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.

(NBC News)   43% of gun owners think that the laws covering gun sales should be stricter. Easy for them to say   (firstread.nbcnews.com) divider line 449
    More: Fail, Morning Joe, Americans, gun laws, assault weapons, Just Seventeen, United States Public Debt  
•       •       •

954 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Apr 2013 at 11:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-04-03 10:28:52 AM  
"Gun control" and so-called "stricter guns laws" is so poorly defined these days that opinion polls about them are useless
 
2013-04-03 10:35:10 AM  

Altair: "Gun control" and so-called "stricter guns laws" is so poorly defined these days that opinion polls about them are useless


I'm guessing that 90% of the people polled, including most gun owners btw, don't have a good, comprehensive grasp on current gun laws.

The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.
 
2013-04-03 10:56:26 AM  
"We have to do something!"

"What if what we're doing is stupid?"

"Uhm... it's still something, right? For the kids."
 
2013-04-03 11:10:10 AM  

dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.


Yup.  But of course, lawmakers won't have a dialog with folks who are informed and concerned - that would take time, and "OMG we need to do something NOW!"

I have always found it interesting that in my state, where gun control laws are pretty non-existent, if you go to the state gun owners website and look at their classifieds, pretty much all the sellers will insist on seeing your concealed carry permit before they sell you anything, whether it is a handgun or long gun.  It is how they know you have had a background check and been cleared - so the person-to-person sales "loophole" is pretty easy to close, especially when the sellers are responsible.
 
2013-04-03 11:17:36 AM  
The only solution is that all current owners have to hand in their guns.
 
2013-04-03 11:24:04 AM  

hinten: The only solution is that all current owners have to hand in their guns.


I'm sure they'd be willing to do that, after they gave you the bullets first.
 
2013-04-03 11:27:39 AM  

dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.



That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."
 
2013-04-03 11:30:59 AM  

Blues_X: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.


That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."


It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false.  Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.
 
2013-04-03 11:38:10 AM  
What's more, the Morning Joe/Marist poll finds that 87 percent of Americans support background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows,

That's a large percentage.
 
2013-04-03 11:40:26 AM  

dittybopper: hinten: The only solution is that all current owners have to hand in their guns.

I'm sure they'd be willing to do that, after they gave you the bullets first.


Another responsible gun owner.
 
2013-04-03 11:40:51 AM  

Uisce Beatha: Blues_X: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.


That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."

It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false.  Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.


Funny how you guys always run to the AWB that is never going to happen. Do you not support universal background checks? If not why? Difficulty:There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.
 
2013-04-03 11:46:14 AM  

Calmamity: "We have to do something!"

"What if what we're doing is stupid?"

"Uhm... it's still something, right? For the kids."


This sums up the last 30 years of American politics.
 
2013-04-03 11:47:40 AM  

sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.


Prove it.
 
2013-04-03 11:55:43 AM  

sammyk: Funny how you guys always run to the AWB that is never going to happen. Do you not support universal background checks? If not why? Difficulty:There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.


Funny that you didn't read my previous post.  Many responsible gun owners already self-impose background checks, even for person to person sales.  Most have no issue with it as a concept.  It is the implementation that they worry about.
 
2013-04-03 11:56:39 AM  
Oh man, another one of these threads?

Dig in!
 
2013-04-03 11:58:29 AM  

doglover: sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Prove it.


On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused, such as in an effort to shame them through publishing it to the public?
 
2013-04-03 12:00:23 PM  

hinten: dittybopper: hinten: The only solution is that all current owners have to hand in their guns.

I'm sure they'd be willing to do that, after they gave you the bullets first.

Another responsible gun owner.


Why do you feel the need to troll people on this website?
 
2013-04-03 12:01:31 PM  

doglover: sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Prove it.


On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused, such as in an effort to shame them through publishing it to the public?

Uisce Beatha: Blues_X: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.


That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."

It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false.  Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.


Are you going to attempt to argue the unbelievable position that this deadly military-style semi-automatic assault weapon is no more dangerous than is this legitimate civilian firearm?
 
2013-04-03 12:01:53 PM  

doglover: sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Prove it.


