If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   NRA: We can't catch every criminal out there, so why bother with background checks at all?   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 382
    More: Dumbass, NRA, Wayne LaPierre, waste of time, background checks, crimes  
•       •       •

2894 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Jan 2013 at 5:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



382 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-29 03:59:02 PM
These guys just can't help themselves...they have to dig deeper.
 
2013-01-29 04:02:30 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: These guys just can't help themselves...they have to dig deeper.


They'll eventually run out of soil once they emerge in China.
 
2013-01-29 04:04:49 PM
The NRA needs a new spokesperson. I nominate Marvin.

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-01-29 04:06:09 PM
I own guns and I went through a background check. I don't see the big deal.
 
2013-01-29 04:12:32 PM
Now opposing criminal background checks may seem baffling, but that would be because you are wrongly assuming that the point is to reduce gun violence.  Once you consider that LaPierre's sole motive is to ensure that his gun manufacturer masters maximize sales of their product, it makes sense.

Take any proposition LaPierre and the NRA make, strip it of any moral context whatsoever, run it through this formula, and you will see it fits 100% of the time.
 
2013-01-29 04:16:50 PM
Ask yourself: "do criminal background checks increase or decrease the number of guns sold in America?"  Well clearly, if some people can't buy guns because they are convicted violent felons, that means less guns sold.

Also, more felons with guns means a climate of fear that will also cause law abiding citizens to buy guns against the criminal element who are now heavily armed, which means even more guns sold.

So I think its easy to see that screening out criminals from being able to buy guns reduces profit and is therefore a Bad Thing.  So criminal background checks must be opposed.

See?  Simple.
 
2013-01-29 04:32:08 PM
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
 
2013-01-29 04:34:53 PM
Additional checks to buy guns: bad
Additional checks to vote: good

This is what 'some people' actually think.
 
2013-01-29 04:40:26 PM

vudutek: Additional checks to buy guns: bad
Additional checks to vote: good

This is what 'some people' actually think.


Well, as you know, according to the Supreme Court, you have no federal constitutional right to vote for President, but SECOND AMENDMENT!
 
2013-01-29 04:43:40 PM
F*ck the NRA

/seriously... f*ck these "people"
 
2013-01-29 04:44:46 PM
murder is still going to happen. why make it illegal?
 
2013-01-29 04:45:44 PM
btw - i can't wait to see the groveling of the GOP senators when he's testifying. it should make for some great attack ads.
 
2013-01-29 04:48:09 PM
Duh. This is why we have no speed limits.
 
2013-01-29 04:49:23 PM

gilgigamesh: Once you consider that LaPierre's sole motive is to ensure that his gun manufacturer masters maximize sales of their product, it makes sense.


Who runs the NRA?
 
2013-01-29 04:56:29 PM
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
 
2013-01-29 05:06:15 PM
Indeed!  Why should murder be illegal if we can't prevent all murders?  Clearly, the point is never farking try.
 
2013-01-29 05:07:33 PM
Wherever the next mass shooting is, Wayne LaPierre should be forced to wipe up the blood and carry the bodies to the morgue.
 
2013-01-29 05:08:41 PM

RexTalionis: vudutek: Additional checks to buy guns: bad
Additional checks to vote: good

This is what 'some people' actually think.

Well, as you know, according to the Supreme Court, you have no federal constitutional right to vote for President, but SECOND AMENDMENT!


Not the whole second amendment. The first part about being part of a well regulated militia-doesn't matter. So it's parts of the constitution.
 
2013-01-29 05:08:45 PM
Another day, another protest from Wayne LaDerp.....
 
2013-01-29 05:09:28 PM
We can't have perfection so lets just tolerate dysfunction.

It's the only tolerance conservatives seem to possess.
 
2013-01-29 05:10:18 PM
If we criminalize chicken farking, only criminals will fark chickens.
 
2013-01-29 05:11:54 PM

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


Better yet, be the one who tells the grieving family that their loved ones died for freedom of gunn ownersship.
 
2013-01-29 05:13:10 PM
Wait, the NRA is against even the most basic and reasonable restrictions on who may own a firearm?

I'll be damned.
 
2013-01-29 05:18:18 PM

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


you want to make him stronger?
 
2013-01-29 05:18:45 PM
By that logic:

> why bother having police? we'll never catch all the criminals
> why bother having firemen? houses are still going to burn down
> why bother having laws? people are just going to do what they want anyway
> why bother having doctors? people are still going to get sick and die
> why bother having taxes? people will just cheat on them
> why bother teachingn students to spell? they'll just ignore it when they text
> why bother feeding your kids? they'll just be hungry again tomorrow

His cunning plan, I don't think he's thought it all the way through...
 
2013-01-29 05:19:29 PM

jake_lex: Wait, the NRA is against even the most basic and reasonable restrictions on who may own a firearm?

I'll be damned.


Well, think about it. 3 million released convicts are allowed to buy guns, gun sales increase.

Then the gun companies start running ads based on how many felons have guns, gun sales increase more.
 
2013-01-29 05:20:11 PM
No person more deserves to get run over by a bus
 
2013-01-29 05:20:32 PM
If no background check is good enough for the President then it's good enough for anybody
 
2013-01-29 05:21:13 PM
Hey look, my favorite invalid argument!
 
2013-01-29 05:22:10 PM
Yeah, pretty sure the NRA can go fark themselves.
 
2013-01-29 05:23:00 PM
I anecdote, and so should you.
 
2013-01-29 05:23:48 PM

Rindred: Grand_Moff_Joseph: These guys just can't help themselves...they have to dig deeper.

They'll eventually run out of soil once they emerge in China.


By this time, LaPierre has learned how to extract oxygen from molten lava at the earth's core.
 
2013-01-29 05:24:10 PM
we can't catch every cannabis user, so why bother keeping it illegal at all?
we can't stop every drunk driver, so why bother with DUI checkpoints at all?
we can't stop every terrorist, so why bother with TSA checkpoints at all?
we can't stop every file trader, so why bother trying to stop it at all?
we can't stop every abortion, so why stop it at all?
we can't stop every welfare cheater, so why bother screening at all?
we can't stop every illegal from crossing the border, so why bother at all?


I can do this all night long.
 
2013-01-29 05:24:11 PM

whistleridge: His cunning plan, I don't think he's thought it all the way through...


If he was capable of thinking things through all the way, he wouldn't be head of the NRA.
 
2013-01-29 05:26:42 PM

Nabb1: I own guns and I went through a background check. I don't see the big deal.


The vast majority of gun owners don't either.

Because they aren't batshiat crazy like LaPierre.
 
2013-01-29 05:27:05 PM

moos: I anecdote, and so should you


For moment, I thought someone hijacked my account.
 
2013-01-29 05:27:18 PM
We can't stop 100% of nuclear bomb denotations, so why should we even try?
 
2013-01-29 05:28:02 PM
He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.
 
2013-01-29 05:28:43 PM
Has anybody noticed that the tiny group of sociopathic whores for the gun manufacturers actually running the NRA are increasingly out of step with the rank-and-file NRA members?
 
2013-01-29 05:29:26 PM
Wasn't the NRA actually in favour of this immediately after Sandy Hook, or am I confused?
 
2013-01-29 05:29:49 PM
We've beeen able to make cars safer without banning them.
 
2013-01-29 05:30:04 PM
You mean I might be minorly inconvenienced in a very temporary way if I wanted to legal buy a firearm? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ARE SPINNING IN THEIR GRAVES THAT WE DARE LEGISLATE THIS EVEN THOUGH IT CLEARLY ALLOWS US TO IN THE CONSTITUTION
 
2013-01-29 05:30:48 PM
And I do not follow how being against universal background coincides with the NRA being the gun manufacturers lacky. This will opposition will not affect OEM directed sales.
 
2013-01-29 05:31:00 PM

jake_lex: Wait, the NRA is against even the most basic and reasonable restrictions on who may own a firearm?

I'll be damned.


Subby misrepresented the argument.

Additional background checks won't catch most criminals so why have additional checks?

For reference, only a few percent of guns are bought from private sellers.
 
2013-01-29 05:31:07 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: These guys just can't help themselves...they have to dig deeper.


I'm starting to think Alex Jones and the NRA are conservative plants.
 
2013-01-29 05:31:30 PM
How do you enforce universal background checks?
 
2013-01-29 05:32:20 PM

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


So, are you in charge of arranging his next erection, or something?
 
2013-01-29 05:33:21 PM
Why bother owning guns? They can't protect you against every possible threat...
 
2013-01-29 05:33:53 PM
This argument applies to just about anything ilegal.

Prostitution
Marijuana use
Drunk Driving
Abortion
 
2013-01-29 05:35:11 PM

moops: moos: I anecdote, and so should you

For moment, I thought someone hijacked my account.


No one here but us chickens.

That's pretty funny though.
 
2013-01-29 05:35:13 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?


Registration and following of all firearms.
 
2013-01-29 05:35:26 PM

Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.


"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09
 
2013-01-29 05:35:47 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?


Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.
 
2013-01-29 05:35:53 PM

Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.


The point it will tighten the legal loophole. One of the things law officials noted, was that criminals were purchasing guns via private sales/gun shows. By requiring all gun sales to be registered/background checked, it will limit the options.

Criminals will still get them, but it will be increasingly difficult.
 
2013-01-29 05:36:37 PM

Saiga410: And I do not follow how being against universal background coincides with the NRA being the gun manufacturers lacky. This will opposition will not affect OEM directed sales.


It affected one.

www.veteranstoday.com
 
2013-01-29 05:36:49 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-29 05:36:53 PM

Thrag: Why bother owning guns? They can't protect you against every possible threat...


President Reagan was shot at point blank range while surrounded by the Secret Service, but guns will totally protect you from crime!
 
2013-01-29 05:36:59 PM

Saiga410: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Registration and following of all firearms.


Bwahhahahhaa!
 
2013-01-29 05:37:12 PM
FTFA: "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.

Criminals have two main methods of acquiring guns. The first is they purchase privately from an unaware, but law-abiding citizen. The second is they purchase their gun from another criminal. Universal background checks will have a big, direct impact on the first method. Universal background checks will also have lasting, indirect effects on the second method to due attrition of guns flowing into the criminal black market. Guns flow out of the criminal black market normally either by being sold back to a private, law-abiding citizen, by being police confiscation, or being dumped in the trash to hide the evidence of a crime. Universal background checks means that there will be fewer ways for guns to enter the black market, meaning fewer guns to go around for those who deserve them the least.

In conclusion, Wayne LaPierre is an asshole.
 
2013-01-29 05:38:23 PM

vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.


We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?
 
2013-01-29 05:38:28 PM
"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.


I think background checks are a good idea but he's right here, there's only so far you can or should go in trying to make society safe for people who care nothing for society. At some point you have to direct your efforts to taking violent people off the streets in the short term, and producing fewer of them in the long term.
 
2013-01-29 05:38:59 PM
While we're ready to participate in a meaningful effort to solve these pressing problems

Bwahhahahhaa!
 
2013-01-29 05:40:09 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Saiga410: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Registration and following of all firearms.

Bwahhahahhaa!


It will happen. Eventually. All vehicle need to be registered, and not owning a vehichkeis far more important in American life than owning a gun.
 
2013-01-29 05:40:42 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?


You should need a seller's license to sell a gun. Or partner with someone who does, so that a record of the transaction can be recorded in state and national databases.
 
2013-01-29 05:41:10 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

The point it will tighten the legal loophole. One of the things law officials noted, was that criminals were purchasing guns via private sales/gun shows. By requiring all gun sales to be registered/background checked, it will limit the options.

Criminals will still get them, but it will be increasingly difficult.


I have yet to see clean data on the % of P2P purchases where a weapon is sold to someone that would be stopped (not involving criminal to criminal sales). I am on the fence, I do not think it would be offensive to have universal but I would like to see solid data that a decent amount of sales would stop because of this before I make a call.
 
Bf+
2013-01-29 05:41:24 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: F*ck the NRA

/seriously... f*ck these "people"



ThisityThisThis.
It's as though their response to murdered 5 year olds is to actively court criminals / mass murderers.
Fark them right in the ear.
 
2013-01-29 05:42:10 PM
If someone can make a case that the additional checks would actually make a difference, I'd support it. As it is, it's just a feel good, emotional knee jerk response. Crims get guns just as easily as they get illegal drugs. Making non-criminal citizens jump through more hoops accomplishes nothing.

Making you sign a form for cold medicine has made ZERO difference in stopping meth abuse. Yet we do it. It's pointless.
 
2013-01-29 05:43:12 PM

oldass31: FTFA: "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.

Criminals have two main methods of acquiring guns. The first is they purchase privately from an unaware, but law-abiding citizen. The second is they purchase their gun from another criminal. Universal background checks will have a big, direct impact on the first method. Universal background checks will also have lasting, indirect effects on the second method to due attrition of guns flowing into the criminal black market. Guns flow out of the criminal black market normally either by being sold back to a private, law-abiding citizen, by being police confiscation, or being dumped in the trash to hide the evidence of a crime. Universal background checks means that there will be fewer ways for guns to enter the black market, meaning fewer guns to go around for those who deserve them the least.

In conclusion, Wayne LaPierre is an asshole.


I got ripped to pieces for saying this just a couple days ago. How quickly the crazy ideas become logical ones in gun threads.
 
2013-01-29 05:43:49 PM
Criminals aren't as stupid as people are want to believe.
The interception rate for the system we have is less than three percent, which means the crooks are going elsewhere and won't stumble into an "improved check" at any meaningful rate.

/currently that elsewhere is private sales.
/when that route is closed, it will be thefts.
/then imports, most likely.
/if you don't do something about the criminals, they'll just improvise.
 
2013-01-29 05:44:07 PM

mark12A: If someone can make a case that the additional checks would actually make a difference, I'd support it. As it is, it's just a feel good, emotional knee jerk response. Crims get guns just as easily as they get illegal drugs. Making non-criminal citizens jump through more hoops accomplishes nothing.

Making you sign a form for cold medicine has made ZERO difference in stopping meth abuse. Yet we do it. It's pointless.


Where do you think guns that criminals use come from? If you're not able or willing to get a gun legitimately, you get it from a private seller, or an illegal arms dealer. Cutting off one of those two narrows the supply altogether.
 
2013-01-29 05:44:14 PM

vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

You should need a seller's license to sell a gun. Or partner with someone who does, so that a record of the transaction can be recorded in state and national databases.


Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.
 
2013-01-29 05:44:57 PM

Nabb1: I own guns and I went through a background check. I don't see the big deal.


I don't know where you stand in terms of gun control, but if you are against licensing, registration, etc then it says something when the pro Second Amendment folks are calling you out on your loose positions on gun control.

/if you do support rational controls on firearms, then nevermind, but the point still stands
 
2013-01-29 05:45:10 PM
I'm starting to think these guys house the criminally insane much in the same way the Catholic Church houses child molesters and pedophiles.
 
2013-01-29 05:45:52 PM
So they don't want background checks and their solution is to put armed guards in every school. Where is the money to pay for this going to come from? I see no way that Republicans will get behind an unfunded mandate like that.
 
2013-01-29 05:46:25 PM

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


Well then your argument is the same as LaPierre's.

Why should we have laws against illegal immigrants? They just come here anyway.
 
2013-01-29 05:46:25 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

You should need a seller's license to sell a gun. Or partner with someone who does, so that a record of the transaction can be recorded in state and national databases.

Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.


Ah yes, the old "responsible gun owners, but won't register their firearms, why are you MAKING them criminals" argument.

Good times... good times.
 
2013-01-29 05:47:01 PM

stoli n coke: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09

 
2013-01-29 05:47:38 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?


There should be a fee that the buyer pays for the government to run a background check.

Regulation on a dangerous equipment should not be considered an infringement.
 
2013-01-29 05:47:42 PM

whistleridge: By that logic:

> why bother having police? we'll never catch all the criminals
> why bother having firemen? houses are still going to burn down
> why bother having laws? people are just going to do what they want anyway
> why bother having doctors? people are still going to get sick and die
> why bother having taxes? people will just cheat on them
> why bother teachingn students to spell? they'll just ignore it when they text
> why bother feeding your kids? they'll just be hungry again tomorrow

His cunning plan, I don't think he's thought it all the way through...


Hell, you can't shoot every burglar, either.
 
2013-01-29 05:48:31 PM

vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Well then your argument is the same as LaPierre's.

Why should we have laws against illegal immigrants? They just come here anyway.


justtray: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

You should need a seller's license to sell a gun. Or partner with someone who does, so that a record of the transaction can be recorded in state and national databases.

Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Ah yes, the old "responsible gun owners, but won't register their firearms, why are you MAKING them criminals" argument.

