Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(The Hill)   Obama uses his executive power to take your guns. No, not really. Yet   (thehill.com) divider line 500
    More: Scary, President Obama, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, law enforcement officials, scientific methods, semiautomatic firearms, Richard Feldman, NRA  
•       •       •

3831 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:06 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-29 03:34:05 PM  
i1121.photobucket.com


Stay tuned for more Inconvenient Truths about firearms and Violence in the USA
 
2013-03-29 03:34:18 PM  
God I hate the new formatting buttons. Jeez.
 
2013-03-29 03:37:11 PM  
 
2013-03-29 03:40:01 PM  

Car_Ramrod: It actually looks like after a big surge in the early 90s, gun-related homicide rates have stayed steady over the past 30 years. Link. Most recent data I could find.


Interesting. Thanks.

It turns out we're both right. :)

According to FBI crime stats, there was indeed an increase in the raw number of firearm-related homicides in the early 1990s, just as your chart points out, but the rate-per-100,000 had declined since 1980, which was the high point. I normally look at normalized rates rather than raw numbers as the raw numbers can sometimes be deceiving.

Also, compared to other countries around the world, we're not doing too hot. Counting only among those countries where guns rights are guaranteed by law, we're 15th out of 19 for firearmhomicide rate, and 16th out of 19 for % of homicides with firearms. Not great. There's something that needs to be fixed.

I'm not saying it's all due to gun regulations; there's definitely some societal implications in that as well. But it's at least part of the problem.


True, but look at the state-by-state breakdown: certain states (cities, in particular) contribute disproportionately to the national gun-related homicide stats. Outside of these localized areas, gun-related crime is comparable to many other developed countries. I won't deny that guns play a role in crime -- they clearly do -- but it's not clear that additional restrictions on law-abiding people will have a meaningful effect on reducing violent crime rates.
 
2013-03-29 03:43:50 PM  

whidbey: And proving to be a non-reliable source of opposition.


Meaning what? That I don't reliably oppose you?
 
2013-03-29 03:46:43 PM  

whidbey: God I hate the new formatting buttons. Jeez.


Uncheck wysiwyg in preferences.
 
2013-03-29 03:51:40 PM  

heypete: Car_Ramrod: So rules and regulations right now are perfect? They eliminate gun-related crime as much as humanly possibly? There's nothing else that can be done?

No, not really, but where do you draw the line?

Extreme, banning all guns and confiscating all guns in the country would likely reduce gun-related crime (until the criminals start importing or making new guns -- if there's a demand, someone will fill it), though that'd be (a) rather extreme and (b) unconstitutional. From a practical standpoint, it'd never work.


I admitted upthread that would probably be my ideal situation, but I acknowledged it's not realistic, nor is it Constitutional.

Current laws are a fairly good compromise between "no guns" and "total free for all".

But that's assuming those are two equal standings to begin negotiations. Obviously people will disagree with my standing on this, but if I believe a total free for all is way more detrimental to society than no guns, being a good compromise between the two is not a great place to settle.

Pretty much anything harmful that you could do with a gun is already illegal. It's illegal for criminals to possess firearms or for people to supply them with guns. Dealers, who are regulated by the federal government, must conduct background checks on buyers and maintain records of sale that document this. These laws are enforceable, as dealers have their business at stake, have a traceable supply chain from manufacturers and distributors, undergo periodic ATF audits (though perhaps the frequency of audits could be increased, if needed), and are accountable to the federal government. Certain particularly dangerous guns, like machine guns, are heavily restricted and what few are transferable are only available to wealthy collectors.

There's got to be some better way to trace back the ownership of weapons used in crimes to fix cracks in the system and make things safer for everyone. Stronger regulation of manufacturers, more strict registration/tracking, stiffer penalties for infractions. The Daily Show (an admittedly biased source) did a piece a bit ago about how ineffective the ATF was in being watchdogs over gun manufacturers.

Keeping in mind that the right to keep and bear arms is Constitutionally-protected (and in turn based on the fundamental right of self-defense), what more could one do that would be effective?