This would not change. Got anything else?

http://smartgunlaws.org/retention-of-sales-background-check-records- po licy-summary/
Summary of Federal Law
Background Check Records: Until 2004, information on approved NICS background checks was retained by NICS for ninety days.9 This information helped ATF deter fraud and detect dealers who might be providing false information about a prohibited person, by inspecting a dealer's records within the ninety-day period and verifying that the records matched the information earlier submitted to NICS.10 If discrepancies were found, ATF could conduct a further investigation of the dealer to determine whether the dealer submitted false information to NICS.11 In a recent review of trafficking investigations, ATF determined that corrupt dealers are a significant source of trafficked firearms.12
As of July 2004, approved purchaser information is no longer kept for ninety days but is instead destroyed within twenty-four hours of the official NICS response to the dealer.13 As a result, ATF inspectors are no longer able to compare the information on file with the dealer to the information the dealer submitted to NICS. The Department of Justice Inspector General noted that the shortened retention time makes it much easier for corrupt firearm dealers to avoid detection.14 Federal law also specifically prohibits using NICS to create any system of registration of firearms or firearm owners.15
The FBI maintains indefinitely the records of prospective purchasers whose applications are denied.16
Sales Records: FFLs are required to maintain records of the acquisition and sale of firearms indefinitely.17 The dealer must record, "in bound form," the purchase or other acquisition of a firearm not later than the close of the next business day following the purchase or acquisition.18 The dealer must similarly record the sale or other disposition of a firearm not later than seven days following the date of such transaction and retain Form 4473, the Firearms Transaction Record.19 When a firearms business is discontinued, these records are delivered to the successor or, if none exists, to the Attorney General.20
With very limited exceptions, records of firearm sales are not maintained at the federal level. The National Firearms Act Branch of ATF does maintain a limited registry of machine guns, short-barreled shotguns or rifles, and silencers, known as the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.21


SUMMARY OF STATE LAWS CONCERNING
RETENTION OF FIREARM SALES AND BACKGROUND CHECK RECORDS
State laws governing retention of firearm sales records fall into the following categories: (1) states that require sellers to retain sales records for a specified time period; and
(2) states that retain records of firearms sales as reported by sellers to law enforcement.22 Application of these laws to licensed dealers and private sellers is explained below. Most state laws are silent with respect to the retention of background check records. However, nine states are required by statute to purge background check records after a short time period.
 
2013-04-03 12:02:39 PM  
Has it stopped declining from the post Newton high-water mark?

/wake me when we reach the new normal, whatever it is.
 
2013-04-03 12:02:40 PM  

Uisce Beatha:
It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false.  Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.


Depends on the nature of the ban. Something like the one in the 90s? Absolutely useless. Pistol grips do not make or break a mass shooting. Problem is, what the hell does? What happened at Sandy Hook could have just as easily been carried out with a semiautomatic pistol. So if the aim is to stop the next mass shooting, I suppose we'd have to ban all firearms that aren't single shot, which only the truly naive think is ever going to come to pass in the USA.

Given the current political paradigm, this is just not a solvable problem.
 
2013-04-03 12:02:45 PM  

CPennypacker: Oh man, another one of these threads?

Dig in!


I don't know, lock and load may be more appropriate in this instance.
 
2013-04-03 12:03:00 PM  

Frank N Stein: hinten: dittybopper: hinten: The only solution is that all current owners have to hand in their guns.

I'm sure they'd be willing to do that, after they gave you the bullets first.

Another responsible gun owner.

Why do you feel the need to troll people on this website?


There is a difference between banter and trolling. Of course not to those individuals that have their heart set on the subject.
 
2013-04-03 12:03:39 PM  

Dimensio: doglover: sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Prove it.

On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused, such as in an effort to shame them through publishing it to the public?Uisce Beatha: Blues_X: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.


That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."

It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false.  Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.

Are you going to attempt to argue the unbelievable position that this deadly military-style semi-automatic assault weapon is no more dangerous than is this legitimate civilian firearm?


I'm so glad you're on board with handgun control, or possibly a UK-style gun ban.
 
2013-04-03 12:04:03 PM  

Uisce Beatha: sammyk: Funny how you guys always run to the AWB that is never going to happen. Do you not support universal background checks? If not why? Difficulty:There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Funny that you didn't read my previous post.  Many responsible gun owners already self-impose background checks, even for person to person sales.  Most have no issue with it as a concept.  It is the implementation that they worry about.


Oh I read it. Hats off to responsible gun owners. Seriously, BRAVO.

No one is suggesting we change the current NICS system. Just expand it to all gun purchases. Do you have any issues with the current system?
 
2013-04-03 12:04:17 PM  

Frank N Stein: hinten: dittybopper: hinten: The only solution is that all current owners have to hand in their guns.

I'm sure they'd be willing to do that, after they gave you the bullets first.

Another responsible gun owner.

Why do you feel the need to troll people on this website?


In his defense, it can be fun.
 
2013-04-03 12:04:38 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: doglover: sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Prove it.

On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused, such as in an effort to shame them through publishing it to the public?Uisce Beatha: Blues_X: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.


That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."

It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false.  Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.

Are you going to attempt to argue the unbelievable position that this deadly military-style semi-automatic assault weapon is no more dangerous than is this legitimate civilian firearm?

I'm so glad you're on board with handgun control, or possibly a UK-style gun ban.


I have never asserted acceptance of such control, and in fact I recognize a handgun ban to be Unconstitutional. For what reason are you lying?
 