Good times... good times.


I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept.
 
2013-01-29 05:49:20 PM
It's cause all you crazy libtards are all about immanetizing the escutcheon and shiat. You want a perfect world and there's no way to do that until Jesus comes back.

Silly libtards.
 
2013-01-29 05:50:33 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: THIS IS AN OUTRAGE THE FOUNDING FATHERS ARE SPINNING IN THEIR GRAVES THAT WE DARE LEGISLATE THIS EVEN THOUGH IT CLEARLY ALLOWS US TO IN THE CONSTITUTION


Are we talking about the voter ID laws now?
 
2013-01-29 05:51:23 PM

justtray: stoli n coke: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09


I will guess that you bother were against such reasoning back before 09 so you will join me in giving the govt the finger when they want to enter into a privacy issue.
 
2013-01-29 05:52:13 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Well then your argument is the same as LaPierre's.

Why should we have laws against illegal immigrants? They just come here anyway.

justtray: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

You should need a seller's license to sell a gun. Or partner with someone who does, so that a record of the transaction can be recorded in state and national databases.

Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Ah yes, the old "responsible gun owners, but won't register their firearms, why are you MAKING them criminals" argument.

Good times... good times.

I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept.


Do you believe there should be any restrictions what so ever on who you sell your guns to?

Should you be legally permitted to sell them to felons? Minors?
 
2013-01-29 05:52:46 PM
perfect solution fallacy

The perfect solution fallacy
is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. This is a classic example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes.

It is common for arguments which commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about exactly how, or how badly, a proposed solution is claimed to fall short of acceptability, expressing the rejection in vague terms only. Alternatively, it may be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when a specific example of a solution's failure is described in emotionally powerful detail but base rates are ignored (see availability heuristic).

The fallacy is a type of false dilemma.

Examples

Posit (fallacious)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.

Rebuttal
Complete eradication of drunk driving is not the expected outcome. The goal is reduction.


Posit (fallacious)
Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car crashes.

Rebuttal
While seat belts cannot make driving 100% safe, they do reduce one's likelihood of dying in a car crash.
 
2013-01-29 05:54:30 PM

Saiga410: justtray: stoli n coke: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09

I will guess that you bother were against such reasoning back before 09 so you will join me in giving the govt the finger when they want to enter into a privacy issue.


Sure, we'll defend privacy.

Your criminal history, however, is not "private."
 
2013-01-29 05:54:53 PM
I love the term "Law Abiding Gun Owners." If I'm not mistaken the orange haired idiot who shot up the theater in Colorado was a law abiding gun owner, until he wasn't.

It's ingenious to be able, by definition, to exclude any former law abiding gun owners who's actions contradict your claims about gun safety.
 
2013-01-29 05:55:24 PM

Thrag: Why bother owning guns? They can't protect you against every possible threat...


Because some of us have junk so small it looks like we just finished taking a dip in the Atlantic ocean in the dead of winter. Because... SHRINKAGE!
 
2013-01-29 05:55:34 PM

rufus-t-firefly: perfect solution fallacy

The perfect solution fallacy
is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. This is a classic example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes.

It is common for arguments which commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about exactly how, or how badly, a proposed solution is claimed to fall short of acceptability, expressing the rejection in vague terms only. Alternatively, it may be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when a specific example of a solution's failure is described in emotionally powerful detail but base rates are ignored (see availability heuristic).

The fallacy is a type of false dilemma.

Examples

Posit (fallacious)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.

Rebuttal
Complete eradication of drunk driving is not the expected outcome. The goal is reduction.


Posit (fallacious)
Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car crashes.

Rebuttal
While seat belts cannot make driving 100% safe, they do reduce one's likelihood of dying in a car crash.


damnit I knew i had the wrong fallacy. Thank you sir.
 
2013-01-29 05:56:00 PM
The GOP: If it doesn't work perfectly, don't even attempt to do something.
The Democrats: Let's at least try it.

Sorry 'C'-onservatives, you're starting to lose this fight.

Remember, think of the children. Y'know, the ones that are already dead.
 
2013-01-29 05:56:21 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Saiga410: justtray: stoli n coke: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09

I will guess that you bother were against such reasoning back before 09 so you will join me in giving the govt the finger when they want to enter into a privacy issue.

Sure, we'll defend privacy.

Your criminal history, however, is not "private."


But my mental health history is.
 
2013-01-29 05:56:25 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

There should be a fee that the buyer pays for the government to run a background check.

Regulation on a dangerous equipment should not be considered an infringement.


Your gonna be relying on individual's 'voluntarily' submitting to the system. I would suggest to anyone that supports this idea to make the checks as easy, simple, and cheap as possible.
An example:
I wish to sell a firearm to John Doe. I pick up the phone and call the number, give to the Cop on the other end his name, dob, ssn, whatever. The Cop checks John Doe, finds nothing, says "OK to sell"

THAT'S IT!!!! That is all you need. Trying to turn universal checks into a registration scheme is gonna guarantee low compliance. In fact, that might be the poison pill that kills it in Congress.
 
2013-01-29 05:57:24 PM
Can one of our conservative friends please explain something to me? Like I'm 5 years old please:

How is creating a registry of gun ownership any more intrusive/ineefective than the system we currently have in place for automobiles?
 
2013-01-29 05:58:26 PM
LaPierre: " Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families."

I cannot think of a single person I know who uses a gun to protect their family. But I do know many people who own guns that use them as a penile perception embellishment device. This includes the wimmin.
 
2013-01-29 05:58:26 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept


I suppose you don't own a car then, seeing as how you have to register that thing you own with the government.
 
2013-01-29 05:58:37 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Well then your argument is the same as LaPierre's.

Why should we have laws against illegal immigrants? They just come here anyway.

justtray: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

You should need a seller's license to sell a gun. Or partner with someone who does, so that a record of the transaction can be recorded in state and national databases.

Ah, yes, registration. Good luck getting people to comply.

Ah yes, the old "responsible gun owners, but won't register their firearms, why are you MAKING them criminals" argument.

Good times... good times.

I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept.


You are required to notify the government about ownership of lots of things. What's different about a gun.

(HINT: Because 2nd Amendment is not a valid answer)
 
2013-01-29 05:59:09 PM

Captain Darling: "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.


I think background checks are a good idea but he's right here, there's only so far you can or should go in trying to make society safe for people who care nothing for society. At some point you have to direct your efforts to taking violent people off the streets in the short term, and producing fewer of them in the long term.


You are absolutely correct, Darling.
 
2013-01-29 05:59:27 PM
Ow! That was my feelings!

Your gonna be relying on individual's 'voluntarily' submitting to the system. I would suggest to anyone that supports this idea to make the checks as easy, simple, and cheap as possible.
An example:
I wish to sell a firearm to John Doe. I pick up the phone and call the number, give to the Cop on the other end his name, dob, ssn, whatever. The Cop checks John Doe, finds nothing, says "OK to sell"


In my experience, background checks usually take all of fifteen minutes, max. It would require a little more money, but I imagine we could make that process available to private sellers as well, as you seem to be suggesting.

Do any anti-firearm people here see any huge problem with this idea?
 
2013-01-29 05:59:29 PM
Funny, this same "banning things doesn't work" argument gets used time and time again in marijuana legalization threads. I guess it all depends on whether the potentially banned item is near and dear to your heart or not, eh?
 
2013-01-29 05:59:54 PM
Cool, now let's end the war on drugs, for the same reason.
 
2013-01-29 05:59:57 PM

Saiga410: ...but I would like to see solid data that a decent amount of sales would stop because of this before I make a call.


Even if it stopped one murder, is it so intrusive that we shouldn't use it at all?
 
2013-01-29 06:01:12 PM

GQueue: Ow! That was my feelings!: I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept

I suppose you don't own a car then, seeing as how you have to register that thing you own with the government.


Only if I take said vehicle on a public roadway. I don't need to register it if it never leaves my property. Kinda like it works now with firearm possession and concealed carry.
 
2013-01-29 06:01:14 PM
You libtards keep failing to understand one simple fact: NRA members don't need intelligence, logic or reason to settle disputes. That's what the guns are for.
 
2013-01-29 06:02:21 PM
"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?
 
2013-01-29 06:02:45 PM
Why bother having babies? We're all going to die.
 
2013-01-29 06:02:54 PM

Shaggy_C: Funny, this same "banning things doesn't work" argument gets used time and time again in marijuana legalization threads. I guess it all depends on whether the potentially banned item is near and dear to your heart or not, eh?


You're so right. That's why all those senseless marijuana deaths will continue.
 
2013-01-29 06:03:54 PM

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?


The only real answer to gun violence is killing gun owners, that's the NRA position.
 
2013-01-29 06:04:46 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?


I bought a car in cash from a colleague privately awhile back. We went to the local DMV and did the whole title transfer thing, brought in the state paperwork and paid a few bucks for the title and transfer. Not really a hassle, and it was good to have a public record to protect both him and I. Even if a parent gives their car to their kid, there is a title transfer involved whether or not the fee was waved. Don't see why anyone should have a problem.
 
2013-01-29 06:06:08 PM
For those claiming registration wouldn't work because no one would comply, establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime.

Problem solved.
 
2013-01-29 06:07:31 PM
Tigger:

You are required to notify the government about ownership of lots of things
. What's different about a gun.

(HINT: Because 2nd Amendment is not a valid answer)

I am? Vehicles if I use a public roadway, I guess, what else am I required to notify the government about owning?
 
2013-01-29 06:08:38 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Only if I take said vehicle on a public roadway. I don't need to register it if it never leaves my property.


So you're suggesting that you shouldn't have to have a registration to transfer a firearm--so long as it stays on your property? That's not terribly useful to me. If I buy a pistol from you I'd usually like to take it back to my property rather than keep it at yours. Like a car.

/Funny. I get a bill each year for my vehicle registration whether or not I take in on a public roadway.  Oh well.
 
2013-01-29 06:11:27 PM
gilgigamesh

For those claiming registration wouldn't work because no one would comply, establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime.

Problem solved.


Ok, so...the federal government says I have to register my firearms. I don't. I sell one to you. You murder someone with the weapon. How exactly does that come back to me for prosecution? You tell the cops I sold you the weapon? How do you prove it? What ties me to this other than the word of a guy on the hook for murder?
 
2013-01-29 06:11:33 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: I guess, what else am I required to notify the government about owning?


Wherever your body lives, regardless if you own it or not. You don't think you have to give the government's bill collectors your address? You're an interesting person!
 
2013-01-29 06:12:00 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Tigger:

You are required to notify the government about ownership of lots of things. What's different about a gun.

(HINT: Because 2nd Amendment is not a valid answer)

I am? Vehicles if I use a public roadway, I guess, what else am I required to notify the government about owning?


Let's start with your property itself.
 
2013-01-29 06:12:35 PM
Ow! That was my feelings!

"Only if I take said vehicle on a public roadway. I don't need to register it if it never leaves my property"


Uh, yes you do. If you purchase a vehicle your ownership is registered with the state no matter what ýou do with it.

You're thinking of a drivers license. That's different.
 
2013-01-29 06:12:37 PM

Somacandra: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

I bought a car in cash from a colleague privately awhile back. We went to the local DMV and did the whole title transfer thing, brought in the state paperwork and paid a few bucks for the title and transfer. Not really a hassle, and it was good to have a public record to protect both him and I. Even if a parent gives their car to their kid, there is a title transfer involved whether or not the fee was waved. Don't see why anyone should have a problem.


Again, you are talking about registration here. So, it's not just the background check that you want, it's also the firearm registration that comes with it. I explained upthread how to handle these checks without registration, which I would support. Registration? no farking way.
 
2013-01-29 06:13:21 PM
Grapes. Sour.
 
2013-01-29 06:14:34 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: I am? Vehicles if I use a public roadway, I guess, what else am I required to notify the government about owning?


Land/Property.
Radioactivity.
Transgenic Organisms.
Controlled substances.
 
2013-01-29 06:14:39 PM

Mrbogey: Captain Darling: "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.


I think background checks are a good idea but he's right here, there's only so far you can or should go in trying to make society safe for people who care nothing for society. At some point you have to direct your efforts to taking violent people off the streets in the short term, and producing fewer of them in the long term.

You are absolutely correct, Darling.


You know what would help produce fewer people that do not care about society? GUNS! GUNS FOR EVERYONE! HEY, EVERYONE HAS GUNS AND COULD KILL YOU, BETTER BUY A GUN!
 
2013-01-29 06:15:41 PM
Everything that the NRA indicated they'd be open to in lieu of model regulation was a complete lie.

Since any negotiation with them or the politicians they own will be in bad faith, the only prudent thing to do is steamroll them and all of their members.
 
2013-01-29 06:16:09 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: GQueue: Ow! That was my feelings!: I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept

I suppose you don't own a car then, seeing as how you have to register that thing you own with the government.

Only if I take said vehicle on a public roadway. I don't need to register it if it never leaves my property. Kinda like it works now with firearm possession and concealed carry.


This is actually a falsehood as well. In fact, when i was in traffic court a few weeks ago, someone unsuccessfully argued their registration missing ticket using this argument exactly.
 
2013-01-29 06:16:21 PM
On Fark no one can hear you scream.
 
2013-01-29 06:17:01 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Again, you are talking about registration here. So, it's not just the background check that you want, it's also the firearm registration that comes with it. I explained upthread how to handle these checks without registration, which I would support. Registration? no farking way.


You wouldn't believe the training I have to undergo and the forms I have to fill out to use tiny amounts of radioactivity. You know why I have to do it? Because radioactivity might hurt people! Whoa.
 
2013-01-29 06:17:13 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Ow! That was my feelings!: Tigger:

You are required to notify the government about ownership of lots of things. What's different about a gun.

(HINT: Because 2nd Amendment is not a valid answer)

I am? Vehicles if I use a public roadway, I guess, what else am I required to notify the government about owning?

Let's start with your property itself.


Boats, planes, businesses, children...
 
2013-01-29 06:17:36 PM
In apposing background checks the NRA is showing their hand. This is clear proof that they only care about gun sales. They don't care about gun owners, only the manufacturers.
 
2013-01-29 06:17:38 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Everything that the NRA indicated they'd be open to in lieu of model regulation was a complete lie.

Since any negotiation with them or the politicians they own will be in bad faith, the only prudent thing to do is steamroll them and all of their members.


I think they are still in favor of banning violent video games.
 
2013-01-29 06:17:40 PM

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?


U mad.
 
2013-01-29 06:18:04 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Darth_Lukecash: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

There should be a fee that the buyer pays for the government to run a background check.

Regulation on a dangerous equipment should not be considered an infringement.

Your gonna be relying on individual's 'voluntarily' submitting to the system. I would suggest to anyone that supports this idea to make the checks as easy, simple, and cheap as possible.
An example:
I wish to sell a firearm to John Doe. I pick up the phone and call the number, give to the Cop on the other end his name, dob, ssn, whatever. The Cop checks John Doe, finds nothing, says "OK to sell"

THAT'S IT!!!! That is all you need. Trying to turn universal checks into a registration scheme is gonna guarantee low compliance. In fact, that might be the poison pill that kills it in Congress.


Registering/ licences is part of democracy. You can still own guns, we just need to keep track of them. Your auto is kept track of.

A universal check is needed because this would be a federal program. There would be a fee needed, unless you support a tax to pay for this check.

Registration is not a bad thing if everyone had to do it. Only when some people have to do it.
 
2013-01-29 06:18:27 PM
Friend of my dad once got pulled over, started complaining to the cop about how there were other drivers speeding and while he was the one who got pulled over. Cop replied "Ever been fishing?" Guy said yes, cop said, "You catch all the fish?"

Lack of perfection is a bullshiat/lazy/whinging reason to not try.
 
2013-01-29 06:18:40 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Somacandra: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

I bought a car in cash from a colleague privately awhile back. We went to the local DMV and did the whole title transfer thing, brought in the state paperwork and paid a few bucks for the title and transfer. Not really a hassle, and it was good to have a public record to protect both him and I. Even if a parent gives their car to their kid, there is a title transfer involved whether or not the fee was waved. Don't see why anyone should have a problem.

Again, you are talking about registration here. So, it's not just the background check that you want, it's also the firearm registration that comes with it. I explained upthread how to handle these checks without registration, which I would support. Registration? no farking way.


You aren't required to have a license plate on a car that doesn't travel on a public road, but if you own a car it is registered to you with the state.
 
2013-01-29 06:19:13 PM

gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!

"Only if I take said vehicle on a public roadway. I don't need to register it if it never leaves my property"


Uh, yes you do. If you purchase a vehicle your ownership is registered with the state no matter what ýou do with it.