You can have self-defense without a gun. Look, I understand it's in the Constitution, and, barring some new (probably impossible) amendment, it's going to stay there and responsible, law-abiding gun owners will always have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't prevent us from keeping the situation well regulated.

Background checks on all transfers sounds good, except that criminals and their suppliers will simply ignore the requirement (they're already committing a crime, what's one more minor offense if they get caught?). Registration doesn't really do anything and wouldn't account for the bulk of the ~300 million guns (most of which are unregistered) already out there.

It's a start. It would limit the flow of new guns out onto the market. You always have to start somewhere in getting these kinds of things under control. Making upgrading possession of an unregistered gun to a major offense would be helpful. Hell, we criminalized the hell out of just having some drugs on you, we can't make people a bit worried about being caught with a deadly weapon?

Additional gun laws aren't really likely to have any real effect, as the problem lies elsewhere.

So that brings me back to my main point of anti-gun control people basically saying we can't do anything else to control the flow of weapons to criminals and that we've done all we can. I find that idea fundamentally wrong. While yes, there are external variables that increase gun-related crimes, we cannot ignore that the primary reason they happen is because guns are so easy to attain.
 
2013-03-29 03:53:44 PM  

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x790]


Stay tuned for more Inconvenient Truths about firearms and Violence in the USA


...are you insinuating we outlaw hands and feet?
 
2013-03-29 03:55:06 PM  

Jim_Callahan: The problem with this particular objection is that it fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of a law. A law doesn't make a crime physically impossible, it makes it more difficult to successfully commit and get away with.

Background checks force criminals to resort to a black market, which makes the issue substantially easier to control, since tracking missing shipments and repeated illegal transactions and cutting them off is a matter of good detective work, but trying to trace a single illegal transaction after the fact in the sum total of all transactions, most of which are legal, without prior checks or documentation is essentially impossible.

We've settled on prior checks over documentation because of privacy concerns related to civil rights, but we have to do one or the other or the law against selling a criminal a gun is impossible to enforce. It's as simple as that.


I'm not really seeing how it changes things. Right now, a straw purchaser can go to a gun shop, pass the background check, and buy a gun. At this point, things are perfectly legal. Next, they can sell the gun to a criminal without a background check. This is illegal, but nothing physically prevents the straw purchaser from doing this. If I wanted to sell a gun to my good friend who I know isn't a criminal (as I've been there in person with him when he's passed background checks in a gun shop, in addition to my knowing him all my life), I could do so in a private sale without needing a dealer to mediate. This is legal in most states.

With universal background checks, the straw purchaser could still go into the gun shop, pass the background check, and buy a gun. Still legal. Next, they sell the gun to a criminal without a background check. They're supposed to do a background check (e.g. taking it to a dealer to do the check) but nothing forces them to. You've made an already-illegal transfer slightly more illegal. If they really wanted to cover their bases, they could say the gun was stolen (how would anyone know otherwise?). So long as they only do this a small number of times, it's exceedingly unlikely that they'll be caught. If I wanted to sell a gun to my good friend, I'd have to go to a dealer and pay a fee to do the check and paperwork as private sales would no longer be permitted. For people in many areas, this is a hassle: Chicago, for example, doesn't have any dealers in city limits. For two people in the city wanting to legally transfer a gun, that'd require that they both coordinate schedules, transportation, etc. to meet at a dealer outside the city to do the transfer. If someone less inclined to obey the law wanted to do a previously-legal-but-now-prohibited private transfer, nothing stops them and, if asked, they could simply say they performed the transfer before the law came into effect -- there'd be no way to tell otherwise.

Put simply, universal background checks are unenforceable and only affect the law-abiding.

The black market for guns already exists, in the form of straw purchasers and thieves who steal guns. I agree that more effort should be taken to crack down on straw purchasers but, from a practical perspective, universal background checks aren't really going to do anything as there's no way to enforce them. It's a reasonable idea in theory, but it doesn't really do anything in practice.