2013-04-03 12:04:46 PM  

nekom: Given the current political paradigm, this is just not a solvable problem.


We can't stop 100% of all mass shootings, so why bother trying?
 
2013-04-03 12:05:28 PM  

sammyk: The FBI maintains indefinitely the records of prospective purchasers whose applications are denied


Looks like a registry to me.
 
2013-04-03 12:05:29 PM  

Dimensio: I have never asserted acceptance of such control, and in fact I recognize a handgun ban to be Unconstitutional. For what reason are you lying?


I'm not lying. You have asserted that the only way to control gun violence is not just through an assault weapons ban but through the ban of all guns.
 
2013-04-03 12:05:47 PM  
I'd be willing to bet that similar percentages exist for long established businesses.
 
2013-04-03 12:06:20 PM  

dittybopper: Altair: "Gun control" and so-called "stricter guns laws" is so poorly defined these days that opinion polls about them are useless

I'm guessing that 90% of the people polled, including most gun owners btw, don't have a good, comprehensive grasp on current gun laws.

The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.


Especially if they are going by the old survey that Obama is using to claim that 40% of people do not get a background check when purchasing a firearm.

And what does federal funding for gun studies matter if new studies will say only 4% do not get a background check....they will ignore the new survey since they have an older one that generates more fear with the 40% number.
 
2013-04-03 12:06:21 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: I have never asserted acceptance of such control, and in fact I recognize a handgun ban to be Unconstitutional. For what reason are you lying?

I'm not lying. You have asserted that the only way to control gun violence is not just through an assault weapons ban but through the ban of all guns.


Please reference the specific posting in which I issued such an assertion.
 
2013-04-03 12:06:40 PM  

doglover: sammyk: The FBI maintains indefinitely the records of prospective purchasers whose applications are denied

Looks like a registry to me.


If you deny the sale of a gun, how is that person a gun-owner?
 
2013-04-03 12:06:52 PM  

Uisce Beatha:  ... especially when the sellers are responsible.


You seem to have a lot of faith in people. This is one of my local gun dealers (I bought my favorite 12 gauge from them):  http://citizensvoice.com/news/gun-dealer-claims-wrongful-imprisonment - 1.1450042
 
2013-04-03 12:07:16 PM  

Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: I have never asserted acceptance of such control, and in fact I recognize a handgun ban to be Unconstitutional. For what reason are you lying?

I'm not lying. You have asserted that the only way to control gun violence is not just through an assault weapons ban but through the ban of all guns.

Please reference the specific posting in which I issued such an assertion.


You made the inference that a military-style weapon is just as dangerous as a handgun. Therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that you can't just ban assault rifles, but handguns too.
 
2013-04-03 12:07:28 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: I have never asserted acceptance of such control, and in fact I recognize a handgun ban to be Unconstitutional. For what reason are you lying?

I'm not lying. You have asserted that the only way to control gun violence is not just through an assault weapons ban but through the ban of all guns.


That's not the same as supporting it.
 
2013-04-03 12:07:42 PM  

Dimensio: On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused, such as in an effort to shame them through publishing it to the public?


Are you being ironic?
 
2013-04-03 12:08:29 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: What's more, the Morning Joe/Marist poll finds that 87 percent of Americans support background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows,

That's a large percentage.


Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on. People do not know that a licensed dealer by law has to perform background checks whether he sells firearms at a brick and mortar store, a gun show or an Arbys parking lot.
 
2013-04-03 12:08:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: I have never asserted acceptance of such control, and in fact I recognize a handgun ban to be Unconstitutional. For what reason are you lying?

I'm not lying. You have asserted that the only way to control gun violence is not just through an assault weapons ban but through the ban of all guns.

Please reference the specific posting in which I issued such an assertion.

You made the inference that a military-style weapon is just as dangerous as a handgun. Therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that you can't just ban assault rifles, but handguns too.


On the contrary; I made the inference -- based upon accepting assault weapons ban advocates at their word -- that a military-stile assault weapon is more dangerous than is a non-assault weapon handgun. I advocated no bans at all. Your claim remains a lie.
 
2013-04-03 12:09:19 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: nekom: Given the current political paradigm, this is just not a solvable problem.

We can't stop 100% of all mass shootings, so why bother trying?


Can we even stop ANY of them, that's my question. Aside from the politically impossible act of actually banning all but single shot guns, what can honestly be done? Personally I'm in favor of extremely strict gun control, similar to what they have in Europe, but I'm aware enough of the political paradigm to know that's just not in the cards. So what in the world will stop even ONE mass shooting from happening? Remember Sandy Hook was perpetrated using 100% legally acquired and legally owned firearms.

We're going to wind up with some feel-good bans on specific weapons (probably kinds that weren't even used in any recent mass shooting) so that congress can say they did something, and the next mass shooting... well it is April, seems to be a prime month for that sort of stuff, sadly.
 