You're thinking of a drivers license. That's different.


I don't believe that is true in my state. Just left a msg for my cousin, he's a rancher, he would know. Willing to accept I *might* be mistaken on the vehicle registration thing. Kinda getting off topic, anyway.
 
2013-01-29 06:19:31 PM

Dammit-Hi: I love the term "Law Abiding Gun Owners." If I'm not mistaken the orange haired idiot who shot up the theater in Colorado was a law abiding gun owner, until he wasn't.


And then he was obviously crazy and why didn't they take his guns away from him?
 
2013-01-29 06:21:08 PM
Shhhhh... everyone calm down and just watch the NRA. They're finally coming out and publicly making big bold comments for everyone to see.
Just like their GOP friends who are leading the charge! Give then a little while and they'll spin into the derposphere soon enough too.
 
2013-01-29 06:21:11 PM

Shaggy_C: Funny, this same "banning things doesn't work" argument gets used time and time again in marijuana legalization threads. I guess it all depends on whether the potentially banned item is near and dear to your heart or not, eh?


How do you people manage to get "universal background checks" and "ban" confused every day?
 
2013-01-29 06:21:56 PM

gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Somacandra: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

I bought a car in cash from a colleague privately awhile back. We went to the local DMV and did the whole title transfer thing, brought in the state paperwork and paid a few bucks for the title and transfer. Not really a hassle, and it was good to have a public record to protect both him and I. Even if a parent gives their car to their kid, there is a title transfer involved whether or not the fee was waved. Don't see why anyone should have a problem.

Again, you are talking about registration here. So, it's not just the background check that you want, it's also the firearm registration that comes with it. I explained upthread how to handle these checks without registration, which I would support. Registration? no farking way.

You aren't required to have a license plate on a car that doesn't travel on a public road, but if you own a car it is registered to you with the state.


Ah, that might be where I failed. licensing =/= registration
 
2013-01-29 06:21:58 PM

Facetious_Speciest: gilgigamesh

For those claiming registration wouldn't work because no one would comply, establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime.

Problem solved.

Ok, so...the federal government says I have to register my firearms. I don't. I sell one to you. You murder someone with the weapon. How exactly does that come back to me for prosecution? You tell the cops I sold you the weapon? How do you prove it? What ties me to this other than the word of a guy on the hook for murder?


No, the fire arm is registered to you.  You sell it to me, and when you do, you notify the state of the sale.  Your failure to do so is a crime if the gun later turns up as a murder weapon.  Also, the victims can sue you for wrongful death.

Of course, if the gun is stolen, a police report showing you reported the gun as stolen would be an absolute defense.
 
2013-01-29 06:22:15 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Tigger:

You are required to notify the government about ownership of lots of things. What's different about a gun.

(HINT: Because 2nd Amendment is not a valid answer)

I am? Vehicles if I use a public roadway, I guess, what else am I required to notify the government about owning?


How about land, or other things that the government charges taxes on owning?
 
2013-01-29 06:22:27 PM

GQueue: Ow! That was my feelings!: I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept

I suppose you don't own a car then, seeing as how you have to register that thing you own with the government.


The government also knows I own two houses! Whar privacy???? Whar?!??!?
 
2013-01-29 06:22:28 PM

MyEnamine: In apposing background checks the NRA is showing their hand. This is clear proof that they only care about gun sales. They don't care about gun owners, only the manufacturers.


I have never understood this argument. Used firearms are transacted at many times the rate of new ones (no I don't have evidence, simply an observation), but the NRA's only purpose is to sell new ones.

None of my firearms were purchased new, to the direct benefit of no manufacturer.
 
2013-01-29 06:22:39 PM

enry: We've beeen able to make cars safer without banning them.


The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a car is a good guy with a car.
 
2013-01-29 06:23:34 PM

PanicMan: Philip Francis Queeg: Ow! That was my feelings!: Tigger:

You are required to notify the government about ownership of lots of things. What's different about a gun.

(HINT: Because 2nd Amendment is not a valid answer)

I am? Vehicles if I use a public roadway, I guess, what else am I required to notify the government about owning?

Let's start with your property itself.

Boats, planes, businesses, children...


Pets. Livestock?
 
2013-01-29 06:23:58 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Ow! That was my feelings!: Darth_Lukecash: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

There should be a fee that the buyer pays for the government to run a background check.

Regulation on a dangerous equipment should not be considered an infringement.

Your gonna be relying on individual's 'voluntarily' submitting to the system. I would suggest to anyone that supports this idea to make the checks as easy, simple, and cheap as possible.
An example:
I wish to sell a firearm to John Doe. I pick up the phone and call the number, give to the Cop on the other end his name, dob, ssn, whatever. The Cop checks John Doe, finds nothing, says "OK to sell"

THAT'S IT!!!! That is all you need. Trying to turn universal checks into a registration scheme is gonna guarantee low compliance. In fact, that might be the poison pill that kills it in Congress.

Registering/ licences is part of democracy. You can still own guns, we just need to keep track of them. Your auto is kept track of.

A universal check is needed because this would be a federal program. There would be a fee needed, unless you support a tax to pay for this check.

Registration is not a bad thing if everyone had to do it. Only when some people have to do it.


Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.
 
2013-01-29 06:25:05 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Somacandra: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

I bought a car in cash from a colleague privately awhile back. We went to the local DMV and did the whole title transfer thing, brought in the state paperwork and paid a few bucks for the title and transfer. Not really a hassle, and it was good to have a public record to protect both him and I. Even if a parent gives their car to their kid, there is a title transfer involved whether or not the fee was waved. Don't see why anyone should have a problem.

Again, you are talking about registration here. So, it's not just the background check that you want, it's also the firearm registration that comes with it. I explained upthread how to handle these checks without registration, which I would support. Registration? no farking way.

You aren't required to have a license plate on a car that doesn't travel on a public road, but if you own a car it is registered to you with the state.

Ah, that might be where I failed. licensing =/= registration


Easy mistake to make.  I am pretty sure all road-capable vehicles have to be registered in all fifty states.  But yeah, if you don't want to drive it on public roads a license plate is not required (nor is insurance, which is also compulsory otherwise).
 
2013-01-29 06:25:12 PM

gilgigamesh: Of course, if the gun is stolen, a police report showing you reported the gun as stolen would be an absolute defense.


That's not an absolute defense, since you could have lied about it being stolen.
 
2013-01-29 06:25:48 PM

Dave Lister: MyEnamine: In apposing background checks the NRA is showing their hand. This is clear proof that they only care about gun sales. They don't care about gun owners, only the manufacturers.

I have never understood this argument. Used firearms are transacted at many times the rate of new ones (no I don't have evidence, simply an observation), but the NRA's only purpose is to sell new ones.

None of my firearms were purchased new, to the direct benefit of no manufacturer.


Ever known someone to sell a gun in order to buy a gun?
 
2013-01-29 06:25:54 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Tigger:

You are required to notify the government about ownership of lots of things. What's different about a gun.

(HINT: Because 2nd Amendment is not a valid answer)

I am? Vehicles if I use a public roadway, I guess, what else am I required to notify the government about owning?


Your house. Your bicycle, your dog, your boat, your wife (even though you don't own her), yourself when you get your SSN, your airplane, your tickets to fly in an airplane (the airline does this for you), your real estate...etc.
 
2013-01-29 06:26:16 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.


Why?
 
2013-01-29 06:26:25 PM

Dave Lister: MyEnamine: In apposing background checks the NRA is showing their hand. This is clear proof that they only care about gun sales. They don't care about gun owners, only the manufacturers.

I have never understood this argument. Used firearms are transacted at many times the rate of new ones (no I don't have evidence, simply an observation), but the NRA's only purpose is to sell new ones.

None of my firearms were purchased new, to the direct benefit of no manufacturer.


Are you SERIOUSLY trying to make this argument? Do you not see the major flaw?
 
2013-01-29 06:26:43 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Darth_Lukecash: Ow! That was my feelings!: Darth_Lukecash: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

There should be a fee that the buyer pays for the government to run a background check.

Regulation on a dangerous equipment should not be considered an infringement.

Your gonna be relying on individual's 'voluntarily' submitting to the system. I would suggest to anyone that supports this idea to make the checks as easy, simple, and cheap as possible.
An example:
I wish to sell a firearm to John Doe. I pick up the phone and call the number, give to the Cop on the other end his name, dob, ssn, whatever. The Cop checks John Doe, finds nothing, says "OK to sell"

THAT'S IT!!!! That is all you need. Trying to turn universal checks into a registration scheme is gonna guarantee low compliance. In fact, that might be the poison pill that kills it in Congress.

Registering/ licences is part of democracy. You can still own guns, we just need to keep track of them. Your auto is kept track of.

A universal check is needed because this would be a federal program. There would be a fee needed, unless you support a tax to pay for this check.

Registration is not a bad thing if everyone had to do it. Only when some people have to do it.

Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.


So you believe the government should not maintain records on who owns land, correct?
 
2013-01-29 06:27:06 PM
So Wayne is it cool to legalize weed because we can never stop everyone from growing or smuggling dope?
 
2013-01-29 06:27:07 PM

Geotpf: gilgigamesh: Of course, if the gun is stolen, a police report showing you reported the gun as stolen would be an absolute defense.

That's not an absolute defense, since you could have lied about it being stolen.


Que?

How do you lie about having a police report?
 
2013-01-29 06:27:11 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: I explained upthread how to handle these checks without registration, which I would support. Registration? no farking way.


No you didn't. You asked how a universal background check would be enforced. Registration/Tort Liability would be a start. You suggested you don't need to register a car if you only keep it on your property--attempting an analogy to a firearm. I told you even if that was true that no one in hell would buy a gun and NOT TAKE IT OFF YOUR PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT'S COMPLETE IDIOCY. A transfer of ownership includes a transfer to a new space. I'm not going to move in to your spare bedroom to access the gun I just bought from you anymore than I would do that with a car I bought from you. I don't care how you 'feel' about registration--you need to provide some objective reason that stands up better than "I'll keep the firearm/car I sold you at my place so we don't have to register it." The Founders and their state governments registered firearms. There is no reason I can think of to not do it now.
 
2013-01-29 06:27:32 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Dave Lister: MyEnamine: In apposing background checks the NRA is showing their hand. This is clear proof that they only care about gun sales. They don't care about gun owners, only the manufacturers.

I have never understood this argument. Used firearms are transacted at many times the rate of new ones (no I don't have evidence, simply an observation), but the NRA's only purpose is to sell new ones.

None of my firearms were purchased new, to the direct benefit of no manufacturer.

Ever known someone to sell a gun in order to buy a gun?


Yup. Inlaws. To get $$ for the more expensive gun.
 
2013-01-29 06:27:54 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Tigger:

You are required to notify the government about ownership of lots of things. What's different about a gun.

(HINT: Because 2nd Amendment is not a valid answer)

I am? Vehicles if I use a public roadway, I guess, what else am I required to notify the government about owning?


Houses, slaves, explosives, radioactive materials (depending on type and amount), shares in a company, income...

Oh you were being facetious. I missed that.
 
2013-01-29 06:28:09 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Dave Lister: MyEnamine: In apposing background checks the NRA is showing their hand. This is clear proof that they only care about gun sales. They don't care about gun owners, only the manufacturers.

I have never understood this argument. Used firearms are transacted at many times the rate of new ones (no I don't have evidence, simply an observation), but the NRA's only purpose is to sell new ones.

None of my firearms were purchased new, to the direct benefit of no manufacturer.

Ever known someone to sell a gun in order to buy a gun?


Nah. That guy at the gun show with 200 guns NEVER replenishes his stock. And none of those guns were ever bought directly from a manufacturer/dealer.
 
2013-01-29 06:28:34 PM
reason.com
 
2013-01-29 06:29:36 PM
gilgigamesh

No, the fire arm is registered to you.

No, I declined to register.

You sell it to me, and when you do, you notify the state of the sale. Your failure to do so is a crime if the gun later turns up as a murder weapon. Also, the victims can sue you for wrongful death.

This all supposes I register the weapon, which I haven't in the scenario. Having not done so, I would be unlikely to sell it to you if you insisted on the proper paperwork.

You suggested that the solution to registry noncompliance was to "establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime."

I'm asking how that even makes sense, considering that you couldn't trace the weapon to me if I chose not to register the weapon to begin with. I don't even think your idea is terrible in theory, I just can't see how it would work in practice. What am I missing?
 
2013-01-29 06:29:40 PM

gilgigamesh: Geotpf: gilgigamesh: Of course, if the gun is stolen, a police report showing you reported the gun as stolen would be an absolute defense.

That's not an absolute defense, since you could have lied about it being stolen.

Que?

How do you lie about having a police report?


Oh, I see.  You sell the gun under the table and then file a false police report.

Well, that's pretty silly, since that is obviously a crime in and of itself along the lines of faking a traffic accident for insurance purposes.  That'd carry a pretty hefty risk of getting caught.
 
2013-01-29 06:30:26 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Only if I take said vehicle on a public roadway. I don't need to register it if it never leaves my property. Kinda like it works now with firearm possession and concealed carry.


You're confusing registration with the title. One thing's got nothing to do with the other. You don't need to register it to own it. The title-holder is a matter of government record, it's tracked by VIN. Why would that be so hard with firearms and their serial numbers? Title transfer of vehicles due to a private sale is common in all fifty states, I don't hear anyone complaining.
 
2013-01-29 06:31:12 PM

gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?


This is where it gets fun. And by fun, I mean crazy.
 
2013-01-29 06:31:12 PM

gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?


Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.
 
2013-01-29 06:31:47 PM

Facetious_Speciest: gilgigamesh

No, the fire arm is registered to you.

No, I declined to register.

You sell it to me, and when you do, you notify the state of the sale. Your failure to do so is a crime if the gun later turns up as a murder weapon. Also, the victims can sue you for wrongful death.

This all supposes I register the weapon, which I haven't in the scenario. Having not done so, I would be unlikely to sell it to you if you insisted on the proper paperwork.

You suggested that the solution to registry noncompliance was to "establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime."

I'm asking how that even makes sense, considering that you couldn't trace the weapon to me if I chose not to register the weapon to begin with. I don't even think your idea is terrible in theory, I just can't see how it would work in practice. What am I missing?


How do we prove drug dealers sold drugs?
 
2013-01-29 06:33:32 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: How do we prove drug dealers sold drugs?


Because they usually have more than one customer. And when a customer or two get caught and point there finger at .... well, that's pretty much going to implicate the dealer.
 
2013-01-29 06:34:16 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.


So the rule of law means nothing to you. OK. Why should we believe you will follow laws banning the use of your weapon in the furtherance of a crime or to commit murder?
 
2013-01-29 06:36:08 PM

justtray: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

This is where it gets fun. And by fun, I mean crazy.


And by crazy you mean specific examples where registration led to and facilitated confiscation, in New York City and California. Guns that while registered were never reported to be used in a crime.
 
2013-01-29 06:36:16 PM
Ah yes, the perfect solution fallacy. Where would conservatives be without it?
 
2013-01-29 06:36:52 PM

Facetious_Speciest: gilgigamesh

No, the fire arm is registered to you.

No, I declined to register.

You sell it to me, and when you do, you notify the state of the sale. Your failure to do so is a crime if the gun later turns up as a murder weapon. Also, the victims can sue you for wrongful death.

This all supposes I register the weapon, which I haven't in the scenario. Having not done so, I would be unlikely to sell it to you if you insisted on the proper paperwork.

You suggested that the solution to registry noncompliance was to "establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime."

I'm asking how that even makes sense, considering that you couldn't trace the weapon to me if I chose not to register the weapon to begin with. I don't even think your idea is terrible in theory, I just can't see how it would work in practice. What am I missing?


A gun comes from a manufacturer to a gun shop.  That transfer is registered.  The gun shop sells to you.  That sale is registered.  You sell it to me under the table without registering it, and I shoot my biatch of a wife with it.  When I do, that gun is still on record as owned by you.  So you are criminally liable for the crime of failing to register the sale of a gun that is later used in a crime.

Of course, for the 270 million-odd existing guns out there, you'd have to think of some other solution.  But time and entropy would eventually take care of those.
 
2013-01-29 06:37:06 PM
The NRA is a terrorist organization.
 
2013-01-29 06:37:25 PM
Philip Francis Queeg

How do we prove drug dealers sold drugs?

Do we? I think we usually get people on intent to distribute, due to volume, if we're talking about "dealers." I have the impression it usually involves a lot of work on the part of police and/or luck. At the least, you'd have to have a cop pose as a buyer, which could work equally well for firearms, but we're going to need a metric farkton more police to try and tease out the people who didn't register but are intent on sales.