The current mandate for background checks from dealers is enforceable, as dealers are required by law to maintain up-to-date records of their inventory and deal mostly in new guns coming in from regulated manufacturers and distributors. After that point, though, there's no way to effectively prevent private sales (illegal or not) even if universal background checks were required.
 
2013-03-29 03:56:09 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Mikey1969: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Giltric: Can you list the mass shooters that choose assault rifles?

These guys liked them pretty well.

[img2.timeinc.net image 220x300][timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com image 200x300][static.guim.co.uk image 200x300][www.gannett-cdn.com image 215x300]

Who are #2 and #4?

Roberts and Spengler.


Ahhh, still don't place Roberts, but I recognize the Spengler dude now.
 
2013-03-29 03:58:11 PM  

Alphakronik: You want to pass background checks for law abiding Americans?  Pass an executive order that recognizes a Muslim-American's right to bear arms.  Yes, I know they already can, but much like Republicans pointless laws, it would scare the shiat out of the right bad enough that they'd be willing to submit to background checks solely based upon forcing Muslims to be subject to further scrutiny.


Because gun owners are all republicans. And all republicans hate Muslims.
 
2013-03-29 03:59:22 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: And proving to be a non-reliable source of opposition.

Meaning what? That I don't reliably oppose you?


Well, if you're going to keep bringing up disinformation, then yeah, you're losing credibility.

A better background check system, a national registry and funding research to understand why we have gun violence.
 Actually, never mind. You oppose ^this^?
 
2013-03-29 03:59:25 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x790]


Stay tuned for more Inconvenient Truths about firearms and Violence in the USA

...are you insinuating we outlaw hands and feet?



Are you saying that we SHOULDN'T???

Think of the children!
 
2013-03-29 03:59:39 PM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.


If you were a truly hardcore gamer you'd know why not all guns are the same. Do you snipe with a shotgun in battlefield?
 
2013-03-29 04:03:10 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: whidbey: God I hate the new formatting buttons. Jeez.

Uncheck wysiwyg in preferences.


Why thank you. Looks like I still need the training wheels. :)
 
2013-03-29 04:03:53 PM  
It's hilarious that the dems will ultimately lose several seats over this gun control fiasco and have accomplished virtually nothing in the process. Way to give a 2nd wind to your dying political adversary dems. Even Clinton warned you this was a bad idea.
 
2013-03-29 04:06:20 PM  

heypete: I won't deny that guns play a role in crime -- they clearly do -- but it's not clear that additional restrictions on law-abiding people will have a meaningful effect on reducing violent crime rates.


I've tried to establish a few of my beliefs in many of these threads I've foolishly participated in. Amongst them:

1) I don't want to punish responsible, law-abiding gun-owners. They have as much to gain from better regulation as anyone else. Guns being accessible for use by criminals gives all gun owners a bad name, and they should be joining us in trying to prevent such things from happening without seeming so defensive.

2) (I'll just quote myself from earlier) "And to be fair, I think that if we are going to increase regulation, there should be more regulations on gun manufacturers rather than owners to ensure that their products are being responsibly sold and tracked."

Living in Chicago, I know all too well the horrors of gun violence that inflict my neighbors on the South Side. Hell, our local paper has a homicide tracker. I understand people get riled up from these headline-grabbing mass shootings, but after a couple months, no one thinks about it anymore. Meanwhile, last year, 441 people in Chicago were shot to death.

I don't want flashy, do-nothing regulations that make people feel better. I want people to use the anger that comes from these incidents to actually do something useful to stop my fellow Chicagoans from being murdered on a daily basis.
 
2013-03-29 04:08:39 PM  

whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: And proving to be a non-reliable source of opposition.

Meaning what? That I don't reliably oppose you?

Well, if you're going to keep bringing up disinformation, then yeah, you're losing credibility.

A better background check system, a national registry and funding research to understand why we have gun violence.
 Actually, never mind. You oppose ^this^?


Not at all, you really SHOULD pay better attention. I stated that from the very beginning.
 
2013-03-29 04:09:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: Ahhh, the "no answer" route. We know it well around here.

Oh, but you sure do "understand" about gun

No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s. Why do you think they do that?