2013-04-03 12:09:27 PM  

Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.


I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.
 
2013-04-03 12:10:15 PM  

Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: I have never asserted acceptance of such control, and in fact I recognize a handgun ban to be Unconstitutional. For what reason are you lying?

I'm not lying. You have asserted that the only way to control gun violence is not just through an assault weapons ban but through the ban of all guns.

Please reference the specific posting in which I issued such an assertion.

You made the inference that a military-style weapon is just as dangerous as a handgun. Therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that you can't just ban assault rifles, but handguns too.

On the contrary; I made the inference -- based upon accepting assault weapons ban advocates at their word -- that a military-stile assault weapon is more dangerous than is a non-assault weapon handgun. I advocated no bans at all. Your claim remains a lie.


So you made a strawman argument, basically.
 
2013-04-03 12:10:50 PM  

nekom: Can we even stop ANY of them, that's my question


Yes. If Australia and the UK can, the US certainly can.
 
2013-04-03 12:11:16 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: cameroncrazy1984: Dimensio: I have never asserted acceptance of such control, and in fact I recognize a handgun ban to be Unconstitutional. For what reason are you lying?

I'm not lying. You have asserted that the only way to control gun violence is not just through an assault weapons ban but through the ban of all guns.

Please reference the specific posting in which I issued such an assertion.

You made the inference that a military-style weapon is just as dangerous as a handgun. Therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that you can't just ban assault rifles, but handguns too.

On the contrary; I made the inference -- based upon accepting assault weapons ban advocates at their word -- that a military-stile assault weapon is more dangerous than is a non-assault weapon handgun. I advocated no bans at all. Your claim remains a lie.

So you made a strawman argument, basically.


My argument was based upon the claims of assault weapons ban advocates being honest. Are you saying that assault weapons ban advocates are not honest?

Additionally, for what reason did you lie?
 
2013-04-03 12:11:27 PM  

nekom: We're going to wind up with some feel-good bans on specific weapons


An AWB on the federal level isn't likely to happen. Senators Coburn and Manchin are working on expanded background checks.
 
2013-04-03 12:13:50 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: doglover: sammyk: The FBI maintains indefinitely the records of prospective purchasers whose applications are denied

Looks like a registry to me.

If you deny the sale of a gun, how is that person a gun-owner?


Don't forget the person denied may have committed a crime by attempting to buy a gun. Sure seems the so called law abiding gun owners like to support criminals having access to guns for...er...freedom I guess.
 
2013-04-03 12:14:28 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.


If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.
 
2013-04-03 12:15:33 PM  

Dimensio: My argument was based upon the claims of assault weapons ban advocates being honest


Okay, which assault weapons ban advocates claim that assault rifles are more dangerous than pistols? I want quotes.
 
2013-04-03 12:15:40 PM  

Giltric: It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.


Yeah dude like totally.
 
2013-04-03 12:15:41 PM  

Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.


Do you like intentionally stretching something out until it's a lie, then accusing others of doing the same?
 
2013-04-03 12:16:33 PM  
ZOMG!!!  Why do gun owners hate the 2nd Amendment?!?!??!!1!
 
2013-04-03 12:16:41 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: nekom: Can we even stop ANY of them, that's my question

Yes. If Australia and the UK can, the US certainly can.


In theory, yes. In political reality, we're pretty much stuck where we are here. Nothing will change, nothing the least bit substantial anyway.
 
2013-04-03 12:17:02 PM  

sammyk: Don't forget the person denied may have committed a crime by attempting to buy a gun.


Oooga booga. Investigate then. If it's not a crime, destroy the records.
 
2013-04-03 12:17:24 PM  

nekom: cameroncrazy1984: nekom: Given the current political paradigm, this is just not a solvable problem.

We can't stop 100% of all mass shootings, so why bother trying?

Can we even stop ANY of them, that's my question. Aside from the politically impossible act of actually banning all but single shot guns, what can honestly be done? Personally I'm in favor of extremely strict gun control, similar to what they have in Europe, but I'm aware enough of the political paradigm to know that's just not in the cards. So what in the world will stop even ONE mass shooting from happening? Remember Sandy Hook was perpetrated using 100% legally acquired and legally owned firearms.

We're going to wind up with some feel-good bans on specific weapons (probably kinds that weren't even used in any recent mass shooting) so that congress can say they did something, and the next mass shooting... well it is April, seems to be a prime month for that sort of stuff, sadly.


The AWB they were shopping around with was netting less than 40 votes in the Senate. You couldn't mount a filibuster much less break one. I doubt any feel good bans will happen.

Perhaps energetic will get diverted to proper background check legislation that will actually do some good.
 