Could work to a very limited degree, though, I suppose.
 
2013-01-29 06:38:51 PM
For those saying we should be enforcing the laws we already have:

There Goes the Boom

President Obama proposes gun legislation, the NRA goes avant-garde, and the ATF searches for a full-time director.


That I had to get this information from The Daily Show saddens me.
 
2013-01-29 06:39:09 PM
gilgigamesh

Of course, for the 270 million-odd existing guns out there, you'd have to think of some other solution. But time and entropy would eventually take care of those.

Ah. I didn't get you referring exclusively to new sales with your idea. My fault.
 
2013-01-29 06:39:42 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Ah yes, the perfect solution fallacy. Where would conservatives be without it?


Quite possibly the White House
 
2013-01-29 06:40:02 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.

So the rule of law means nothing to you. OK. Why should we believe you will follow laws banning the use of your weapon in the furtherance of a crime or to commit murder?


Wat? How does "I'm opposed to firearm registration" become "I'm against the rule of law?"
 
2013-01-29 06:40:34 PM
Well, that's a lot of Nirvana fallacy going on there. This doesn't 100% solve the problem of crime, so we should instead make crime as easy and convenient as possible for criminals.

Speaking as a citizen gun-owner and not the craziest dude in the bag of crazy that is the NRA, background checks are one of the things that we're doing unarguably right as far as crime mitigation goes, and it has nothing to do with the criminals as such. It's a huge favor to gun sellers.

See, selling a gun to a felon or other ineligible person is a felony, either through negligence or knowingly. Without the background checks, a gun-seller has to do his own investigative work, running the risk of later being found not to have done his due diligence and getting some jail time and (because he sells guns, and can no longer possess guns legally) losing his livelihood. However, with background checks, there is a definitive, quantitative test: did you call in the background check? Yes? Then you've done your due diligence, and if the person you're selling to was misrepresenting themselves its definitely on them, not on you for failing to realize it, or on the feds if they gave you an incorrect check.

Background checks are great for the people doing actual, legit selling that isn't intentionally grey/black market. They're one of the greatest legal protections they have.

//No one has suggested registration because it's constiutionality is questionable at best and it is in the practical sense impossible. I'm not sure how that idiot idea came up in this thread.
 
2013-01-29 06:40:45 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.


Well, no, I'm not interested in name calling, and I think the point is valid.  But I think you have to balance what is the greater, more extant problem here.
 
2013-01-29 06:40:46 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Philip Francis Queeg: Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.

So the rule of law means nothing to you. OK. Why should we believe you will follow laws banning the use of your weapon in the furtherance of a crime or to commit murder?

Wat? How does "I'm opposed to firearm registration" become "I'm against the rule of law?"


Will you register your firearms if a registration law is passed?
 
2013-01-29 06:41:27 PM
Just think.
If a concealed carry holder had been in that Kroger in Charlottesville and blown that idiot with the AR-15 into the next world, when the cops came he would be hailed as a hero for taking out an active shooter.
Just think.
 
2013-01-29 06:41:30 PM
Prohibition didn't stop accidents caused by Drunk Driving.

But then, no-one suggested the solution being everyone drinking more.
 
2013-01-29 06:41:56 PM

Shaggy_C: Funny, this same "banning things doesn't work" argument gets used time and time again in marijuana legalization threads. I guess it all depends on whether the potentially banned item is near and dear to your heart or not, eh?


We're not talking banning. We're talking about registration..
 
2013-01-29 06:42:21 PM

Wyalt Derp: enry: We've beeen able to make cars safer without banning them.

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a car is a good guy with a car.


cache.gawkerassets.com
 
2013-01-29 06:42:45 PM

Somacandra: Ow! That was my feelings!: I explained upthread how to handle these checks without registration, which I would support. Registration? no farking way.

No you didn't. You asked how a universal background check would be enforced. Registration/Tort Liability would be a start. You suggested you don't need to register a car if you only keep it on your property--attempting an analogy to a firearm. I told you even if that was true that no one in hell would buy a gun and NOT TAKE IT OFF YOUR PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT'S COMPLETE IDIOCY. A transfer of ownership includes a transfer to a new space. I'm not going to move in to your spare bedroom to access the gun I just bought from you anymore than I would do that with a car I bought from you. I don't care how you 'feel' about registration--you need to provide some objective reason that stands up better than "I'll keep the firearm/car I sold you at my place so we don't have to register it." The Founders and their state governments registered firearms. There is no reason I can think of to not do it now.


It's possible, at this point, I'm regretting the vehicle analogy.
 
2013-01-29 06:43:21 PM
Jim_Callahan

No one has suggested registration because it's constiutionality is questionable at best and it is in the practical sense impossible. I'm not sure how that idiot idea came up in this thread.

Um...I don't know how to tell you this...
 
2013-01-29 06:43:27 PM

justtray: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

This is where it gets fun. And by fun, I mean crazy.


Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.


Amazing simulpost.
 
2013-01-29 06:43:54 PM

Facetious_Speciest: gilgigamesh

Of course, for the 270 million-odd existing guns out there, you'd have to think of some other solution. But time and entropy would eventually take care of those.

Ah. I didn't get you referring exclusively to new sales with your idea. My fault.


I wasn't clear.  And obviously this is a complex issue that would require a multi-pronged approach.  That would be just one aspect.
 
2013-01-29 06:44:21 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Ow! That was my feelings!: Philip Francis Queeg: Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.

So the rule of law means nothing to you. OK. Why should we believe you will follow laws banning the use of your weapon in the furtherance of a crime or to commit murder?

Wat? How does "I'm opposed to firearm registration" become "I'm against the rule of law?"

Will you register your firearms if a registration law is passed?


Undecided. Devil's in the details on those kinda laws.
 
2013-01-29 06:44:46 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.



So if the US government were to outlaw a specific gun that you happened to own, rather than turn it in, you're going to break the new law and risk jail time?

Man people sure do love their guns.
 
2013-01-29 06:46:19 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Facetious_Speciest: gilgigamesh

No, the fire arm is registered to you.

No, I declined to register.

You sell it to me, and when you do, you notify the state of the sale. Your failure to do so is a crime if the gun later turns up as a murder weapon. Also, the victims can sue you for wrongful death.

This all supposes I register the weapon, which I haven't in the scenario. Having not done so, I would be unlikely to sell it to you if you insisted on the proper paperwork.

You suggested that the solution to registry noncompliance was to "establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime."

I'm asking how that even makes sense, considering that you couldn't trace the weapon to me if I chose not to register the weapon to begin with. I don't even think your idea is terrible in theory, I just can't see how it would work in practice. What am I missing?

How do we prove drug dealers sold drugs?


Criminals have their straw purchasers and so do the police.
 
2013-01-29 06:46:37 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Will you register your firearms if a registration law is passed?

Undecided. Devil's in the details on those kinda laws.


Wow, so you'd break that law too. Holy fark I had no idea how much gun owners loved their guns. I mean, you don't hear people biatching about how you have to register your newborn baby with the government nearly as much as you do about guns. And I would argue people are more important than guns. It seems you might disagree with that.
 
2013-01-29 06:46:55 PM

justtray: justtray: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

This is where it gets fun. And by fun, I mean crazy.

Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.

Amazing simulpost.


Wow, you're right.  Same post at the same instant.  That may be a Fark first.

Cigarette?
 
2013-01-29 06:47:56 PM

violentsalvation: justtray: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

This is where it gets fun. And by fun, I mean crazy.

And by crazy you mean specific examples where registration led to and facilitated confiscation, in New York City and California. Guns that while registered were never reported to be used in a crime.


New York I have no idea what you're talking about, but in California they never confiscated any legally registered firearms. The only ones done via forced buyback occurred on items purchased after they were illegal. This was discussed just yesterday.
 
2013-01-29 06:48:40 PM
He never said they shouldn't be done.
He just said there is no point (this isn't the solution you are looking for) because criminals won't follow the law anyway.

but go ahead, keep pretending.

he does want to do something to make the background check more effective: "the group's call for loosen privacy laws the group says keep mental health records from being included in the extisting background check system. "

ohh, the monster!
 
2013-01-29 06:48:47 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?


No but how about every seller?


If you can't sell alcohol, tobacco, prescription medications, etc without a licenses why should you be able to sell firearms?
 
2013-01-29 06:49:29 PM

gilgigamesh: justtray: justtray: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

This is where it gets fun. And by fun, I mean crazy.

Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.

Amazing simulpost.

Wow, you're right.  Same post at the same instant.  That may be a Fark first.

Cigarette?


I know I need one =)

It was goooooood.
 
2013-01-29 06:51:39 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Ow! That was my feelings!: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

Honestly, I don't trust the government to NOT use that registration listing as means at confiscation down the road. It has already happened in this country. Yeah, yeah, call me paranoid, I don't care.

So the rule of law means nothing to you. OK. Why should we believe you will follow laws banning the use of your weapon in the furtherance of a crime or to commit murder?


Do you whine so much about people who don't follow the rule of law when it comes to other things, say smoking pot or drugs?
 
2013-01-29 06:51:49 PM
Eshman: Can one of our conservative friends please explain something to me? Like I'm 5 years old please:

How is creating a registry of gun ownership any more intrusive/ineefective than the system we currently have in place for automobiles?

Well any explanation would be overly simplistic but here you go little kid-

"The people who demand a gun registry are liars who want to, by and large, confiscate guns. So a registry is just a first step towards that. There hasn't been any movement to ban cars so it's hard to compare the two."

Most gun control legislation gets friction because gun control advocates tend to be liars who just want to shift the Overton window.
 
2013-01-29 06:51:52 PM
I view it a bit like registration laws.

1. The regulation costs money, whether it's registration or background check
2. Said money could be spent elsewhere, such as hiring more cops, if it wasn't being done.
3. If the amount of crime preventable by hiring more cops(or equipping them better) exceeds the amount of crime that would be prevented by background checks, it's better to put the money into 'more cops'.

oldass31: Criminals have two main methods of acquiring guns. The first is they purchase privately from an unaware, but law-abiding citizen. The second is they purchase their gun from another criminal.


You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.
Beck et al. 1993, interview of imprisoned felons:
31% 'Family and friends' - Whether straw or actual 'gifting', it's still a felony to knowingly provide a firearm to a known felon.
28% 'Black Market', drug dealer or fence - Straw, stolen, etc...
27% Bought at store - either NICS failed, they didn't have a felony record yet, or the gunstore committed a felony
9% Theft.

Private sellers aren't even listed. Neither are gun shows.

Thus, LaPierre's response is a lot more nuanced than your - "In conclusion, Wayne LaPierre is an asshole."
 
2013-01-29 06:54:25 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: He never said they shouldn't be done.
He just said there is no point (this isn't the solution you are looking for) because criminals won't follow the law anyway.


Sweet. So then he isn't against background checks and we can enact legislation with universal background checks then. I mean, he'll think we're wasting our time but that's all.
 
2013-01-29 06:54:42 PM

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?
 
2013-01-29 06:55:52 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: He never said they shouldn't be done.
He just said there is no point (this isn't the solution you are looking for) because criminals won't follow the law anyway.

but go ahead, keep pretending.

he does want to do something to make the background check more effective: "the group's call for loosen privacy laws the group says keep mental health records from being included in the extisting background check system. "

ohh, the monster!


He wants to make the pointless background checks more effective? Seems silly in the confines of his argument.
 
2013-01-29 06:57:03 PM
Apparently the NRA won't be happy until all firearms are banned.

The only thing that is keeping some really bad firearm laws from being passed is the really bad gerrymandering by the GOP. That gerrymandering will eventually get undone (as it's a much greater evil), then the pro-gun side is going to lose big.
 
2013-01-29 06:58:01 PM

Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.


This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.
 
2013-01-29 06:58:18 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: He never said they shouldn't be done.
He just said there is no point (this isn't the solution you are looking for) because criminals won't follow the law anyway.

but go ahead, keep pretending.

he does want to do something to make the background check more effective: "the group's call for loosen privacy laws the group says keep mental health records from being included in the extisting background check system. "

ohh, the monster!


It's not what gun owners believe that's the problem. It's what gun banners believe they believe that is the problem.

Gun owner doesn't want to be treated like a criminal because he wants to protect his family with a rifle... nope... the gun owner wants to be able to kill anyone at a moments notice because he LIKES to kill people due to his little penis. Gun owner wants to be able to buy a gun without spending a lot of time and money... nope... it's because he wants criminals to have guns with no background checks whatsoever.
 
2013-01-29 06:58:52 PM

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?


The United States government. This is news to you?
 
2013-01-29 07:01:29 PM
You make a good point Zippy, unfortunately it is at the top of your head.
 
2013-01-29 07:01:38 PM

justtray: violentsalvation: justtray: gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Well, I respecfully disagree and will oppose any registration scheme.

Why?

This is where it gets fun. And by fun, I mean crazy.

And by crazy you mean specific examples where registration led to and facilitated confiscation, in New York City and California. Guns that while registered were never reported to be used in a crime.

New York I have no idea what you're talking about, but in California they never confiscated any legally registered firearms. The only ones done via forced buyback occurred on items purchased after they were illegal. This was discussed just yesterday.


Ah there's the crazy you were talking about.
 
2013-01-29 07:01:39 PM

lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.


I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.
 
2013-01-29 07:02:39 PM

lennavan: 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?

The United States government. This is news to you?


citation? what exactly is this "registration"?
 
2013-01-29 07:03:02 PM

someonelse: Has anybody noticed that the tiny group of sociopathic whores for the gun manufacturers actually running the NRA are increasingly out of step with the rank-and-file NRA members?


It's a shame NRA members have absolutely no voice in their "association".
 
2013-01-29 07:03:21 PM

spongeboob: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

No but how about every seller?


If you can't sell alcohol, tobacco, prescription medications, etc without a licenses why should you be able to sell firearms?


We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, I know, but we are debating a resale of a legal product here. I have sold a grand total of 2 firearms in 20 years of adult gun ownership. It would be an excessive burden on me to have to have a "dealers license" for such a rare event. Background check, ok, dealer's license, no.
 
2013-01-29 07:03:45 PM
True idiocy is on full display
Yes of course, it's from the damned NRA
Their war against common sense
Remains incredibly intense-
LaPierre's head vehemently bobbing in the fray
 
2013-01-29 07:05:13 PM

Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.



I can agree to this, so long as everyone like you signs a contract with specific language promising to never use the argument "weapon bans are useless because of the guns already in circulation."
 
2013-01-29 07:05:48 PM

lennavan: This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.


It's illegal to strawpurchase. If I know you're a criminal or you ask me to buy a gun for you, it is a felony to do so. Under current US laws, crime guns can be traced through the FFL system. Straw purchasers can be identified after the fact.

The gov't hasn't been interested in pursuing straw purchasers though. It's just not a priority. Even Biden said that they don't enforce the laws we have.
 
2013-01-29 07:07:06 PM

Mrbogey: Eshman: Can one of our conservative friends please explain something to me? Like I'm 5 years old please:

How is creating a registry of gun ownership any more intrusive/ineefective than the system we currently have in place for automobiles?

Well any explanation would be overly simplistic but here you go little kid-

"The people who demand a gun registry are liars who want to, by and large, confiscate guns. So a registry is just a first step towards that. There hasn't been any movement to ban cars so it's hard to compare the two."

Most gun control legislation gets friction because gun control advocates tend to be liars who just want to shift the Overton window.


So instead of explaining to me why creating a registry of guns is more of an infringement of your fetish rights than registering your automobile, you fall back on hyperbole. ... In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?
 
2013-01-29 07:07:54 PM
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.
 
2013-01-29 07:09:06 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: spongeboob: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

No but how about every seller?


If you can't sell alcohol, tobacco, prescription medications, etc without a licenses why should you be able to sell firearms?

We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, I know, but we are debating a resale of a legal product here. I have sold a grand total of 2 firearms in 20 years of adult gun ownership. It would be an excessive burden on me to have to have a "dealers license" for such a rare event. Background check, ok, dealer's license, no.


Who said you had to? You do it like private car sales: Transfer of registration and "title" from person A to person B. Plus you let the notary public do the background check.
 
2013-01-29 07:09:13 PM

Mrbogey: lennavan: This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

It's illegal to strawpurchase. If I know you're a criminal or you ask me to buy a gun for you, it is a felony to do so. Under current US laws, crime guns can be traced through the FFL system. Straw purchasers can be identified after the fact.

The gov't hasn't been interested in pursuing straw purchasers though. It's just not a priority. Even Biden said that they don't enforce the laws we have.


Yeah, Holder knows all about straw purchases and not tracking them.
 