Take a second and Wikipedia what gun was used in the Norway shooting in 2011. Feel free to march out of this thread now.
 
2013-03-29 04:11:00 PM  

Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: And proving to be a non-reliable source of opposition.

Meaning what? That I don't reliably oppose you?

Well, if you're going to keep bringing up disinformation, then yeah, you're losing credibility.

A better background check system, a national registry and funding research to understand why we have gun violence.
 Actually, never mind. You oppose ^this^?

Not at all, you really SHOULD pay better attention. I stated that from the very beginning.


Well then you need to stop putting the other crap in your posts about what "the Left" supposedly believes. Because that came off a lot louder.
 
2013-03-29 04:11:55 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Also, compared to other countries around the world, we're not doing too hot. Counting only among those countries where guns rights are guaranteed by law, we're  15th out of 19 for firearmhomicide rate, and 16th out of 19 for % of homicides with firearms. Not great. There's something that needs to be fixed.



Doesn't that mean that we're at the bottom of that group?
 
2013-03-29 04:13:33 PM  

Dinki: What is it with gunnuts and their need to have 10, 20, 30 guns? I'm a hardcore computer gamer- I have one PC. My wife collects sewing machines. She has about 20 of them, but all but one are antiques.  I can understand having a collection of antique firearms, but many of these nuts have collections of modern guns. Why do gun freaks need to have 20 different guns, most of which do the exact same thing? If they really examined the impetus behind their hobby, they might find they have a problem.


Your problem is that you are trying to dictate what other people can and can't do based on no knowledge of what you're talking about. In other words, you're the kind of person gun owners don't want touching ANY laws.

It's like Republicans trying to get involved in women's health.
 
2013-03-29 04:13:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: cameroncrazy1984: Mikey1969: Ahhh, the "no answer" route. We know it well around here.

Oh, but you sure do "understand" about gun

No, it's inconvenient to your position, that Lanza and other mass shooters choose assault rifles over Ruger Mini-14s. Why do you think they do that?

No reason not to. They both accept the same magazine and fire the same ammo. There is nothing special about the AR-15 that the Mini-14 doesn't have. Fun fact: The A-Team used Mini-14's in their show, not AR-15s, all you do is put in the bigger mag, which the gun will come with.

Can you explain to me why the Ruger Mini-14 isn't used by any military in the world? I mean, it's not any more lethal, right?


That mini14 has been used by police and the military. Your assertion is factually wrong.
 
2013-03-29 04:13:45 PM  

spickus: Car_Ramrod: Also, compared to other countries around the world, we're not doing too hot. Counting only among those countries where guns rights are guaranteed by law, we're  15th out of 19 for firearmhomicide rate, and 16th out of 19 for % of homicides with firearms. Not great. There's something that needs to be fixed.


Doesn't that mean that we're at the bottom of that group?


Well I stated it as the smallest rate and % would be 1st. So being at the bottom means we suck at both.
 
2013-03-29 04:13:56 PM  

whidbey: A better background check system, a national registry and funding research to understand why we have gun violence.
 Actually, never mind. You oppose ^this^?


That national gun registry worked great in New York.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2013/0103/N.Y.-newspaper-s-map- of -local-gun-owners-A-cheat-sheet-for-burglars-video

Hey, background check.  Absolutely, definitely, every time.  Funding research?  YOU BET.  That research might even prove the need for MORE restrictions.

But a national gun registry is a very dumb idea.  It gives away the location of valuable weapons.  It gives criminals easier access to potential weapons for use in larger crimes. And do you really think the registry will be safe?  I mean, really?  You think that the government can secure anything?  Hackers will have the data within a week.  It'll be on Google Maps in a month.  Then police officers will be knocking on yoru door every time a crime is committed with your model of gun.  Heck, might even be enough for a warrant.
 
2013-03-29 04:14:21 PM  

chiett: Good luck with all of that.
Take the 30+ round magazines, full auto weapons, and the really scary "military" style weapons.
Then enforce the laws on the books.

And finally leave my shiat alone.


Which "full auto weapons" are you talking about?
 