2013-04-03 12:17:30 PM  
I feel the expanded background support is a reverse of ACA support.  Sure expanded background sounds great on the face but once you deal with how it will be implemented... it gets a little do not want depending upon how it is set up.
 
2013-04-03 12:17:40 PM  

LasersHurt: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Do you like intentionally stretching something out until it's a lie, then accusing others of doing the same?



Where did I lie?
 
2013-04-03 12:17:49 PM  

Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.


Yeah and those polls totally need to be unskewed.
 
2013-04-03 12:18:41 PM  

Saiga410: Sure expanded background sounds great on the face but once you deal with how it will be implemented... it gets a little do not want depending upon how it is set up.


Seriously, what possible issue could you have with more background checks?
 
2013-04-03 12:19:56 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Yeah dude like totally.



It's like the Harvard study they were using for the health care debate....counted all these people who owed at least 1000 dollars in medical expenses as a medical bankruptcy while ignoring all the other debt the person had.

If the democrats told the tuth HCR would never have been passed.

Democrats have to resort to lies. They don't have any other process to get what they want.
 
2013-04-03 12:20:55 PM  
This truly is a golden age for gun loving Fark trolls.
 
2013-04-03 12:21:07 PM  

Giltric: It's like the Harvard study they were using for the health care debate....counted all these people who owed at least 1000 dollars in medical expenses as a medical bankruptcy while ignoring all the other debt the person had.

If the democrats told the tuth HCR would never have been passed.

Democrats have to resort to lies. They don't have any other process to get what they want.


If you're just going to whine about those big meanie Democrats you don't need to quote me to do so. Leave me out of it.
 
2013-04-03 12:21:08 PM  

sammyk: No one is suggesting we change the current NICS system. Just expand it to all gun purchases. Do you have any issues with the current system?


Nope, and I have no problem expanding it to private sales, so long as it doesn't come with a hefty price tag or some other hidden hurdle to make selling your private property damn near impossible without involved a 3rd party.
 
2013-04-03 12:21:44 PM  

sammyk: cameroncrazy1984: doglover: sammyk: The FBI maintains indefinitely the records of prospective purchasers whose applications are denied

Looks like a registry to me.

If you deny the sale of a gun, how is that person a gun-owner?

Don't forget the person denied may have committed a crime by attempting to buy a gun. Sure seems the so called law abiding gun owners like to support criminals having access to guns for...er...freedom I guess.


None of the recently passed CT legislation would have prevented the school shooting the laws were born from.  A mom with no mental illness or criminal record legally bought guns and provided them to her mentally unstable son who then shot her in her sleep and then went on to commit the school massacre.
 
2013-04-03 12:22:15 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Yeah and those polls totally need to be unskewed.



So you agree with the idea of lying to the people in order for a group to get what they want?
 
2013-04-03 12:23:20 PM  

Giltric: LasersHurt: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Do you like intentionally stretching something out until it's a lie, then accusing others of doing the same?

Where did I lie?


The absolutes which turn that into a false statement?
 
2013-04-03 12:23:49 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: It's like the Harvard study they were using for the health care debate....counted all these people who owed at least 1000 dollars in medical expenses as a medical bankruptcy while ignoring all the other debt the person had.

If the democrats told the tuth HCR would never have been passed.

Democrats have to resort to lies. They don't have any other process to get what they want.

If you're just going to whine about those big meanie Democrats you don't need to quote me to do so. Leave me out of it.


I'm waiting for you to discuss something in regards to the tactics used by the gun control crowd. All it seems you do is snipe at people. Odds are it is because you are out of your league.
 
2013-04-03 12:23:58 PM  

hinten: dittybopper: hinten: The only solution is that all current owners have to hand in their guns.

I'm sure they'd be willing to do that, after they gave you the bullets first.

Another responsible gun owner.


Your chicken is dead, sir.
 
2013-04-03 12:24:19 PM  

amindtat: You seem to have a lot of faith in people.


I do.  I believe that the majority of people, be they merchants, gun owners, whoever, will, when left to their own devices, do the right thing.  And that punishing the majority for the sins of the minority is wrong.
 
2013-04-03 12:24:37 PM  

Uisce Beatha: Blues_X: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.


That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."

It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false.  Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.


Not like it's proven to do anything anywhere else we could compare to. No one is like the US except when I try to draw fallacous arguments that support my position. Like "violent crime." Then they matter.

Sorry these threads are so full of derp I just decided to attack the most stupid comments/posters. Have to prioritize.
 
2013-04-03 12:25:05 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Yeah and those polls totally need to be unskewed.


So you agree with the idea of lying to the people in order for a group to get what they want?


No, I agree with the idea that you think all democrats are bad and the polls are skewed and Real America is a Silent MajorityTM

And that is why the GOP keeps losing elections.
 