2013-01-29 07:09:25 PM
Another source on my earlier post:
Purchased - 20.8%
Retail Store - 14.7%
Pawnshop - 4.2%(Even a pawn shop needs an FFL to sell legally, thus is a subset of 'Retail Store' specializing in used stuff, including guns.)
Flea market - 1.3% (not sure how this works... Is it like a gun booth in a general show, vs gun shows with lots of non-weapon booths? Is there a percentage of gun booths that needs to be met before it's considered a gun show instead of a flea market?)
Gun show - .6% - yes not even a percent
'Friends or family' - 33.8%
'Street/illegal source' - 40.8%

'private sale from a legal owner' still isn't listed, so it must be rarer than the gun show thing.

Somacandra: . I told you even if that was true that no one in hell would buy a gun and NOT TAKE IT OFF YOUR PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT'S COMPLETE IDIOCY. A transfer of ownership includes a transfer to a new space.


To use the car analogy, you're allowed to transfer your unregistered car from property to property even while it remains unregistered as long as you don't drive it on public property(IE roads). You just have to trailer it.

To me the equivalent is carrying a firearm unloaded in a locked case. It's unusable without taking a number of extra steps, just like the car on a trailer - you COULD drive it; if you unloaded it from the trailer. The usage portion would be carrying it loaded, on your person, in public places. You need a permit for that one.
 
2013-01-29 07:09:51 PM

Firethorn: I view it a bit like registration laws.

1. The regulation costs money, whether it's registration or background check
2. Said money could be spent elsewhere, such as hiring more cops, if it wasn't being done.
3. If the amount of crime preventable by hiring more cops(or equipping them better) exceeds the amount of crime that would be prevented by background checks, it's better to put the money into 'more cops'.

oldass31: Criminals have two main methods of acquiring guns. The first is they purchase privately from an unaware, but law-abiding citizen. The second is they purchase their gun from another criminal.

You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.
Beck et al. 1993, interview of imprisoned felons:
31% 'Family and friends' - Whether straw or actual 'gifting', it's still a felony to knowingly provide a firearm to a known felon.
28% 'Black Market', drug dealer or fence - Straw, stolen, etc...
27% Bought at store - either NICS failed, they didn't have a felony record yet, or the gunstore committed a felony
9% Theft.

Private sellers aren't even listed. Neither are gun shows.

Thus, LaPierre's response is a lot more nuanced than your - "In conclusion, Wayne LaPierre is an asshole."


You're right. We need to cut down on the number of weapons in our society at large. By doing so, we'll also reduce the number of weapons available in grey/black markets. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2013-01-29 07:11:05 PM
Okay, a line or two of that article was poorly written and hard to follow, but did I just read that the leader of the NRA is in favor of mental health screening being a part of background checks, then immediately follow that by saying he's against universal background checks? Did he just eat his own logic?

I don't know why they think guns should be as easy to acquire as picking up some fruit at the local grocer. It's not like you're submitting to background checks daily to own a gun; just once when you buy it. And studies have shown again and again that adding inconvenience actually deters crime, especially if that inconvenience increases the likelihood of getting caught (ie. alarm company signs on a home--why risk breaking into it when you can move one more house down to find one that doesn't advertise an alarm system?).

The prevailing GOP logic on this issue is absurd. If you want to own guns, fine, but why do you want them completely unregulated? That is asking for so much trouble.
 
2013-01-29 07:12:11 PM

MyEnamine: We need to cut down on the number of weapons in our society at large.


How, exactly, could such reduction be accomplished?
 
2013-01-29 07:12:14 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: These guys just can't help themselves...they have to dig deeper.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-29 07:12:15 PM

Firethorn: Another source on my earlier post:
Purchased - 20.8%
Retail Store - 14.7%
Pawnshop - 4.2%(Even a pawn shop needs an FFL to sell legally, thus is a subset of 'Retail Store' specializing in used stuff, including guns.)
Flea market - 1.3% (not sure how this works... Is it like a gun booth in a general show, vs gun shows with lots of non-weapon booths? Is there a percentage of gun booths that needs to be met before it's considered a gun show instead of a flea market?)
Gun show - .6% - yes not even a percent
'Friends or family' - 33.8%
'Street/illegal source' - 40.8%

'private sale from a legal owner' still isn't listed, so it must be rarer than the gun show thing.


I can't tell if you're being serious or not...
 
2013-01-29 07:12:40 PM

IlGreven: Ow! That was my feelings!: spongeboob: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

No but how about every seller?


If you can't sell alcohol, tobacco, prescription medications, etc without a licenses why should you be able to sell firearms?

We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, I know, but we are debating a resale of a legal product here. I have sold a grand total of 2 firearms in 20 years of adult gun ownership. It would be an excessive burden on me to have to have a "dealers license" for such a rare event. Background check, ok, dealer's license, no.

Who said you had to? You do it like private car sales: Transfer of registration and "title" from person A to person B. Plus you let the notary public do the background check.


I was responding directly to Spongeboob who said I should have to have a dealer's license to sell one gun.
 
2013-01-29 07:13:09 PM

Eshman: So instead of explaining to me why creating a registry of guns is more of an infringement of your fetish rights than registering your automobile, you fall back on hyperbole. ... In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?


Rights don't exclude a registry so there's no argument there. Sorry you didn't get the argument that you prepared to dismiss and instead got one that you... well dismissed anyway.

It's not hyperbole when you call a scumbag a scumbag or a liar a liar. Gun control advocates are liars. You can't negotiate with liars because any concession is just a set-up for future concessions.

So, why are gun control advocates not interested in a reasonable conversation? Because their position is unreasonable and lying works better.
 
2013-01-29 07:13:21 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: lennavan: 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?

The United States government. This is news to you?

citation? what exactly is this "registration"?


It's called a birth certificate you silly pants.
 
2013-01-29 07:15:03 PM

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

Better yet, be the one who tells the grieving family that their loved ones died for freedom of gunn ownersship.


Did the grieving family kill your dog or something? Why would you inflict this douchebag on anyone, much less a family already suffering from severe emotional distress?
 
2013-01-29 07:15:19 PM

lennavan: Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

I can agree to this, so long as everyone like you signs a contract with specific language promising to never use the argument "weapon bans are useless because of the guns already in circulation."


I am not obligated to surrender rights protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
 
2013-01-29 07:15:35 PM

WraithSama: The prevailing GOP logic on this issue is absurd. If you want to own guns, fine, but why do you want them completely unregulated? That is asking for so much trouble.


The GOP isn't advocating for no regulations.
 
2013-01-29 07:16:21 PM

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

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?
 
2013-01-29 07:17:37 PM

Mrbogey: WraithSama: The prevailing GOP logic on this issue is absurd. If you want to own guns, fine, but why do you want them completely unregulated? That is asking for so much trouble.

The GOP isn't advocating for no regulations.


Okay, no additional regulations. However, current regulations on gun ownership is exceedingly lax, and private sales are completely unregulated.
 
2013-01-29 07:18:14 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: spongeboob: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

No but how about every seller?


If you can't sell alcohol, tobacco, prescription medications, etc without a licenses why should you be able to sell firearms?

We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, I know, but we are debating a resale of a legal product here. I have sold a grand total of 2 firearms in 20 years of adult gun ownership. It would be an excessive burden on me to have to have a "dealers license" for such a rare event. Background check, ok, dealer's license, no.


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?

I know this is probably too onerous, I mean the NRA is against making it mandatory in PA to report stolen firearms.
 
2013-01-29 07:19:03 PM

Eshman: Mrbogey: Eshman: Can one of our conservative friends please explain something to me? Like I'm 5 years old please:

How is creating a registry of gun ownership any more intrusive/ineefective than the system we currently have in place for automobiles?

Well any explanation would be overly simplistic but here you go little kid-

"The people who demand a gun registry are liars who want to, by and large, confiscate guns. So a registry is just a first step towards that. There hasn't been any movement to ban cars so it's hard to compare the two."

Most gun control legislation gets friction because gun control advocates tend to be liars who just want to shift the Overton window.

So instead of explaining to me why creating a registry of guns is more of an infringement of your fetish rights than registering your automobile, you fall back on hyperbole. ... In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?


He's a conspiracy nut. What did you expect?
 
2013-01-29 07:20:02 PM

Dimensio: lennavan: Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

I can agree to this, so long as everyone like you signs a contract with specific language promising to never use the argument "weapon bans are useless because of the guns already in circulation."

I am not obligated to surrender rights protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.


Of course not. You are however, obligated to agree to that if you're not a hypocritical douchebag. Otherwise you'd be fighting against confiscation while simultaneously arguing gun bans don't work without confiscation. That'd be a real hypocritical douche move. I'm just tryin to make sure everyone knows you're not a douche.

You aren't obligated to surrender your first amendment rights. But you can if you want to. It helps you see movies in theaters.
 
2013-01-29 07:20:59 PM

spongeboob: Ow! That was my feelings!: spongeboob: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

No but how about every seller?


If you can't sell alcohol, tobacco, prescription medications, etc without a licenses why should you be able to sell firearms?

We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, I know, but we are debating a resale of a legal product here. I have sold a grand total of 2 firearms in 20 years of adult gun ownership. It would be an excessive burden on me to have to have a "dealers license" for such a rare event. Background check, ok, dealer's license, no.

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?

I know this is probably too onerous, I mean the NRA is against making it mandatory in PA to report stolen firearms.


Ok, I would support that.
 
2013-01-29 07:21:28 PM

lennavan: Dimensio: lennavan: Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

I can agree to this, so long as everyone like you signs a contract with specific language promising to never use the argument "weapon bans are useless because of the guns already in circulation."

I am not obligated to surrender rights protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Of course not. You are however, obligated to agree to that if you're not a hypocritical douchebag. Otherwise you'd be fighting against confiscation while simultaneously arguing gun bans don't work without confiscation. That'd be a real hypocritical douche move. I'm just tryin to make sure everyone knows you're not a douche.

You aren't obligated to surrender your first amendment rights. But you can if you want to. It helps you see movies in theaters.


Obligating firearm owners to sign a contract limiting their speech as a basis for guaranteeing that a firearm registry will not be used for confiscation is not reasonable.
 
2013-01-29 07:22:01 PM

way south: Criminals aren't as stupid as people are want to believe.
The interception rate for the system we have is less than three percent, which means the crooks are going elsewhere and won't stumble into an "improved check" at any meaningful rate.

/currently that elsewhere is private sales.
/when that route is closed, it will be thefts.
/then imports, most likely.
/if you don't do something about the criminals, they'll just improvise.


If you make it more attractive and accessible for a potential criminal to get a good job than to get a gun for crime, the crime rate will plummet.
 
2013-01-29 07:22:39 PM

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.


Hahahha! I love this guy.
 
2013-01-29 07:22:52 PM

Eshman: In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?


Quick to anger

Frequently lacking in basic facts

Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints.

Hell...there's a guy in this very thread (likely his 400th or so post in the past 15 days defending his law-abiding gun ownership) declaring that if the law were changed requiring some sort of registration he would deliberately disobey that law.

These seem to be common traits among many (most?) of Fark's gun lovers and passionate defenders of their "rights". Funny that these are the very people who insist that they are responsible law abiding gun owners when the obvious reality is that they are angry low-average men who have issues with authority -- the very people who you wouldn't want to be armed and whose vehement and passionate defences of their weapons fetishes are about as helpful to their cause as Mr LaPierre's myopic mumblings.
 
2013-01-29 07:22:58 PM

WraithSama: Okay, no additional regulations. However, current regulations on gun ownership is exceedingly lax, and private sales are completely unregulated.


A current dealer must keep a log tracking ALL guns that enter and leave their possession. They have to keep this log for years, even if they quit and give up their dealership. To sell a firearm they must run a background check with the NICS database.

To knowingly sell or give a gun to a prohibited person is a felony. To buy a firearm for someone else in order to evade a NICS check is a felony.

There are regulations and some quite serious ones. Many times the gov't declines to trace or prosecute gun crimes. New laws won't change that.
 
2013-01-29 07:23:06 PM
Chances are he makes a Million Dollars a year more than you, and that's if you make $200,000.

i281.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-29 07:25:06 PM

lennavan: tenpoundsofcheese: lennavan: 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?

The United States government. This is news to you?

citation? what exactly is this "registration"?

It's called a birth certificate you silly pantsdolt.

FTFY

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.


Explain this to me like I am six please, because it sounds to me like you are saying if we make it harder for criminals to get guns they will steal more guns. So do you just want no restrictions on gun purchases?
 
2013-01-29 07:25:34 PM

Bill_Wick's_Friend: Eshman: In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?

Quick to anger

Frequently lacking in basic facts

Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints.

Hell...there's a guy in this very thread (likely his 400th or so post in the past 15 days defending his law-abiding gun ownership) declaring that if the law were changed requiring some sort of registration he would deliberately disobey that law.

These seem to be common traits among many (most?) of Fark's gun lovers and passionate defenders of their "rights". Funny that these are the very people who insist that they are responsible law abiding gun owners when the obvious reality is that they are angry low-average men who have issues with authority -- the very people who you wouldn't want to be armed and whose vehement and passionate defences of their weapons fetishes are about as helpful to their cause as Mr LaPierre's myopic mumblings.


Let's see.. in your post we have-

Quick to anger

Frequently lacking in basic facts

Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints.

Gun control advocates and their boosters just can't help themselves.
 
2013-01-29 07:27:26 PM
Make the background checks as tough as you want. I have nothing to fear. Just keep them quick.
 
2013-01-29 07:27:43 PM
This is why the NRA will fail.

This is why when the NRA fails, a defender of guns right for reasonable law abiding citizens, (not just the American gun cartel), is necessary.

/And you will still have people arguing a ar-15 with a 30 round clip is useful for suburban home defense, just because they can.
//I need fragmentation hand grenades for home defense.
 
2013-01-29 07:27:43 PM
I once dropped a thing on the floor, and it broke.

That's just so stupid. Why do we even have things?
 
2013-01-29 07:29:06 PM

WraithSama: Okay, a line or two of that article was poorly written and hard to follow, but did I just read that the leader of the NRA is in favor of mental health screening being a part of background checks, then immediately follow that by saying he's against universal background checks? Did he just eat his own logic?



No you read it incorrectly, as did most people here.

He said that background checks will never be universal (e.g. everyone who gets a gun will have submitted to a background check).

He never said they shouldn't have background checks.

He is saying that background checks should have more checks on mental health - they have always said that.
"One problem with the systems is that many states don't report the names of people who've been legally labeled dangerously mentally ill."
 
2013-01-29 07:29:43 PM

Dimensio: MyEnamine: We need to cut down on the number of weapons in our society at large.

How, exactly, could such reduction be accomplished?


Pretty much all the proposed regulations that "punish legal gun owners". The pre-owned weapons market is wide open right now. At least that's how it appears. Regulating stricter rules for weapons transactions will reduce the number of transactions. The answer is to apply some breaks to the free market. Fewer legal weapons also means fewer weapons for criminals.
 
2013-01-29 07:31:10 PM

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.

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. Besides, you don't ever offer anything particularly useful to any conversation (see above), so what would be the point? You're forum cancer.
 
2013-01-29 07:31:38 PM

Mrbogey: Quick to anger


I'm pointing and laughing at you and your pathetic guns. Anger? Not hardly. I don't have to live in your miserable backwater.

Mrbogey: Frequently lacking in basic facts


Oh? Would you like to play some games with statistics about whose citizens get shot a lot more than anyone else in civilized industrialized nations? No, I don't think you want to play that game. The "b-b-b-but Switzerland...!" card is already played and that's about all ya got in your hand. I've put those basic facts into enough threads and watched fetishists like you contort yourself into pretzels to find some way -- ANY way -- to insist that the massively high murder-by-gun rate in the USA has nothing to do with the massive amount of guns owned by simpletons and fetishists and criminals and whackos and that adding more guns into an already saturated nation is the best way to lower the constant carnage.

Facts aren't your friend in this argument.
 
2013-01-29 07:32:50 PM

lennavan: This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.


NYC and Canada tried this. Turns out that the cost of maintaining the system exceeds it's utility, at least when it comes to long guns.

MyEnamine: You're right. We need to cut down on the number of weapons in our society at large. By doing so, we'll also reduce the number of weapons available in grey/black markets. Thanks for clearing that up.


I don't see how this follows? How about we 'cut down on criminals' period, by doing such things as fixing our school systems, concentrating on reform in prisons and jails, and ensuring people can get mental health care? If you want to be evil, execute the worst 10% or so of criminals in order to free up the resources to help the rest become law-abiding and productive.