2013-03-29 04:16:18 PM  

seniorgato: whidbey: A better background check system, a national registry and funding research to understand why we have gun violence.
 Actually, never mind. You oppose ^this^?

That national gun registry worked great in New York.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2013/0103/N.Y.-newspaper-s-map- of -local-gun-owners-A-cheat-sheet-for-burglars-video

Hey, background check.  Absolutely, definitely, every time.  Funding research?  YOU BET.  That research might even prove the need for MORE restrictions.

But a national gun registry is a very dumb idea.  It gives away the location of valuable weapons.  It gives criminals easier access to potential weapons for use in larger crimes. And do you really think the registry will be safe?  I mean, really?  You think that the government can secure anything?  Hackers will have the data within a week.  It'll be on Google Maps in a month.  Then police officers will be knocking on yoru door every time a crime is committed with your model of gun.  Heck, might even be enough for a warrant.


So the idea of tracking weapons is a bad idea because hackers? Because bugs in the system?

Not really convinced. Glad you at least agree with the other two.
 
2013-03-29 04:18:15 PM  

Car_Ramrod: heypete: I won't deny that guns play a role in crime -- they clearly do -- but it's not clear that additional restrictions on law-abiding people will have a meaningful effect on reducing violent crime rates.

I've tried to establish a few of my beliefs in many of these threads I've foolishly participated in. Amongst them:

1) I don't want to punish responsible, law-abiding gun-owners. They have as much to gain from better regulation as anyone else. Guns being accessible for use by criminals gives all gun owners a bad name, and they should be joining us in trying to prevent such things from happening without seeming so defensive.

2) (I'll just quote myself from earlier) "And to be fair, I think that if we are going to increase regulation, there should be more regulations on gun manufacturers rather than owners to ensure that their products are being responsibly sold and tracked."

Living in Chicago, I know all too well the horrors of gun violence that inflict my neighbors on the South Side. Hell, our local paper has a homicide tracker. I understand people get riled up from these headline-grabbing mass shootings, but after a couple months, no one thinks about it anymore. Meanwhile, last year, 441 people in Chicago were shot to death.

I don't want flashy, do-nothing regulations that make people feel better. I want people to use the anger that comes from these incidents to actually do something useful to stop my fellow Chicagoans from being murdered on a daily basis.


As a gun owner, I totally agree on point one and I'm baffled by point two. Overwhelmingly, criminals get their guns in the secondary market. You are very much missing the point on that and going after manufacturers hints at other motivations.... Maybe bad dealers are really what you meant?

I fully support tougher penalties on straw purchasers, probably the only federal gun regulation that is going to pass since Dems are trying to use background checks as a Trojan Horse for firearms registration.
 
2013-03-29 04:22:17 PM  

whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: And proving to be a non-reliable source of opposition.

Meaning what? That I don't reliably oppose you?

Well, if you're going to keep bringing up disinformation, then yeah, you're losing credibility.

A better background check system, a national registry and funding research to understand why we have gun violence.
 Actually, never mind. You oppose ^this^?

Not at all, you really SHOULD pay better attention. I stated that from the very beginning.

Well then you need to stop putting the other crap in your posts about what "the Left" supposedly believes. Because that came off a lot louder.


Sometimes, it's almost like people see what they want to see and ignore what they don't want to see when reading things around here...
 
2013-03-29 04:22:38 PM  

Car_Ramrod: heypete: Current laws are a fairly good compromise between "no guns" and "total free for all".

But that's assuming those are two equal standings to begin negotiations. Obviously people will disagree with my standing on this, but if I believe a total free for all is way more detrimental to society than no guns, being a good compromise between the two is not a great place to settle.


*shrugs* Either way, the genie's out of the bottle and it's not going back in.

There's got to be some better way to trace back the ownership of weapons used in crimes to fix cracks in the system and make things safer for everyone. Stronger regulation of manufacturers, more strict registration/tracking, stiffer penalties for infractions

The manufacturers already only sell to licensed distributors or dealers. They have to keep records forever as to what guns they make to which distributors/dealers they ship them. What more would you ask of them?

