regained rights to guns by simply writing a letter to the state. Other Virginians got their rights back just weeks or months after being hospitalized for psychiatric care. It's difficult to know just how many people in Virginia have had their gun rights restored because no agency is responsible for keeping track.

So we shouldnt have the database record people with mental illness or we should not allow for a mechanism for people that had suffered mental illness to regain their rights or we need more federal laws because the fed had done a piss poor job convincing the states to take their money nor they set up proper bureaucracies? WTF are you saying?

Saiga410: richard_1963: While mental health data has remained sparse, some states have made it easier for the mentally ill to restore their gun rights. As the Times noted, in Virginia some people have regained rights to guns by simply writing a letter to the state. Other Virginians got their rights back just weeks or months after being hospitalized for psychiatric care. It's difficult to know just how many people in Virginia have had their gun rights restored because no agency is responsible for keeping track.

So we shouldnt have the database record people with mental illness or we should not allow for a mechanism for people that had suffered mental illness to regain their rights or we need more federal laws because the fed had done a piss poor job convincing the states to take their money nor they set up proper bureaucracies? WTF are you saying?

The point is that the system, thanks to the lobbying of the NRA, has been intentional gutted and sabotaged to the point where it doesn't function at all. which makes it easier for homicidal nutcases to own guns.

vernonFL: Wherever the next mass shooting is, Wayne LaPierre should be forced to wipe up the blood and carry the bodies to the morgue.

He might like it. I take that back. He'd LOVE it.

Ow! That was my feelings!: Bigger Leftist Intarweb Schlong: Ow! That was my feelings!: Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

So you're saying that they won't be law-abiding gun owners and will in fact be criminals who own guns?

Confiscate their guns.

Ironically, it is the threat of confiscation that will tempt many gun owners to avoid registration. A registration law must be paired with a no-confiscation law to get anywhere near full compliance.

You're more likely to have your gun taken away from you by a thief than by the federal government.

/Adam Lanza's mother didn't have her guns taken away by the government.

MyEnamine: Violent crime, on the other hand, is a problem that is very broad in scope. There's the drug war, urban poverty, the prison and justice systems, etc.

The only one I didn't touch upon was the drug war, and that was an oversight on my part. I agree with this.

The mostly unregulated secondary weapons market definitely makes it easier for criminals.

Here is where I disagree. Just like how used car dealers still need to meet most of the requirements that new car dealers do, ALL who are in the business of selling firearms needs to have an Federal Firearms License and conduct the required checks and documentation.

However, I posted from several sources that private sales by private owners to criminals that they wouldn't know they're a criminal is so rare as to be insignificant. I have a cousin who's a felon. I'm not going to give him a gun, that would be a felony.

I'll repost one of the study's results:
31% 'Family and friends' - You'd tend to think that family and friends would know they're providing a gun to a felon, and thus committing a felony when they do so.
28% 'Black Market', drug dealer or fence - Illegal as all hell.
27% Bought at store - either NICS failed, they didn't have a felony record yet, or the gunstore committed a felony
9% Theft.

Where is the secondary market in this list?

If we accept a little inconvenience on our end (as law abiding citizens) then there's less of a chance we'll have to use our weapons for defense. That's for handguns though. Especially the cheapies like High-Point and Taurus. Long guns generally aren't a problem and shouldn't be farked with.

So you're against poor people being able to defend themselves?

Personally, like I said before - concentrate on going after the bad guys. Stop people from being criminals in the first place, reform them when we can't. Put a bullet in the heads of those we can't fix*. Where the problem is mental illness treat that or institutionalize them. Make sure people have legal prospects that are at least competitive with the illegal ones, preferably better than.

*I'm an Evil Overlord, I'm allowed. ;)

Mrbogey: And a universal background check wouldn't check for "criminal intent". If you can pass the background check, why would you buy a gun in an alley?

Because I can get it cheaper there than at the store?

Mike_1962: Um, not sure if serious. Family/friends and blackmarket are both private sales.

Nuances - Family/Friends are most likely going to know about the person's status as a felon and therefore disallowed person. Ergo, providing them a gun is already a felony, whether it's a sale, gift, or straw purchase.

Mrbogey: I believe by "private sale" it refers to sales made between two strangers where the seller could legally possess it and sold it to the person believing they were a non-prohibited person.

Yep. I find it doubtful that 'family/friends' wouldn't know about the whole 'felon' thing.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: The unintended consequence of making background checks widespread is that the demand for black-market guns will go up, which means law abiding owners will be targeted more frequently for their guns. But somehow I doubt the gun grabbers will be too broken up about law abiding gun owners being murdered for the sake of their feel good policies.

[img.photobucket.com image 200x219]

Hey how come you never came back to prove your media conspiracy this morning? You were so confident. Were you busy doing research in to how registering guns will lead to the wholesale murder of gun owners?

I notice you didn't actually respond to the post.

I'm not going to unpack your insanity. I was even nice enough to not point out this ruins one of your stock arguments.

Also, I'm not going to "prove to you" that there have been a greater frequency of stories about shootings post CT shooting than pre. The fact that it's true is quite obvious to anyone who pay attention to the news.

It's ok honey, I knew you couldn't prove it. You go by your gut, being an emotional little thing.

Lying on a Firearms purchase application form is a felony. Tens of thousands of these applications are denied every year because the applicant ALREADY has a felony conviction. Only a handful are ever prosecuted.

If this administration were serious about reducing gun violence they should start locking up felons that commit felonies (by lying on their application) while seeking to commit another felony (possessing a firearm).