The vast majority of guns aren't used criminally, especially rifles, yet that's where all the legislation is today. A shooter goes on a rampage with a bunch of hand guns and we suddenly need to restore the AWB?
To be fair, I'd like to see the option of private sale background checks; I'd like to know at least as well as the gun store that I'm not selling to a criminal. But LaPierre is right - it wouldn't do much, even if it'd be pretty cheap to give the option.

Of course, that also gives every employer the ability to do a cheap and quick background check. All they need is your social...
 
2013-01-29 07:33:48 PM

Saiga410: Darth_Lukecash: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

The point it will tighten the legal loophole. One of the things law officials noted, was that criminals were purchasing guns via private sales/gun shows. By requiring all gun sales to be registered/background checked, it will limit the options.

Criminals will still get them, but it will be increasingly difficult.

I have yet to see clean data on the % of P2P purchases where a weapon is sold to someone that would be stopped (not involving criminal to criminal sales). I am on the fence, I do not think it would be offensive to have universal but I would like to see solid data that a decent amount of sales would stop because of this before I make a call.


Ah, the passive aggressive reponse. Let me guess... no amount of effectiveness would be quite enough...
 
2013-01-29 07:34:27 PM

Dimensio: Obligating firearm owners to sign a contract limiting their speech as a basis for guaranteeing that a firearm registry will not be used for confiscation is not reasonable.


Wow are you ever a huge farking gun nut. All I said was I agree with your compromised gun legislation but want you to promise not to be a hypocrite about it and you ran and grabbed your pocket constitution and spouted crap about limiting your free speech?

I retract any sentiment where I agreed with a hypocritical gun nut like you. There is no chance in hell we'll ever pass any meaningful legislation with douchebags like you. Instead people should just completely ignore your posts, you're just a nutball.

Don't forget to kiss your guns goodnight.
 
2013-01-29 07:34:50 PM
  

The Larch: I once dropped a thing on the floor, and it broke.

That's just so stupid. Why do we even have things?


Register all the things!
 
2013-01-29 07:35:50 PM

spongeboob: 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.

Explain this to me like I am six please, because it sounds to me like you are saying if we make it harder for criminals to get guns they will steal more guns. So do you just want no restrictions on gun purchases?


No, but if you're going to have a law that essentially makes gun owners a juicier target, we have to guarantee that no records of gun owners exist to be exploited. As it stands right now, with newspapers publishing names and addresses of gun owners, this is problematic to say the least.
 
2013-01-29 07:36:09 PM

lennavan: Dimensio: Obligating firearm owners to sign a contract limiting their speech as a basis for guaranteeing that a firearm registry will not be used for confiscation is not reasonable.

Wow are you ever a huge farking gun nut. All I said was I agree with your compromised gun legislation but want you to promise not to be a hypocrite about it and you ran and grabbed your pocket constitution and spouted crap about limiting your free speech?

I retract any sentiment where I agreed with a hypocritical gun nut like you. There is no chance in hell we'll ever pass any meaningful legislation with douchebags like you. Instead people should just completely ignore your posts, you're just a nutball.

Don't forget to kiss your guns goodnight.


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.
 
2013-01-29 07:37:23 PM

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.
 
2013-01-29 07:43:03 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: spongeboob: 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.

Explain this to me like I am six please, because it sounds to me like you are saying if we make it harder for criminals to get guns they will steal more guns. So do you just want no restrictions on gun purchases?

No, but if you're going to have a law that essentially makes gun owners a juicier target, we have to guarantee that no records of gun owners exist to be exploited. As it stands right now, with newspapers publishing names and addresses of gun owners, this is problematic to say the least.


But if guns are for protection wouldn't the criminals be less likely to attempt to victimize gun owners. I would think that gun ownership being reported in the papers would ensure that your household will never be targeted.
 
2013-01-29 07:44:00 PM

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.
 
2013-01-29 07:44:15 PM

justtray: I can't tell if you're being serious or not...


Oh, I'm serious, though not 'serious serious'. I simply posted the statistics, along with a few comments. Most felons get a firearm through somebody else committing a felony.

As such, rather than targeting private firearm sales, which isn't even a percentage, you go after the 60-70% source. THAT would actually choke off felon access to firearms to a noticeable degree.

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.

Electrify: If you make it more attractive and accessible for a potential criminal to get a good job than to get a gun for crime, the crime rate will plummet.


My goal.
 
2013-01-29 07:45:51 PM

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


Murder laws don't stop all murders, so we should legalize murder. The drop in the crime rate from no murders being a cime would be a bonus.
 
2013-01-29 07:47:39 PM
Dimensio and lennavan fighting in a Fark thread about guns. Welcome to Day-Ending-in-Y-Day.
 
2013-01-29 07:49:07 PM

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.


That's also why I don't drive. They'll arrest me and impound my car if I don't register my car! Eff the Man! Hello, legs!
 
2013-01-29 07:50:41 PM

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


I'm just pissed they felt the 'need' to remake that. Do the film makers/screen writers not have ANY original ideas?
 
2013-01-29 07:51:43 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: 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

I'm just pissed they felt the 'need' to remake that. Do the film makers/screen writers not have ANY original ideas?


Why break a sweat when derpers line up in droves for nostalgia.
 
2013-01-29 07:52:43 PM

Facetious_Speciest: gilgigamesh

No, the fire arm is registered to you.

No, I declined to register.

You sell it to me, and when you do, you notify the state of the sale. Your failure to do so is a crime if the gun later turns up as a murder weapon. Also, the victims can sue you for wrongful death.

This all supposes I register the weapon, which I haven't in the scenario. Having not done so, I would be unlikely to sell it to you if you insisted on the proper paperwork.

You suggested that the solution to registry noncompliance was to "establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime."

I'm asking how that even makes sense, considering that you couldn't trace the weapon to me if I chose not to register the weapon to begin with. I don't even think your idea is terrible in theory, I just can't see how it would work in practice. What am I missing?


They'd trace it to you. They'd bend the crook's arm until he gave up the guy who sold to him, then so on up the chain until you get to people following the new registry law.
 
2013-01-29 07:53:20 PM

coeyagi: Satan's Bunny Slippers: 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

I'm just pissed they felt the 'need' to remake that. Do the film makers/screen writers not have ANY original ideas?

Why break a sweat when derpers line up in droves for nostalgia.


coeyagi: Satan's Bunny Slippers: 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

I'm just pissed they felt the 'need' to remake that. Do the film makers/screen writers not have ANY original ideas?

Why break a sweat when derpers line up in droves for nostalgia.


Point.

At least it's not Twilight?
 
2013-01-29 07:54:24 PM
I had a customer today who worked at a gun store, and even she believes that the US needs better gun control.

/virtually all gun crime here involves guns which were illegally acquired
//can you guys do say the same thing?
 
2013-01-29 07:55:20 PM
Their positions are so counter-intuitive because they represent monied interests. Special interests are by definition fringe opinions that don't necessarily make sense in the context of anything else.
 
2013-01-29 07:56:39 PM

spongeboob: BraveNewCheneyWorld: spongeboob: 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.

Explain this to me like I am six please, because it sounds to me like you are saying if we make it harder for criminals to get guns they will steal more guns. So do you just want no restrictions on gun purchases?

No, but if you're going to have a law that essentially makes gun owners a juicier target, we have to guarantee that no records of gun owners exist to be exploited. As it stands right now, with newspapers publishing names and addresses of gun owners, this is problematic to say the least.

But if guns are for protection wouldn't the criminals be less likely to attempt to victimize gun owners. I would think that gun ownership being reported in the papers would ensure that your household will never be targeted.


That depends on the criminal and what they're after, doesn't it? If you make laws such that guns are harder for criminals to obtain, that means prices will go up. If they want guns, that means they're going after gun owners, and they're going to use publicly available information to identify them. Think about it this way, why steal a big screen tv, computers and electronics, then sell all those items for far less than retail cost, when you could steal smaller more portable guns that probably go for at least as much as retail? Now, if you know you're going after gun owners what are you going to do? You're going to bring backup, firepower and body armor.
 
2013-01-29 07:56:41 PM

Electrify: I had a customer today who worked at a gun store, and even she believes that the US needs better gun control.

/virtually all gun crime here involves guns which were illegally acquired
//can you guys do say the same thing?


It's tough to say - the stats on either side are usually churned out by some partisan group. I guess I could look to see if the FBI has any stats, but I just ate a big dinner and am kinda not feeling academic pursuits right now.
 
2013-01-29 07:57:27 PM
I like how gun background forms have a little box that you have to check that says:

Are you crazy?

____Yes

____No

That's awesome...
 
2013-01-29 08:00:21 PM

Mrbogey: Bill_Wick's_Friend: Eshman: In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?

Quick to anger

Frequently lacking in basic facts

Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints.

Hell...there's a guy in this very thread (likely his 400th or so post in the past 15 days defending his law-abiding gun ownership) declaring that if the law were changed requiring some sort of registration he would deliberately disobey that law.

These seem to be common traits among many (most?) of Fark's gun lovers and passionate defenders of their "rights". Funny that these are the very people who insist that they are responsible law abiding gun owners when the obvious reality is that they are angry low-average men who have issues with authority -- the very people who you wouldn't want to be armed and whose vehement and passionate defences of their weapons fetishes are about as helpful to their cause as Mr LaPierre's myopic mumblings.

Let's see.. in your post we have-

Quick to anger

Frequently lacking in basic facts

Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints.

Gun control advocates and their boosters just can't help themselves.


Quick to anger: I didn't catch that anger in his post. But then, I'm not a sensitive pansy.

Frequently lacking in basic facts: The only person here lacking basic facts is you. (No really, you've been using sensationalist language in favor of any sort of meaningful facts [hint: calling people "lying scumbags" is subjective])

Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints
: and I quote: "All gun control advocates are lying scumbags".

Poor little guy. It'll get better *pats head*. Those meanie government thugs will get what's coming to them thanks to valiant patriots like you.
 
2013-01-29 08:00:43 PM
omnibus_necanda_sunt

They'd trace it to you. They'd bend the crook's arm until he gave up the guy who sold to him, then so on up the chain until you get to people following the new registry law.

Right, but in the example, I was the end of the chain, and all the cops had was a criminal's accusation.

It's very similar to the "lol, they won't register, so they're no longer law-abiding gun owners, so confiscate their firearms!" idea in that it misses the basic fact that you won't know who to go after for having illegal firearms, as they declined to register them with anyone to begin with. You'd have to wait until someone did something crazy, rather like now.

"Following the chain" would work for everything after the registration law (in theory), but not for all the weapons from the past century or so we have in every third house in this country, many of which are not registered and have absolutely no government records of possession to begin with.
 
2013-01-29 08:01:27 PM

Bill_Wick's_Friend: I'm pointing and laughing at you and your pathetic guns. Anger? Not hardly. I don't have to live in your miserable backwater.


Yes, you're clearly not angered.

I'm clearly not being sarcastic.

Bill_Wick's_Friend: Oh? Would you like to play some games with statistics about whose citizens get shot a lot more than anyone else in civilized industrialized nations? No, I don't think you want to play that game. The "b-b-b-but Switzerland...!" card is already played and that's about all ya got in your hand. I've put those basic facts into enough threads and watched fetishists like you contort yourself into pretzels to find some way -- ANY way -- to insist that the massively high murder-by-gun rate in the USA has nothing to do with the massive amount of guns owned by simpletons and fetishists and criminals and whackos and that adding more guns into an already saturated nation is the best way to lower the constant carnage.


The murder and violent crime rate was not affected by gun bans in England or Australia. If anything, the violent crime rate rose unexpectantly. America has always had a higher per capita crime rate than England and Australia. So trying to compare directly is specious.

You see, I don't care how someone is killed. I care that they're killed. Gun control advocates want to ban guns first. The affect on crime and murder is a secondary consideration.
 
2013-01-29 08:01:45 PM

Firethorn: lennavan: This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

NYC and Canada tried this. Turns out that the cost of maintaining the system exceeds it's utility, at least when it comes to long guns.

MyEnamine: You're right. We need to cut down on the number of weapons in our society at large. By doing so, we'll also reduce the number of weapons available in grey/black markets. Thanks for clearing that up.

I don't see how this follows? How about we 'cut down on criminals' period, by doing such things as fixing our school systems, concentrating on reform in prisons and jails, and ensuring people can get mental health care? If you want to be evil, execute the worst 10% or so of criminals in order to free up the resources to help the rest become law-abiding and productive.

The vast majority of guns aren't used criminally, especially rifles, yet that's where all the legislation is today. A shooter goes on a rampage with a bunch of hand guns and we suddenly need to restore the AWB?
To be fair, I'd like to see the option of private sale background checks; I'd like to know at least as well as the gun store that I'm not selling to a criminal. But LaPierre is right - it wouldn't do much, even if it'd be pretty cheap to give the option.

Of course, that also gives every employer the ability to do a cheap and quick background check. All they need is your social...


I agree that the assault weapons ban is unnecessary. 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 mostly unregulated secondary weapons market definitely makes it easier for criminals. 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.
 
2013-01-29 08:03:43 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

The point it will tighten the legal loophole. One of the things law officials noted, was that criminals were purchasing guns via private sales/gun shows. By requiring all gun sales to be registered/background checked, it will limit the options.

Criminals will still get them, but it will be increasingly difficult.


You know how we got Al Capone, right? Tax evasion. Not murder because that was hard to prove. Not racketeering because that's hard to prove. But having undocumented income, that we could prove.

I'm going somewhere with this so pay attention.

I can't prove you are buying your buying a sawed off shotgun in a back alley for legit reasons, but I can prove you aren't authorized to make that sale or purchase. It gives more probable cause and makes convictions on SOMETHING easie and gets bad people off the street.
 
2013-01-29 08:05:55 PM

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.


Probably more broken up than the gun huggers are about the innocent victims of gun violence.
 
2013-01-29 08:06:20 PM
Exactly. It's the same reason we should abolish copyright law. There's no way you can catch all the pirates
 
2013-01-29 08:07:51 PM

Saiga410: rufus-t-firefly: Saiga410: justtray: stoli n coke: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09

I will guess that you bother were against such reasoning back before 09 so you will join me in giving the govt the finger when they want to enter into a privacy issue.

Sure, we'll defend privacy.

Your criminal history, however, is not "private."

But my mental health history is.


Not when your current state of mental health indicates that a firearm in your possesion constitutes a significant threat to those around you. I don't get your resistance to this. You're already subject to a background check except in the case of a private transaction. I have to assume that you would find it difficult to get a firearm through any other means. Which is why it would be a good idea to close off that loophole.
 
2013-01-29 08:11:42 PM

featurecreep: I can't prove you are buying your buying a sawed off shotgun in a back alley for legit reasons, but I can prove you aren't authorized to make that sale or purchase. It gives more probable cause and makes convictions on SOMETHING easie and gets bad people off the street.


If you're a felon and in possession of a shotgun you're breaking the law.

If you can legally buy one and want to kill someone... why not just legally buy one and kill someone.

Philip Francis Queeg: Probably more broken up than the gun huggers are about the innocent victims of gun violence.


I doubt it. One poster here who advocates against gun said that we need more dead kids to get "good" gun laws. I see that as backwards. I'd rather have bad laws and no dead kids... not anticipate more dead kids so we can get the right laws.
 
2013-01-29 08:13:24 PM

Shaggy_C: Funny, this same "banning things doesn't work" argument gets used time and time again in marijuana legalization threads. I guess it all depends on whether the potentially banned item is near and dear to your heart or not, eh?


That would have to do with the reasons for the ban.
 
2013-01-29 08:16:18 PM

Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.


What the fark, dude? The registry will just get dumped on WikiLeaks anyway.

Are you worried about the government confiscating your car, via their handy-dandy vehicle registries? No? Then why be worried about guns?
 
2013-01-29 08:17:41 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

What the fark, dude? The registry will just get dumped on WikiLeaks anyway.

Are you worried about the government confiscating your car, via their handy-dandy vehicle registries? No? Then why be worried about guns?


I am aware of no government that has utilized an automobile registry for confiscation. I am aware of multiple governments that have utilized a firearm registry for confiscation.
 
2013-01-29 08:17:49 PM

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.
 
2013-01-29 08:17:56 PM
"The war on drugs was a failure."

"We can't stop teens from having sex so we should give them condoms."

"It's stupid to think we can control the border with mexico."

"We need need gun control."

One of these things is not like the other...
 
2013-01-29 08:18:32 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: GQueue: Ow! That was my feelings!: I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept

I suppose you don't own a car then, seeing as how you have to register that thing you own with the government.

Only if I take said vehicle on a public roadway. I don't need to register it if it never leaves my property. Kinda like it works now with firearm possession and concealed carry.


Actually, you are totally wrong. In the vast majority of state (43 at last count) if you do not register all the cars you own, even ones that do not run, you will be fined and the vehicles impounded.