Registration and tracking wouldn't really be effective for reasons I've pointed out before. People already supplying criminals know they're committing a crime. Committing one extra crime isn't really going to deter people who are already breaking the law. All the registration in the world isn't going to stop a criminal for saying "Hey buddy, I'll give you $100 if you go to that shop, buy a gun, sell it to me for 20% more than it cost you, and you report it as stolen to the cops in a month or two." Even though it's against the law, there'll likely be people willing to do that and, since it's just a one-off thing it's unlikely they'll get caught. That, and criminals will continue to steal guns from law-abiding people and sell them on the black market.

You can have self-defense without a gun. Look, I understand it's in the Constitution, and, barring some new (probably impossible) amendment, it's going to stay there and responsible, law-abiding gun owners will always have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't prevent us from keeping the situation well regulated.

Sure, but guns are an effective means of self-defense. A frail 90-year-old with a gun is equally matched with a muscular 20-something bad guy. Sure, we could have swords, or learn martial arts, etc., but guns really level the playing field.

It's a start. It would limit the flow of new guns out onto the market. You always have to start somewhere in getting these kinds of things under control. Making upgrading possession of an unregistered gun to a major offense would be helpful. Hell, we criminalized the hell out of just having some drugs on you, we can't make people a bit worried about being caught with a deadly weapon?

Similar restrictions didn't really work in Canada or California, even with penalties for non-compliance. Are the cops going to do random stings at the range and check registration on everyone's guns? What if someone forgot about an old gun in the attic?

Also, I'm opposed to the current drug laws and I think that it's one of the major contributing factors to violent crime.

Even if you did get everyone to register their guns, you just end up with a list of people who follow the law. That doesn't really help much when it comes to crime.

So that brings me back to my main point of anti-gun control people basically saying we can't do anything else to control the flow of weapons to criminals and that we've done all we can. I find that idea fundamentally wrong. While yes, there are external variables that increase gun-related crimes, we cannot ignore that the primary reason they happen is because guns are so easy to attain.

Yes, guns are relatively easy to attain...but I think that the idea that one can restrict guns going to bad guys while still allowing good guys to get them is fundamentally wrong. It's sort of like DRM: you can't tell people "here's a movie, but only you can watch it, and only for a period of time. You're not allowed to make copies." -- if they're able to view the movie, they'll be able to make a copy of it. Sure, guns are physical objects and not as easy to duplicate as a digital file, but they're basically turning into software that can be easily shared: you can 3D-print the regulated part of a gun now, with today's technology and no skill greater than knowing how to click "print". The tech will only improve. Soon, people will be able to manufacture entire guns in their own home (once 3D-printed metal is possible, which they're working on).

While gun control might have some short-term effect (I doubt it, as there's no historical evidence for this in the US), in the long run it's going to be irrelevant: controls that depend on restricting access to something that can be easily made or duplicated cannot be effective.
 
2013-03-29 04:25:00 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: As a gun owner, I totally agree on point one and I'm baffled by point two. Overwhelmingly, criminals get their guns in the secondary market. You are very much missing the point on that and going after manufacturers hints at other motivations.... Maybe bad dealers are really what you meant?

I fully support tougher penalties on straw purchasers, probably the only federal gun regulation that is going to pass since Dems are trying to use background checks as a Trojan Horse for firearms registration.


I still mean manufacturers, and I don't know what other motivations I'm hinting at, but good point. Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.
 
2013-03-29 04:27:54 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.


They are and they do.
 
2013-03-29 04:30:10 PM  

GanjSmokr: whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: Mikey1969: whidbey: And proving to be a non-reliable source of opposition.

Meaning what? That I don't reliably oppose you?

Well, if you're going to keep bringing up disinformation, then yeah, you're losing credibility.

A better background check system, a national registry and funding research to understand why we have gun violence.
 Actually, never mind. You oppose ^this^?

Not at all, you really SHOULD pay better attention. I stated that from the very beginning.

Well then you need to stop putting the other crap in your posts about what "the Left" supposedly believes. Because that came off a lot louder.

