BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mike_1962: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Uranus Is Huge!: Gun free zones = juicy target for criminals because there's no gunsHouses with guns = juicy target for criminals because there's gunsGun 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.
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?
Facetious_Speciest: justtrayDid 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.
justtray: says the dude who went Godwin
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.
Mike_1962: Facetious_Speciest: justtrayDid 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.
Mike_1962: violentsalvation: "When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.So where's he wrong? And where did he say to do away with all background checks altogether? Oh wait he isn't, and he didn't. He is asking people like subtard to be realistic with their expectations for gun-violence reduction before knee jerking useless laws into place.But no, OOGABOOGA NRA HERPADERP! Right, subtard?Ah, no. He's advancing that as a justification for doing nothing. See the perfect solution fallacy.
Mike_1962: Your response was out of context,
Mike_1962: I just pointed out that you are jerking off in public.
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.
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?
vernonFL: Wherever the next mass shooting is, Wayne LaPierre should be forced to wipe up the blood and carry the bodies to the morgue.
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.
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.
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?
Mike_1962: Um, not sure if serious. Family/friends and blackmarket are both private sales.
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.
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.
HotWingConspiracy: I knew you couldn't prove it.
Mike_1962: Um, first of all, the term you're looking for is ad absurdum. Second, this is not an example of that fallacy.
Mike_1962: It is instead a straightforward simple statement of two arguments in the same cause that flatly contrdict each other.
Mike_1962: Eliminate gun free zones and any gathering of info on guns in your society? Those are not even close to 'simple' concessions.
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
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?.
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.
Thrag: tenpoundsofcheese: lennavan: I mean, you don't hear people biatching about how you have to register your newborn baby with the governmentYou 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?
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
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.
Tomahawk513: No aliens, legal or otherwise, may buy a firearm, period.
oldass31: I'm surprised that an FFL dealer would want to charge so much.
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.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jan 23 2017 12:35:45
Runtime: 0.564 sec (564 ms)