Also, if you want to make sure that universal checks happen, then you make sure that every gun owner that has a gun they sold used in a crime gets to go to jail if they can't show evidence of having done the check. Bet your scared little butt will check who you sell to and make damn sure you get a form saying you did.

But that is too much work for a REAL 'MURICAN!

/facts.
//It's what's for dinner.
 
2013-01-29 08:23:34 PM

Facetious_Speciest: gilgigamesh

For those claiming registration wouldn't work because no one would comply, establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime.

Problem solved.

Ok, so...the federal government says I have to register my firearms. I don't. I sell one to you. You murder someone with the weapon. How exactly does that come back to me for prosecution? You tell the cops I sold you the weapon? How do you prove it? What ties me to this other than the word of a guy on the hook for murder?


Well, maybe nothing, as long as you are OK with being an accessory to murder before the fact.
 
2013-01-29 08:25:12 PM

Mike_1962: Ah, no. He's advancing that as a justification for doing nothing. See the perfect solution fallacy.


The perfect solution fallacy isn't applicable. The proposed solution isn't being criticized for bing imperfect. It's being criticized for not being achievable or realistic.

"We have no food in the pantry."

"Don't worry, I've got all the water we can drink."

"That's not going to work."

"Hey, I know it's not perfect but at least I brought something to the table.
 
2013-01-29 08:28:44 PM

Mrbogey: featurecreep: I can't prove you are buying your buying a sawed off shotgun in a back alley for legit reasons, but I can prove you aren't authorized to make that sale or purchase. It gives more probable cause and makes convictions on SOMETHING easie and gets bad people off the street.

If you're a felon and in possession of a shotgun you're breaking the law.


You can't be stopped by an officer on suspicion of being a felon. You also have people with criminal intent who have yet to be caught and are not currently felons. See also, straw purchasers.
 
2013-01-29 08:28:53 PM
Mike_1962

Well, maybe nothing, as long as you are OK with being an accessory to murder before the fact.

So, mostly nothing. If one had compunctions of that sort, they probably wouldn't be illegally selling firearms to begin with.
 
2013-01-29 08:31:07 PM

gilgigamesh: Ask yourself: "do criminal background checks increase or decrease the number of guns sold in America?"  Well clearly, if some people can't buy guns because they are convicted violent felons, that means less guns sold.

Also, more felons with guns means a climate of fear that will also cause law abiding citizens to buy guns against the criminal element who are now heavily armed, which means even more guns sold.

So I think its easy to see that screening out criminals from being able to buy guns reduces profit and is therefore a Bad Thing.  So criminal background checks must be opposed.

See?  Simple.


Keeping Democrats (especially non-white or non-males...or both) in power should do that just fine, if not better.
 
2013-01-29 08:38:17 PM

featurecreep: You can't be stopped by an officer on suspicion of being a felon.


So what are you saying? You want homes searched looking for weapons and then have the owner proved they bought them legally? So we're going after the 4th now?

featurecreep: You also have people with criminal intent who have yet to be caught and are not currently felons.


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?
 
2013-01-29 08:40:28 PM

Facetious_Speciest: gilgigamesh

No, the fire arm is registered to you.

No, I declined to register.

You sell it to me, and when you do, you notify the state of the sale. Your failure to do so is a crime if the gun later turns up as a murder weapon. Also, the victims can sue you for wrongful death.

This all supposes I register the weapon, which I haven't in the scenario. Having not done so, I would be unlikely to sell it to you if you insisted on the proper paperwork.

You suggested that the solution to registry noncompliance was to "establish tort and/or criminal liability for someone who transfers a gun without registering the transfer if that gun is later used in a crime."

I'm asking how that even makes sense, considering that you couldn't trace the weapon to me if I chose not to register the weapon to begin with. I don't even think your idea is terrible in theory, I just can't see how it would work in practice. What am I missing?


What you are saying is that to get around the law, all you have to do is break the law.
 
2013-01-29 08:46:07 PM
Mike_1962

What you are saying is that to get around the law, all you have to do is break the law.

I'm not saying that; it's self-evident. I was saying that plans dismissive of reality don't work. In this case, a proposed penalty for those who refuse to register their weapons cannot be applied until the owner misuses them so they can be found and confiscated...as they never registered them, you don't know they have them to begin with in many cases.

The poster was actually only referring to weapons bought after the registration demand, and we worked that all out.
 
2013-01-29 08:50:24 PM

Dimensio: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

What the fark, dude? The registry will just get dumped on WikiLeaks anyway.

Are you worried about the government confiscating your car, via their handy-dandy vehicle registries? No? Then why be worried about guns?

I am aware of no government that has utilized an automobile registry for confiscation. I am aware of multiple governments that have utilized a firearm registry for confiscation.


So, you don't believe in an Imaginary Sky Wizard, but you do believe in Imaginary HitlerTM. Great.
Moving on...

That still doesn't address the fact that the registry will be impossible to secure, and it's the very idea of the security of the provision that would make this rider a factor in any give-and-take with gun owners. This idea seems extremely implausible. If South Carolina can have thousands of citizen's SSNs and confidential government data stolen by some Cheeto-stained prick that gets away clean, any registry involving 50 states and countless police departments will probably be about as secure as Users/2012/Johnny/Documents/English/To_Kill_A_Mockingbird_Review.docx
 
2013-01-29 08:54:09 PM

Firethorn: I view it a bit like registration laws.

1. The regulation costs money, whether it's registration or background check
2. Said money could be spent elsewhere, such as hiring more cops, if it wasn't being done.
3. If the amount of crime preventable by hiring more cops(or equipping them better) exceeds the amount of crime that would be prevented by background checks, it's better to put the money into 'more cops'.

oldass31: Criminals have two main methods of acquiring guns. The first is they purchase privately from an unaware, but law-abiding citizen. The second is they purchase their gun from another criminal.

You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.
Beck et al. 1993, interview of imprisoned felons:
31% 'Family and friends' - Whether straw or actual 'gifting', it's still a felony to knowingly provide a firearm to a known felon.
28% 'Black Market', drug dealer or fence - Straw, stolen, etc...
27% Bought at store - either NICS failed, they didn't have a felony record yet, or the gunstore committed a felony
9% Theft.

Private sellers aren't even listed. Neither are gun shows.

Thus, LaPierre's response is a lot more nuanced than your - "In conclusion, Wayne LaPierre is an asshole."


Um, not sure if serious. Family/friends and blackmarket are both private sales.
 
2013-01-29 08:54:13 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Dimensio: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

What the fark, dude? The registry will just get dumped on WikiLeaks anyway.

Are you worried about the government confiscating your car, via their handy-dandy vehicle registries? No? Then why be worried about guns?

I am aware of no government that has utilized an automobile registry for confiscation. I am aware of multiple governments that have utilized a firearm registry for confiscation.

So, you don't believe in an Imaginary Sky Wizard, but you do believe in Imaginary HitlerTM. Great.
Moving on...


No possible rational nor honest interpretation of my statements could allow for such a conclusion.


That still doesn't address the fact that the registry will be impossible to secure, and it's the very idea of the security of the provision that would make this rider a factor in any give-and-take with gun owners. This idea seems extremely implausible. If South Carolina can have thousands of citizen's SSNs and confidential government data stolen by some Cheeto-stained prick that gets away clean, any registry involving 50 states and countless police departments will probably be about as secure as Users/2012/Johnny/Documents/English/To_Kill_A_Mockingbird_Review.docx


Exposure of the registry is irrelevant to the protection criteria that I have outlined. By eliminating a registration requirement should any confiscation legislation pass Congress, firearm owners could credibly claim to have transferred their firearms to new, unregistered, owners should a confiscation act be enacted even if leaked copies of the registry were available.
 
2013-01-29 08:59:39 PM
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.
 
2013-01-29 09:06:25 PM

Mike_1962: Firethorn: I view it a bit like registration laws.

1. The regulation costs money, whether it's registration or background check
2. Said money could be spent elsewhere, such as hiring more cops, if it wasn't being done.
3. If the amount of crime preventable by hiring more cops(or equipping them better) exceeds the amount of crime that would be prevented by background checks, it's better to put the money into 'more cops'.

oldass31: Criminals have two main methods of acquiring guns. The first is they purchase privately from an unaware, but law-abiding citizen. The second is they purchase their gun from another criminal.

You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.
Beck et al. 1993, interview of imprisoned felons:
31% 'Family and friends' - Whether straw or actual 'gifting', it's still a felony to knowingly provide a firearm to a known felon.
28% 'Black Market', drug dealer or fence - Straw, stolen, etc...
27% Bought at store - either NICS failed, they didn't have a felony record yet, or the gunstore committed a felony
9% Theft.

Private sellers aren't even listed. Neither are gun shows.

Thus, LaPierre's response is a lot more nuanced than your - "In conclusion, Wayne LaPierre is an asshole."

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


Yeah I was going to ask him his definition of private sales, but I figured he was just trolling.
 
2013-01-29 09:06:50 PM

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?
 
2013-01-29 09:07:42 PM

Mrbogey: It's not hyperbole when you call a scumbag a scumbag or a liar a liar. Gun control advocates are liars.



So ... what exactly is it, then, when you call a strawman a scumbag? Or call a strawman a liar?
 
2013-01-29 09:11:53 PM

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


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.
 
2013-01-29 09:15:24 PM

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?


Keep your government hands off my birth certifict!
 
2013-01-29 09:20:41 PM
Someone turns into your driveway by mistake? Well, it seems that there's a 2nd amendment solution to that problem:

Friends of Diaz, of Duluth, told Channel 2 Action News that he and others were trying to find a friend's house, but their GPS instead led them to the home on Hillcrest Road, off Indian Trail Road.

After seeing the car in his driveway, Sailors came out of his home, went back inside, then came out again with a gun and shot in the air, Yeson Jimenez, 15, told Channel 2. Jimenez said he and his brother were in the car with Diaz, along with a female passenger.

Diaz tried to drive away, but Sailors shot again, striking Diaz in the head, according to police.

An attorney for Sailors told Channel 2 the man shot because he feared his life was in danger.

"He is very distraught over the loss of life from the defense of his home," attorney Michael Puglise said. "This incident happened late in the evening hours when he was home with his wife and he assumed it was a home invasion and he maintains his innocence."


This incident happened in Georgia, which has a "stand your ground" law. One wonders if this murderous POS will use that defense to get away with his crime.  The police report confirms that the vehicle was pulling out of the driveway when Sailors killed the driver (Sailors is claiming the vehicle was moving toward him).
 
2013-01-29 09:25:13 PM
I have heard this again and again by the gun nuts "Hey if we pass these laws they will not be 100% effective". Hey, we have rape and murder laws, and we still have rape and murder, so lets get rid of those laws too?

And they get so mad when you point out that their argument is this stupid.
 
2013-01-29 09:27:10 PM

Nabb1: I own guns and I went through a background check. I don't see the big deal.


Because you are a responsible gun owner, not a gun nut that believes any restriction on the use of guns is the same as taking all guns away. Today we have a group of extremists who believe that either you can have pure ideology or you have nothing.
 
2013-01-29 09:30:57 PM

BMulligan: 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?

Keep your government hands off my birth certifict!


Actually you as a parrent are not required to register your children with the govt. Insta put into adoption or drop offs come to mind
 
2013-01-29 09:31:40 PM
Dimensio
I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

An interesting suggestion. Unfortunately, as a practical matter, it is not possible for one Congress to bind a subsequent Congress. Later Congresses can always repeal and amend earlier laws.

What if a unanimous or near-unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision held that although registration of guns is permissible, any use of the registry to confiscate guns from their lawful owners is unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment's requirement that the people may "keep" arms? (Additionally, assume that no serious contender for federal office advocated overturning the unanimous or near-unanimous decision.)
 
2013-01-29 09:32:15 PM

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!
 
2013-01-29 09:32:50 PM
That is the exact same argument that liberals use to whine about sending illegals back to Mexico...we can't get them all so why bother with any of them? Let's just make the legal!
 
2013-01-29 09:33:54 PM

richard_1963: Someone turns into your driveway by mistake? Well, it seems that there's a 2nd amendment solution to that problem:

Friends of Diaz, of Duluth, told Channel 2 Action News that he and others were trying to find a friend's house, but their GPS instead led them to the home on Hillcrest Road, off Indian Trail Road.

After seeing the car in his driveway, Sailors came out of his home, went back inside, then came out again with a gun and shot in the air, Yeson Jimenez, 15, told Channel 2. Jimenez said he and his brother were in the car with Diaz, along with a female passenger.

Diaz tried to drive away, but Sailors shot again, striking Diaz in the head, according to police.

An attorney for Sailors told Channel 2 the man shot because he feared his life was in danger.

"He is very distraught over the loss of life from the defense of his home," attorney Michael Puglise said. "This incident happened late in the evening hours when he was home with his wife and he assumed it was a home invasion and he maintains his innocence."

This incident happened in Georgia, which has a "stand your ground" law. One wonders if this murderous POS will use that defense to get away with his crime.  The police report confirms that the vehicle was pulling out of the driveway when Sailors killed the driver (Sailors is claiming the vehicle was moving toward him).


Nah, PMITA prison for that guy. He has no way to prove his life was in any danger given that evidence, Not really like the Zimmerman case in any respect.
 
2013-01-29 09:43:14 PM
richard_1963
Diaz tried to drive away, but Sailors shot again, striking Diaz in the head, according to police.

An attorney for Sailors told Channel 2 the man shot because he feared his life was in danger there were brown people in the car, and this happened in Georgia.


FTFY.
 
2013-01-29 09:45:02 PM

shotglasss: That is the exact same argument that liberals use to whine about sending illegals back to Mexico...we can't get them all so why bother with any of them? Let's just make the legal!


Really? What liberals are asking for removing all laws on immigration? Not many, and none that are politicians however many right wingers are saying we can have no new gun laws at all including the NRA.
 
2013-01-29 09:51:25 PM
And by "ready to participate in a meaningful effort," they mean "as long as you never, ever, EVER mention guns in any capacity other than assuring us we can have as many of whatever kind as we like, regardless of criminal history or mental illness because background checks impinge on our liberties."

I don't suppose they're going to take up a collection for the NIMH, either.
 
2013-01-29 09:53:34 PM

shotglasss: That is the exact same argument that liberals use to whine about sending illegals back to Mexico...we can't get them all so why bother with any of them? Let's just make the legal!


Actually no, no liberals are saying that. That's what we call a strawman, or just a flat out lie to appeal to the "both sides are bad" argument.

Same with the war on drugs. No, no one is proposing full legalization of all drugs, and if they were, it's not because "the laws dont work so lets not try."

But please do continue, every time you guys speak, you show everyone how dishonest and ignorant you are and weaken your position further.
 
2013-01-29 10:10:55 PM

chairmanoohmowmow: "The war on drugs was a failure."

"We can't stop teens from having sex so we should give them condoms."

"It's stupid to think we can control the border with mexico."

"We need need gun control."

One of these things is not like the other...


Yes, the very last thing you said. The first 4 things are dissimilar items. The last statement is a strawman.
 
2013-01-29 10:15:05 PM

Corvus: I have heard this again and again by the gun nuts "Hey if we pass these laws they will not be 100% effective". Hey, we have rape and murder laws, and we still have rape and murder, so lets get rid of those laws too?

And they get so mad when you point out that their argument is this stupid.


Sort of like immigration laws? We can't seem to find and deport X million illegals so hey, amnesty!

/yeah get to the back of the line.......but stay here.

//vote Dem, vote often
// no ID required
 
2013-01-29 10:18:11 PM

Nabb1: I own guns and I went through a background check. I don't see the big deal.


This, LaPierre is a moron.

I wish the NRA had sane leadership. Compromise on issues like this, but never allow bans.
 
2013-01-29 10:19:41 PM

justtray: Actually no, no liberals are saying that. That's what we call a strawman, or just a flat out lie to appeal to the "both sides are bad" argument.


And where were you to point out that nobody is saying there needs to be no gun regulations?

Where were you to point out they're not saying the law won't be 100% effective so we shouldn't try?

Oh, that's right... that's the "right" side making those strawmen. You can't be outraged at that.
 
2013-01-29 10:20:14 PM

gilgigamesh: Now opposing criminal background checks may seem baffling, but that would be because you are wrongly assuming that the point is to reduce gun violence.  Once you consider that LaPierre's sole motive is to ensure that his gun manufacturer masters maximize sales of their product, it makes sense.

Take any proposition LaPierre and the NRA make, strip it of any moral context whatsoever, run it through this formula, and you will see it fits 100% of the time.