Sometimes, it's almost like people see what they want to see and ignore what they don't want to see when reading things around here...


Because we should just ignore the kind of disinformation that's being challenged in these threads.

How subtle of you.
 
2013-03-29 04:34:49 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Ow! That was my feelings!: As a gun owner, I totally agree on point one and I'm baffled by point two. Overwhelmingly, criminals get their guns in the secondary market. You are very much missing the point on that and going after manufacturers hints at other motivations.... Maybe bad dealers are really what you meant?

I fully support tougher penalties on straw purchasers, probably the only federal gun regulation that is going to pass since Dems are trying to use background checks as a Trojan Horse for firearms registration.

I still mean manufacturers, and I don't know what other motivations I'm hinting at, but good point. Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.


Manufacturers of firearms in the US are overwhelmingly wholesale distributors. Meaning, they sell directly to FFL holders almost exclusively. It is actually why easier and legally safer for them to do so. It's not Colt that is selling a handgun out of a trunk. You targeting manufacturers doesn't make sense and they are not the problem. It is a small number of bad dealers and a large number of straw purchasers. Harsh prosecution and sentencing of bad dealers and straw purchasers is the best tool now available to reduce street gun violence.
 
2013-03-29 04:35:33 PM  

heypete: Car_Ramrod: Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.

They are and they do.


Well it's obviously not farking working. Where the hell are all these guns coming from that all the criminals have? In your previous post that I'm not quoting because it's getting cumbersome, you say "the idea that one can restrict guns going to bad guys while still allowing good guys to get them is fundamentally wrong". That's it? Just give up? There's no way to find out where all these guns are coming from, who's buying them, who's supplying them? They come from somewhere. They don't have 3D printers down in Altgeld Gardens, I'll tell you that much.

I'm sorry, but it's getting frustrating. There seems to be a whole lot of "*shrug* yea, but whatcha gonna do" going on, and I don't find that an acceptable place to settle.
 
2013-03-29 04:37:46 PM  
Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?
 
2013-03-29 04:39:19 PM  

Amos Quito: Stay tuned for more Inconvenient Truths about firearms and Violence in the USA


You mean truths like we have a hell of a lot of people killed with firearms each year?

And I noticed they ignored the other guns or type not stated category in their comparisons. Just saying.
 
2013-03-29 04:41:41 PM  

Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?


We're willing to give up people being shot all the time.
 
2013-03-29 04:42:29 PM  

Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?


Geez, how many first-graders do you want?
 
2013-03-29 04:44:52 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?

We're willing to give up people being shot all the time.


So are we.

However, we're a little more concerned with the cause of violence. Not the tool of choice. Most of us, anyway.
 
2013-03-29 04:49:11 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?

We're willing to give up people being shot all the time.


This is why your cause is failing, and rightfully so.
 
2013-03-29 04:50:40 PM  

Doom MD: Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?

We're willing to give up people being shot all the time.

This is why your cause is failing, and rightfully so.


Yea, it's right for people to be dying all the time. Fark those people.

What did you think was an appropriate answer to your stupid question?
 
2013-03-29 04:55:24 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?

We're willing to give up people being shot all the time.

This is why your cause is failing, and rightfully so.

Yea, it's right for people to be dying all the time. Fark those people.

What did you think was an appropriate answer to your stupid question?


Taking guns away from law abiding people like me, doesn't stop a criminal from shooting you.  Right before they shoot you, do you think your little lecture about how they shouldn't have their illegal weapon will save you?  You're delusional if you think anyone who intends to murder someone will respect the law on gun bans.
 
2013-03-29 04:57:06 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?

We're willing to give up people being shot all the time.

This is why your cause is failing, and rightfully so.

Yea, it's right for people to be dying all the time. Fark those people.

What did you think was an appropriate answer to your stupid question?


My question isn't stupid but rather highlights the pathos behind the entire gun control movement. Gun control advocates wave the bloody flag over a tragedy and make emotional arguments. You urge people to "compromise" which in truth is you trying to talk me into giving up my rights. Compromise implies a give and take. The gun control movement has been nothing but a gradual erosion of civil liberties. The awb was a total failure. What's one of the first things gun control advocates push for? A new assault weapons ban. Any ground anti-2a folks get is just the latest beachhead to move the goalposts from.