2013-04-03 12:25:45 PM  

LasersHurt: Giltric: LasersHurt: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Do you like intentionally stretching something out until it's a lie, then accusing others of doing the same?

Where did I lie?

The absolutes which turn that into a false statement?


Why do democrats and the gun control corwd refer to it as gun show loophole....you missed a couple words with your bolding.
 
2013-04-03 12:25:56 PM  

Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: It's like the Harvard study they were using for the health care debate....counted all these people who owed at least 1000 dollars in medical expenses as a medical bankruptcy while ignoring all the other debt the person had.

If the democrats told the tuth HCR would never have been passed.

Democrats have to resort to lies. They don't have any other process to get what they want.

If you're just going to whine about those big meanie Democrats you don't need to quote me to do so. Leave me out of it.

I'm waiting for you to discuss something in regards to the tactics used by the gun control crowd. All it seems you do is snipe at people. Odds are it is because you are out of your league.


And I'm still waiting for an argument from you that isn't a strawman.
 
2013-04-03 12:26:24 PM  
rlv.zcache.ca
Finally, a tie fine enough to be married in.
 
Bf+
2013-04-03 12:26:31 PM  
Clearly, the only responsible thing to do is to make 60-round clips mandatory for the criminally insane.
/NRA
 
2013-04-03 12:27:08 PM  
100% of gun owners support enforcing existing laws rather than making new ones.
 
2013-04-03 12:27:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Saiga410: Sure expanded background sounds great on the face but once you deal with how it will be implemented... it gets a little do not want depending upon how it is set up.

Seriously, what possible issue could you have with more background checks?


It all depends upon how it is set up.  To have universal have real teeth you would need a registry... none starter.  And how will you impose the checks on private parties, force the sale through an FFL driving an unnecessary cost?

On it's face I wouldnt mind seeing universal but I want some safeguards.
 
2013-04-03 12:27:29 PM  

justtray: Not like it's proven to do anything anywhere else we could compare to


I would actually respond to a cogent arguement, but...

justtray: Sorry these threads are so full of derp I just decided to attack the most stupid comments/posters.


Ad hominems mean logic means nothing to you.  Pot, meet kettle.
 
2013-04-03 12:27:32 PM  

monoski: sammyk: cameroncrazy1984: doglover: sammyk: The FBI maintains indefinitely the records of prospective purchasers whose applications are denied

Looks like a registry to me.

If you deny the sale of a gun, how is that person a gun-owner?

Don't forget the person denied may have committed a crime by attempting to buy a gun. Sure seems the so called law abiding gun owners like to support criminals having access to guns for...er...freedom I guess.

None of the recently passed CT legislation would have prevented the school shooting the laws were born from.  A mom with no mental illness or criminal record legally bought guns and provided them to her mentally unstable son who then shot her in her sleep and then went on to commit the school massacre.


An expanded background check could have never found that she had a mentally unstable son that she tried to commit. Good point.

I love these arguments based on the fiction that no gun laws could ever stop anything. Except that they do, everywhere else in the world, and even within the US based on gun ownership, statistically speaking. But clearly they couldn't work, because when I limit the scope of the scenario, and such as, reasons.
 
2013-04-03 12:27:49 PM  

SCUBA_Archer: 100% of gun owners support enforcing existing laws rather than making new ones.


Existing laws leave about 40% of gun sales without background checks.

So..no, no they don't.
 
2013-04-03 12:27:58 PM  

Giltric: I'm waiting for you to discuss something in regards to the tactics used by the gun control crowd. All it seems you do is snipe at people.


All I said was that 87% is a large percentage. That's it. I didn't snipe at anyone. You replied to me. No, I won't discuss whatever made up bad things you think gun control advocates are supposedly doing. You're free to whine about that on your own. You don't need me for it, so don't reply to me and complain I'm not participating in your dumb conversation.
 
2013-04-03 12:27:59 PM  

Dimensio: doglover: sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Prove it.

On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused, such as in an effort to shame them through publishing it to the public?


[citation needed]

Public records are public, Jack.

It was inappropriate for the paper to publish the list, but they had the right to do so under NY state law.
 
2013-04-03 12:28:24 PM  

Saiga410: To have universal have real teeth you would need a registry..


Why?
 
2013-04-03 12:28:52 PM  
I'm in favor of people who are not me having less access to guns.
 
2013-04-03 12:29:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Yeah and those polls totally need to be unskewed.


So you agree with the idea of lying to the people in order for a group to get what they want?

No, I agree with the idea that you think all democrats are bad and the polls are skewed and Real America is a Silent MajorityTM

And that is why the GOP keeps losing elections.


Now you're just being your weasely self, that's more like it.

Do you think the pro gun control democrats should tell the truth when talking about firearms or do you think they should lie?