Manufacturers would have already made their money on the first legal sale to the FFL dealer, unless I'm misunderstanding that the universal background check is the closing of the "gunshow loophole."
 
2013-01-29 10:22:27 PM

manimal2878: gilgigamesh: Now opposing criminal background checks may seem baffling, but that would be because you are wrongly assuming that the point is to reduce gun violence.  Once you consider that LaPierre's sole motive is to ensure that his gun manufacturer masters maximize sales of their product, it makes sense.

Take any proposition LaPierre and the NRA make, strip it of any moral context whatsoever, run it through this formula, and you will see it fits 100% of the time.

Manufacturers would have already made their money on the first legal sale to the FFL dealer, unless I'm misunderstanding that the universal background check is the closing of the "gunshow loophole."


The gun manufacturers are a huge lobby is a nice conspiracy theory. It does highlight how little people know about it considering what happened with Ruger and S&W.
 
2013-01-29 10:25:53 PM

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

Better yet, be the one who tells the grieving family that their loved ones died for freedom of gunn ownersship.


If you have ever drank a beer you should have to tell the grieving family of dead DUI victims that they died so you could have the freedom to get a buzz from your pabst blue ribbon.

Yes, that's how retarded your statement sounds.
 
2013-01-29 10:31:14 PM

Corvus: Nabb1: I own guns and I went through a background check. I don't see the big deal.

Because you are a responsible gun owner, not a gun nut that believes any restriction on the use of guns is the same as taking all guns away. Today we have a group of extremists who believe that either you can have pure ideology or you have nothing.


The reason why is many of us have been through this before. We did the FFL system, and the background checks, and the machine gun registry (which turned into a ban), and then the AWB with its feature bans and magazine limits. It was always for the kids and to keep guns in the right hands. It's always in the interest of the greater good.
Now we're here again looking for further tightening of new and existing restrictions.

If every infringement is reasonable because you wants it then is there any limit to this desire?
Is there an end point where you decide to look somewhere else for the solution to violence?

If playing along means choking the life out of our weapon rights then there isn't much of a difference for you if we draw the line in the sand here or down the road. You cant be satisfied.

It makes a pretty big difference to the rest of us tho, since we're trying to hang on to what's left until this political tornado blows itself out.
 
2013-01-29 10:31:54 PM

manimal2878: Nabb1: I own guns and I went through a background check. I don't see the big deal.

This, LaPierre is a moron.

I wish the NRA had sane leadership. Compromise on issues like this, but never allow bans.


Yes but compomise before the actual debate starts has been Obama's largest negotiational failing. I see no problem at thowing red meat and setting a negotiating start point and then moving in. Otherwise you move in once and then hve to move in again.
 
2013-01-29 10:33:42 PM

Facetious_Speciest: omnibus_necanda_sunt

They'd trace it to you. They'd bend the crook's arm until he gave up the guy who sold to him, then so on up the chain until you get to people following the new registry law.

Right, but in the example, I was the end of the chain, and all the cops had was a criminal's accusation.

It's very similar to the "lol, they won't register, so they're no longer law-abiding gun owners, so confiscate their firearms!" idea in that it misses the basic fact that you won't know who to go after for having illegal firearms, as they declined to register them with anyone to begin with. You'd have to wait until someone did something crazy, rather like now.

"Following the chain" would work for everything after the registration law (in theory), but not for all the weapons from the past century or so we have in every third house in this country, many of which are not registered and have absolutely no government records of possession to begin with.


You are correct in that there could and almost certainly would be a lot of non compliance. Now, what is your point? Are you on some kind of 'Perfect Solution' falllacy riff?
 
2013-01-29 10:37:28 PM
Mike_1962

You are correct in that there could and almost certainly would be a lot of non compliance. Now, what is your point?

I already made it. Hours ago.

Are you on some kind of 'Perfect Solution' falllacy riff?

Not at all. I was simply pointing out the flaws as I saw them with certain lines of reasoning. They were valid, if based on a poster and I not quite being on the same page.

Do you disagree with something I said? Do you have a point?
 
2013-01-29 10:43:58 PM

Dimensio: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

What the fark, dude? The registry will just get dumped on WikiLeaks anyway.

Are you worried about the government confiscating your car, via their handy-dandy vehicle registries? No? Then why be worried about guns?

I am aware of no government that has utilized an automobile registry for confiscation. I am aware of multiple governments that have utilized a firearm registry for confiscation.


Really? I'm curious. Who?
 
2013-01-29 10:53:27 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Mike_1962

Well, maybe nothing, as long as you are OK with being an accessory to murder before the fact.

So, mostly nothing. If one had compunctions of that sort, they probably wouldn't be illegally selling firearms to begin with.


I disagree, based largely on points you hav made. It would seem that a lot of gun owners are 'mavericky' enough to refuse to register, but might still sell a gun. I would not accept that those same people have the same scofflaw attitude to murder.
 
2013-01-29 10:53:27 PM

WE SHOULDN'T HAVE GUN LAWS BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE BREAK LAWS?
manhattaninfidel.com
SO WHY HAVE ANY LAWS?
 
2013-01-29 10:56:32 PM
Wow, this guy is really farking losing it.

First, "video games are bad!"

Then "play our NRA video game!"

And now "Background checks are bad!"
 
2013-01-29 10:57:46 PM
coeyagi: Yes, the very last thing you said. The first 4 things are dissimilar items. The last statement is a straw man.

Little tip:

You can spout all of the sophomore debate class vocabulary you want but you can't explain how the left argues against control when they like the behavior but argue for it when it's something they despise like Jesus, corporations and of course, guns.

to wit: "We can't prevent abortions! If they're made illegal people will go to back alleys or to Mexico and it won't be safe!"

"We can prevent criminal activity by passing more laws!"

argument: No, you can't. Adam Lanza didn't give fark about the number of laws he was breaking.

just saying "straw man" or "red herring" doesn't break the argument.

Thanks for playing. We have some nice parting gifts for you backstage.
 
2013-01-29 10:59:22 PM

Mike_1962: Dimensio: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

What the fark, dude? The registry will just get dumped on WikiLeaks anyway.

Are you worried about the government confiscating your car, via their handy-dandy vehicle registries? No? Then why be worried about guns?

I am aware of no government that has utilized an automobile registry for confiscation. I am aware of multiple governments that have utilized a firearm registry for confiscation.

Really? I'm curious. Who?


who else but....
 
2013-01-29 11:00:02 PM
Mike_1962

I disagree, based largely on points you hav made. It would seem that a lot of gun owners are 'mavericky' enough to refuse to register, but might still sell a gun.

I honestly don't follow what you're saying. Sorry. I do believe many Americans will not comply with a governmental demand for weapons registration. I do not believe this suggests they will be fine with selling their unregistered weapons to strangers who might then go out and murder someone.

Hypothetically speaking, if I had firearms, I would not register them. I also would have no interest in selling them illegally. I am only one individual, though.
 
2013-01-29 11:01:55 PM

Jackpot777: WE SHOULDN'T HAVE GUN LAWS BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE BREAK LAWS?
[manhattaninfidel.com image 300x300]
SO WHY HAVE ANY LAWS?


As opposed to tackling items that respresent a minor par of the overall issue?

Most of us want to do something that does tackle the issue in a statistically significant way without infringing upon enumerated rights.
 
2013-01-29 11:03:39 PM

Jackpot777: WE SHOULDN'T HAVE GUN LAWS BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE BREAK LAWS?
[manhattaninfidel.com image 300x300]
SO WHY HAVE ANY LAWS?


Laws don't exist to prevent people from doing certain things, they're there so people can be punished after they do them. So, after someone murders a few people with that illegally modified weapon, people can feel some smug satisfaction that instead of life in prison, the murderer will be serving life plus 15 years.
 
2013-01-29 11:04:04 PM

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.
 
2013-01-29 11:05:35 PM

Facetious_Speciest: I honestly don't follow what you're saying. Sorry. I do believe many Americans will not comply with a governmental demand for weapons registration. I do not believe this suggests they will be fine with selling their unregistered weapons to strangers who might then go out and murder someone.

Hypothetically speaking, if I had firearms, I would not register them. I also would have no interest in selling them illegally. I am only one individual, though.


Pretty much the same here and everyone else I know is pretty much in the same boat. Most recognize that they do need to keep guns out of the hands of bad folks, but don't trust the government when it comes to gun registration.

Simple as that.
 
2013-01-29 11:14:20 PM
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.

The only reason why a good person would need gun for personal defense is because the NRA has made damn sure that the bad people have easy access to them.
 
2013-01-29 11:22:21 PM

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.
 
2013-01-29 11:24:21 PM

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.


Actaully, if that was teh case, he would be all for the ban and confiscation. Manufacturers would need to update thier models so they don't technically fitt under the ban's cosmetics and you have the recipe for more sales.

All the current hoarding does right now is offset future sales to the present.

The only reason why a good person would need gun for personal defense is because the NRA has made damn sure that the bad people have easy access to them.

Bad people will find a way to own guns regardless of whether the NRA exist or not.
 
2013-01-29 11:24:47 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Mike_1962

You are correct in that there could and almost certainly would be a lot of non compliance. Now, what is your point?

I already made it. Hours ago.

Are you on some kind of 'Perfect Solution' falllacy riff?

Not at all. I was simply pointing out the flaws as I saw them with certain lines of reasoning. They were valid, if based on a poster and I not quite being on the same page.

Do you disagree with something I said? Do you have a point?


I assumed that pointing out that registration would not be 100% effective (which is obvious and need not be belaboured) was a support for non registration. If your whole point was pendantry rather than meaning, I beg your pardon.
 
2013-01-29 11:24:52 PM

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.
 
2013-01-29 11:31:28 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Mike_1962

I disagree, based largely on points you hav made. It would seem that a lot of gun owners are 'mavericky' enough to refuse to register, but might still sell a gun.

I honestly don't follow what you're saying. Sorry. I do believe many Americans will not comply with a governmental demand for weapons registration. I do not believe this suggests they will be fine with selling their unregistered weapons to strangers who might then go out and murder someone.

Hypothetically speaking, if I had firearms, I would not register them. I also would have no interest in selling them illegally. I am only one individual, though.


Well, amend your statement to never sell or give the guns to anyone in that case. Don't try to say 'Well, I'm not going to sell my gun to someone who might commit a crime'. You are not in a position to make that judgement call.
 
2013-01-29 11:35:21 PM

HeadLever: Mike_1962: Dimensio: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

What the fark, dude? The registry will just get dumped on WikiLeaks anyway.

Are you worried about the government confiscating your car, via their handy-dandy vehicle registries? No? Then why be worried about guns?

I am aware of no government that has utilized an automobile registry for confiscation. I am aware of multiple governments that have utilized a firearm registry for confiscation.

Really? I'm curious. Who?

who else but....


Really? REALLY? Try to think rationally about the differences and stop masturbating to your underdog lonely hero/rebel fantasies.
 
2013-01-29 11:36:02 PM
Mike_1962

I assumed that pointing out that registration would not be 100% effective (which is obvious and need not be belaboured) was a support for non registration.

No, I decline to support registration for other reasons. And in fact, I was pointing out why certain measures would be less than effective, the details of which are apparently obscure to many anti-firearm folks who simply don't understand how firearm ownership works in the States.

To be fair, the confusion was mine, but the other poster involved admitted they had been less than clear regarding their point. If you read the exchange, it might be helpful.

If your whole point was pendantry rather than meaning, I beg your pardon.

Yeah, it was totally pedantry. Because that's what the word means. Except not.

Seems like you're trying to argue, but aren't sure how.

Let's start again, just for you. A poster suggested the solution to people not registering their weapons is to fine them. I pointed out that you can't do that until they do something wrong that reveals their unregistered weapons. A lot of people don't get this point, because they think all legally purchased firearms in America are registered, or licensed, or tracked, because they saw something on the telly and that's obviously how things work.

In reality, this is not how things work. If I owned firearms, not a single one of them would be registered, and there would be no record of any transfer. As far as the government is concerned, I would have no weapons. How would you know to fine me, confiscate my weapons or intern me? You wouldn't.

Do you disagree, and if so, why?
 
2013-01-29 11:40:42 PM
Mike_1962

Well, amend your statement to never sell or give the guns to anyone in that case. Don't try to say 'Well, I'm not going to sell my gun to someone who might commit a crime'. You are not in a position to make that judgement call.

Once again, you seem to be ignorant of reality. It is exclusively my call at present. In the event of my theoretical noncompliance with registration, should I choose to sell my weapons it would still be my call, as I'm hardly likely to consult the feds over whether it's allowed or not...I'm already engaged in legal activity.
 
2013-01-29 11:41:28 PM
Illegal, even. Derp.
 
2013-01-29 11:42:31 PM

Mike_1962: Well, amend your statement to never sell or give the guns to anyone in that case. Don't try to say 'Well, I'm not going to sell my gun to someone who might commit a crime'. You are not in a position to make that judgement call.


Why? it is the basics of the illegality of knowingly selling firearms to prohibited individuals.
 
2013-01-29 11:43:14 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Mike_1962

I assumed that pointing out that registration would not be 100% effective (which is obvious and need not be belaboured) was a support for non registration.

No, I decline to support registration for other reasons. And in fact, I was pointing out why certain measures would be less than effective, the details of which are apparently obscure to many anti-firearm folks who simply don't understand how firearm ownership works in the States.

To be fair, the confusion was mine, but the other poster involved admitted they had been less than clear regarding their point. If you read the exchange, it might be helpful.

If your whole point was pendantry rather than meaning, I beg your pardon.

Yeah, it was totally pedantry. Because that's what the word means. Except not.

Seems like you're trying to argue, but aren't sure how.

Let's start again, just for you. A poster suggested the solution to people not registering their weapons is to fine them. I pointed out that you can't do that until they do something wrong that reveals their unregistered weapons. A lot of people don't get this point, because they think all legally purchased firearms in America are registered, or licensed, or tracked, because they saw something on the telly and that's obviously how things work.

In reality, this is not how things work. If I owned firearms, not a single one of them would be registered, and there would be no record of any transfer. As far as the government is concerned, I would have no weapons. How would you know to fine me, confiscate my weapons or intern me? You wouldn't.

Do you disagree, and if so, why?


What's your point? Sure seems like, "since not everyone will register, there's no point to have registration."

And to answer your question, no one would, unless you ever intended to carry those weapons anywhere in public and got stopped, and then arrested for not having them registered. A risk I frankly don't think you, or may other people with this position are actually willing to take.

Now - back to my original question here, what is your point?
 
2013-01-29 11:45:35 PM

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?
 
2013-01-29 11:46:17 PM
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.
 
2013-01-29 11:47:01 PM

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.
 
2013-01-29 11:48:07 PM

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?


says the dude who went Godwin
 
2013-01-29 11:49:20 PM

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.


So you're too ashamed to say what your point is here? Good, you should be, it's retarded.
 
2013-01-29 11:50:09 PM

justtray: says the dude who went Godwin


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

;)
 
2013-01-29 11:50:50 PM

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.


Allow me to add - I like when people claim others are alts. This is almost always projection from people who themselves have to resort to such pathetic tactics.
 
2013-01-29 11:51:30 PM
LOL
 
2013-01-29 11:54:44 PM

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.
 
2013-01-29 11:56:54 PM

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.
 
2013-01-29 11:58:47 PM

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.
 
2013-01-29 11:59:41 PM

Mike_1962: 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 me!
 
2013-01-30 12:00:14 AM
Bye, you guy/s.
 
2013-01-30 12:03:28 AM

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.


Ah, no. He's countering that an excuse to do a certain something is at its heart a solution for nothing. See the politician's fallacy.
 
2013-01-30 12:12:36 AM

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.
 
2013-01-30 12:14:57 AM

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
 
2013-01-30 12:32:23 AM

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?
 
2013-01-30 01:05:28 AM

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.
 
2013-01-30 01:17:44 AM

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.
 
2013-01-30 02:02:44 AM

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.
 
2013-01-30 04:01:12 AM

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.
 
2013-01-30 07:36:38 AM

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.
 
2013-01-30 08:59:11 AM
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).
 
2013-01-30 09:11:28 AM

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?
 
2013-01-30 09:21:55 AM

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.
 
2013-01-30 09:21:55 AM
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?.
 
2013-01-30 09:40:07 AM

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.
 
2013-01-30 10:19:14 AM

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.
 
2013-01-30 10:21:09 AM

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.

blogs.ocweekly.com
 
2013-01-30 11:01:48 AM

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.
 
2013-01-30 11:22:26 AM

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.
 
2013-01-31 07:26:09 AM
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.
 
2013-01-31 05:37:38 PM

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.
 
Displayed 382 of 382 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report