Compromise to a gun control advocate means something very different than to the rest of the world.

If you really think these acts will be so efficacious in saving lives, then compromise and give me something that will help me exercise my rights and maybe, just maybe ill be more willing to play along. You get more bees with honey.
 
2013-03-29 04:58:18 PM  
What an "inconvenient truth" might look like

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-29 04:59:14 PM  

Car_Ramrod: heypete: Car_Ramrod: Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.

They are and they do.

Well it's obviously not farking working. Where the hell are all these guns coming from that all the criminals have? In your previous post that I'm not quoting because it's getting cumbersome, you say "the idea that one can restrict guns going to bad guys while still allowing good guys to get them is fundamentally wrong". That's it? Just give up? There's no way to find out where all these guns are coming from, who's buying them, who's supplying them? They come from somewhere. They don't have 3D printers down in Altgeld Gardens, I'll tell you that much.

I'm sorry, but it's getting frustrating. There seems to be a whole lot of "*shrug* yea, but whatcha gonna do" going on, and I don't find that an acceptable place to settle.


If your so frustrated Chicago resident, maybe you should be demanding your local reps enforce and prosecute gun crimes. Cause, there was just a thread a couple days ago about how Chicago does damn little about prosecuting gun crimes. Clean up your own house before trying to shiat in mine.
 
2013-03-29 04:59:29 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Taking guns away from law abiding people like me.


Delusional.
 
2013-03-29 05:00:34 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Car_Ramrod: heypete: Car_Ramrod: Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.

They are and they do.

Well it's obviously not farking working. Where the hell are all these guns coming from that all the criminals have? In your previous post that I'm not quoting because it's getting cumbersome, you say "the idea that one can restrict guns going to bad guys while still allowing good guys to get them is fundamentally wrong". That's it? Just give up? There's no way to find out where all these guns are coming from, who's buying them, who's supplying them? They come from somewhere. They don't have 3D printers down in Altgeld Gardens, I'll tell you that much.

I'm sorry, but it's getting frustrating. There seems to be a whole lot of "*shrug* yea, but whatcha gonna do" going on, and I don't find that an acceptable place to settle.

If your so frustrated Chicago resident, maybe you should be demanding your local reps enforce and prosecute gun crimes. Cause, there was just a thread a couple days ago about how Chicago does damn little about prosecuting gun crimes. Clean up your own house before trying to shiat in mine.


I like how Chicago blames the lax gun laws around their city for causing all the gun violence, even though those places have less crime.
 
2013-03-29 05:01:25 PM  

whidbey: What an "inconvenient truth" might look like

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x360]


If only you cared this much about all the children who die each year due to alcohol related fatalities.  Oh, right, you probably drink so the 80,000 people who die each year from alcohol aren't as important as the 12,000 who die to firearms.  Makes perfect sense.. if you're a hypocrite.
 
2013-03-29 05:01:47 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?

We're willing to give up people being shot all the time.

This is why your cause is failing, and rightfully so.

Yea, it's right for people to be dying all the time. Fark those people.

What did you think was an appropriate answer to your stupid question?

Taking guns away from law abiding people like me, doesn't stop a criminal from shooting you.  Right before they shoot you, do you think your little lecture about how they shouldn't have their illegal weapon will save you?  You're delusional if you think anyone who intends to murder someone will respect the law on gun bans.


I'm not trying to take your guns away, you dumbass. Have you read any of my comments at all? I don't want gun bans, either. I want stronger regulations so criminals don't have guns. What's so controversial about that? I've said dozens of times that I don't want to punish responsible, law-abiding gun owners.

Jesus Christ. Being pro-gun control doesn't mean I want the feds to knock your door down and raid your gun locker. There's too much goddamn gun violence in this country. I want there to be less. Why is that a problem? Or are you just looking to be angry at someone for no reason?
 
Displayed 50 of 500 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report