Do you think the pro gun control democrats are telling the truth or do you thik they are lying when it comes to the information and statistics they are putting out in regards to the gun control debate?
 
2013-04-03 12:29:51 PM  

doglover: sammyk: Don't forget the person denied may have committed a crime by attempting to buy a gun.

Oooga booga. Investigate then. If it's not a crime, destroy the records.


ooga booga yourself you subject changing coward. What does this have to do with your wild fantasy that universal background checks for ALL gun purchases will lead to a registry, list or database of lawful gun owners?
 
2013-04-03 12:30:08 PM  
I think most of us (gun owners) wouldn't have a problem with having access to a background check system for private gunsales. The use of the system would be passed on in the price of the gun.

The only down side to that is the possibility of gaining some cort of access or insight into someone's past by whether or not they are able to purchase a gun and whther the system could be abused for other reasons.

example: Employer runs a standard background screen on someone looking for criminal records and it comes back clean. He then runs a gun purchase background that denies the purchase. he might not know why, but it would indicate something troubling in the applicant's past and he doesn't get the job.
 
2013-04-03 12:30:27 PM  

Uisce Beatha: justtray: Not like it's proven to do anything anywhere else we could compare to

I would actually respond to a cogent arguement, but...

justtray: Sorry these threads are so full of derp I just decided to attack the most stupid comments/posters.

Ad hominems mean logic means nothing to you.  Pot, meet kettle.


It's always a good deflection on an arugment to say it hurt your feelings, therefore invalid. I pointed out why your comment, and therefore you by association are stupid. Your response was "since that made me butthurt I'm going to ignore it."

You've only proven my point.
 
2013-04-03 12:30:39 PM  

hinten: dittybopper: hinten: The only solution is that all current owners have to hand in their guns.

I'm sure they'd be willing to do that, after they gave you the bullets first.

Another responsible gun owner.


Yep, and I come from a long line of them.
 
2013-04-03 12:30:47 PM  

sammyk: doglover: sammyk: Don't forget the person denied may have committed a crime by attempting to buy a gun.

Oooga booga. Investigate then. If it's not a crime, destroy the records.

ooga booga yourself you subject changing coward. What does this have to do with your wild fantasy that universal background checks for ALL gun purchases will lead to a registry, list or database of lawful gun owners?


It was in Red Dawn!
 
2013-04-03 12:31:21 PM  

Giltric: Do you think the pro gun control democrats should tell the truth when talking about firearms or do you think they should lie?


I obviously think they should tell the truth.

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Yeah and those polls totally need to be unskewed.


So you agree with the idea of lying to the people in order for a group to get what they want?

No, I agree with the idea that you think all democrats are bad and the polls are skewed and Real America is a Silent MajorityTM

And that is why the GOP keeps losing elections.

Now you're just being your weasely self, that's more like it.

Do you think the pro gun control democrats should tell the truth when talking about firearms or do you think they should lie?

Do you think the pro gun control democrats are telling the truth or do you thik they are lying when it comes to the information and statistics they are putting out in regards to the gun control debate?


Well considering you can't find an example of a specific lie, I'm going to go with "truth"
 
2013-04-03 12:31:40 PM  

Giltric: Where did I lie?

The absolutes which turn that into a false statement?

Why do democrats and the gun control corwd refer to it as gun show loophole....you missed a couple words with your bolding.


"Baffle them with bullshiat" indeed.
 
2013-04-03 12:31:54 PM  

doglover: sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Prove it.


I think you should explain.

Asking others to disprove your paranoia is pretty weak.
 
2013-04-03 12:32:57 PM  

Saiga410: And how will you impose the checks on private parties, force the sale through an FFL driving an unnecessary cost?


Or let anyone run a check for $10 (for a $500 handgun, which is cheaper than every handgun at my local shop, that's a 2% surcharge, less than local sales tax) - the dealer gets a "pass/fail" response, and no one's freedoms were sold to the Taliban for crack money.

// IIRC, it costs $10-$15 to run a single NICS check
// I wonder if people can get bulk rates, like 20 checks to be used within the calendar year for a lower rate? Would that be legal?
 
2013-04-03 12:33:17 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: I'm waiting for you to discuss something in regards to the tactics used by the gun control crowd. All it seems you do is snipe at people.

All I said was that 87% is a large percentage. That's it. I didn't snipe at anyone. You replied to me. No, I won't discuss whatever made up bad things you think gun control advocates are supposedly doing. You're free to whine about that on your own. You don't need me for it, so don't reply to me and complain I'm not participating in your dumb conversation.


What am I making up....provide citations and counter assertions/citations.

You want me to put you on ignore because you can't back anything up? Odd tactic, but I will comply.
 