HotWingConspiracy: I knew you couldn't prove it.

I think you're the only one who believes the saturation of media coverage is equal to, or less than what it was before sandy hook. Frankly, the notion is laughable, and if you had any credibility left, you just shredded it right there. I'm not going to compile a list of gun stories over the past year just because you alone are willfully oblivious. That, and the fact that literally every time you're proven wrong, you further devolve the conversation in an effort to distract from the fact. Besides, if you're so concerned with this subject, you could prove that media coverage has remained relatively constant, it wouldn't be asking you to prove a negative in this case, so have at it if you actually care so much.

Mike_1962: Um, first of all, the term you're looking for is ad absurdum. Second, this is not an example of that fallacy.

Did everyone catch that? I wasn't even trying for an ad absurdum argument, I just happened to use the word absurd in the sentence, but he's telling me why the imaginary me in his head is wrong!

Mike_1962: It is instead a straightforward simple statement of two arguments in the same cause that flatly contrdict each other.

I addressed exactly why they were not the same cause, and why it made a difference. You just ignored my entire post.

Mike_1962: Eliminate gun free zones and any gathering of info on guns in your society? Those are not even close to 'simple' concessions.

What's not simple about that? What part confuses you? Or do you think that not enforcing a law is somehow more difficult than enforcing a law?

vicioushobbit: Guess we should all stop using condoms, too, because those little spermie buggers that want to get through, they're not going to submit to the latex. So why bother with the whole thing, anyway?

And don't bother frisking me at the airport, if a terrorist REALLY wants to get the bomb on the plane, he's going to.

/insert more sarcastic examples
//like guns, detest the NRA

Why prohibit bombs, guns and knives (and water bottles) on airplanes if attempting to take them through security was a felony punishable by 10 years in prison but 99.95% of those attempting it were sent on their way without even an arrest on their record?

What is the point in a law that is never enforced? Or used like the Sullivan Act was originally, as a political weapon?
Either enforce the law or take it off the books. Doing otherwise only reinforces the fact that the Department of Just Us is a farce.

Noam Chimpsky: You can't do a background check without an ID. How can you say people have the constitutional right to vote without ID if they don't have the constitutional right to own a gun without ID? If you have some clever idea for letting non ID people legally secure firearms, use the same procedure for voting without ID.

Also, what do you do with legal aliens who want to buy a firearm in the US? They might not have a database in their home country to do a background check. In fact, they loosened the laws for letting aliens get guns in the US back in 2011. Why is it only okay to infringe on US citizens' right to keep and bear arms but not foreigners in the US?.

I'm fine w/ Voter ID laws.
No aliens, legal or otherwise, may buy a firearm, period.

/at least that's what I'd do.

Dimensio: Issuance of baseless insults against me due to my unwillingness to accept restrictions upon speech in exchange for a reasonable firearm registration system will not validate your position.

Dude, it's the internet. You take your guns far too seriously.

Thrag: tenpoundsofcheese: lennavan: I mean, you don't hear people biatching about how you have to register your newborn baby with the government

You have to register a new born baby with the government?
Which government is that?

Wow, a right winger who has never heard of a birth certificate. Who would have thought such a thing could exist in this day and age?

Especially given all the attention the far right wingers have given to birth certificates.

kbronsito: When the Russians and Cubans invade America, they'll pull the gun owner permit files and know who has guns that need taking away! Has no one watched Red Dawn!  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!  -Wayne LaPierre

iirc, 3/4 of the way in, half of them are dead and the remaining group is starving. at the end, only the brothers are the last ones left alive, younger brother is shot/killed and the older one bleeds out cradling his dead brother on a park bench staring at the russian commander in charge of the town.

Firethorn: spongeboob: Okay instead of having to maintain a license in order to sale a firearm how about if you sale a firearm you simply go with the purchaser to a licensed firearms dealer and fill out the appropriate forms?

The problem with this is that right now said dealers tend to want to charge an arm and leg for the service - $80 or more, despite the call being 'free' to them. A lot of the guns sold through private hands aren't even worth that.

Thanks for setting me straight earlier with those stats.

I suggest that in addition to having the service available at licensed dealers, it could also be done at a local police precinct. They're pretty evenly distributed according to population density anyways. I'm surprised that an FFL dealer would want to charge so much. I'd imagine that knowing what guns are selling for what price in the private market would be valuable market research and ultimately place downward pressure on the service fee.

Background checks (and many other gun laws) do not keep criminals from getting guns nor do they prevent gun violence.  All they have to do is go to the black market.  Chicago is an example of that.  I don't understand why gun control advocates keep hoping that the ideas they hold so dear will work despite the fact that it doesn't work.

Tomahawk513: No aliens, legal or otherwise, may buy a firearm, period.

Overkill.  We frequently do background checks on aliens when they come in, at least when they legally do so.  Most countries have SOME record system, if not a NICS 'instant' style.  Besides, it's enough of a fringe case to not really be relevant.

I'd do something like require a clean year of residency if the country they come from doesn't have a comprehensive criminal database.

oldass31: I'm surprised that an FFL dealer would want to charge so much.

Far too many of them view it as a lost sale, and want to 'make up the profit'.

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Background checks (and many other gun laws) do not keep criminals from getting guns nor do they prevent gun violence.

It could be done, if we did a couple things - mainly fix the background check so it gets all the info and actually prosecute straw purchasers - which we DO have enough information to do from already existing records.