2013-04-03 12:33:41 PM  
As a gun owner, what I'm really torn in is how much federal regulation I want regarding guns.  On one hand the fact that various states have varying laws is a giant pain in my ass in terms of figuring out whether my carry permit is recongized or I need to go lock it in the trunk for transport, it's an annoying balkanization of rules and legs.  On the other hand the fact that the 2nd Amendment talks about states having the power to regulate the bearing of arms, as opposed to the Feds, can be a useful check.

What I'd really like is a gun license.  Either the state or the federal government issues me a piece of plastic that says "Ha-ha-guy can buy guns, ammo, and carry them".  Once I have this piece of plastic I can stop by the gun store on the way home and fill my trunk with AR-15s if I want, no hassle.  Perhaps if the Feds were issuing said card it could also grant me CCW perks in all 50 states in one fell swoop.  It could serve as the thing that lets me buy the guns and carry them.

Now getting this piece of plastic should of course be somewhat difficult. You have to pass a test to drive, why not have one for guns?  Show up with a piece of paper from your family doctor saying you're not a crazy son of a biatch, do the gun safety test, perhaps get a basic background check, wait a bit, then you are issued your piece of plastic.  There can also be a renewal required tied in, so when you end up 80 and senile, walk into the office to renew the permit, the state can go "Oh shiat" and tell your kids to take your damn guns or they'll send the sheriff over to do it themselves.  Plus the gun permit could be medically linked somehow (laws permitting) so if you get diagnosed as a paranoid or something a flag is raised and the guns are taken.  We could have some kind of rule where if a doctor decides your nuts the police get to take the guns, but before anything is done with the guns (beside the cops locking them in their armory) the whole thing is sorted out before a judge and you get a chance to bring in your own mental health expert to prove you're sane.  For temporary mental illness the rule could be the cops just hold them free of charge as a public service until you're sane.

As for younger people, let them get learners permits so they can use their parents' weapons, with the caveat that the parents are legally liable if Jr borrows your AR-15 to go shoot the school up.  However this provides a legal avenue for teenager hunters and things of that nature.  Also successfully holding a learners permit without any issue could smooth your path to getting the adult level permit.

Regarding edge cases like a woman needing protection from an abuser, the local police could hold the right to issue a temporary permit that allows someone to get one handgun and ammo.  Make it so the permit lets you buy one gun, but you have to register the serial number with the police, and plenty of ammo.  So if your husband beats the hell out of you, you can go to the cops and ask for the gun permit when you are also doing the restraining order paperwork.  Should the cops refuse, make it a law that you get same day service from the courts when you appeal their refusal.  The permit is good for X days with the understanding you're also applying for a real permit and this is just a stopgap.  Rejection of the real permit or expiration of the temporary one means you have to give the gun back or the cops can come kick down your door and get it.

One of the nice things with this system is that you can link all gun related purchases to the permit.  You want ammo?  Show the permit.  You want to buy parts?  Show the permit.  You want a cleaning kit? Show the permit.  That deals with the edge case of my child stealing the gun and then buying ammo for a shooting spree from some slackjawed clerk at WalMart.  Of course the smart kid could just steal my ammo as well, but say my kid steals the gun and sells it to a friend, that friend can't just buy ammo.

On the gun owner side of things it seems better to embrace and push regulations that offer me perks (ex: nation wide CCW) and the state more control over purchases at the same time.  Everyone wins and hopefully it ensures we don't have to endure another dumbass version of the AWB and another price spike of 30 round magazines.
 
2013-04-03 12:34:09 PM  

Rapmaster2000: It was in Red Dawn!


It wasn't actually, but you wouldn't know that because the idea of a moderate liberal is alien to you.
 
2013-04-03 12:34:27 PM  

LasersHurt: Giltric: Where did I lie?

The absolutes which turn that into a false statement?

Why do democrats and the gun control corwd refer to it as gun show loophole....you missed a couple words with your bolding.

"Baffle them with bullshiat" indeed.


So you got nothing?
 
2013-04-03 12:34:33 PM  

Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Yeah dude like totally.


It's like the Harvard study they were using for the health care debate....counted all these people who owed at least 1000 dollars in medical expenses as a medical bankruptcy while ignoring all the other debt the person had.

If the democrats told the tuth HCR would never have been passed.

Democrats have to resort to lies. They don't have any other process to get what they want.


Somehow I don't think someone being 30k I'd debt to their college and their hospital would have hardened any hearts.
 
2013-04-03 12:35:54 PM  
What do the other 57% say?
 
2013-04-03 12:35:56 PM  

Uisce Beatha: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

Yup.  But of course, lawmakers won't have a dialog with folks who are informed and concerned - that would take time, and "OMG we need to do something NOW!"


The NRA doesn't help foster that debate by insisting that absolutely no gun control legislation is Constitutional and fighting tooth and nail against any proposal, as a default.

The failure to establish a dialog is hardly unidirectional.
 
2013-04-03 12:36:20 PM  

Uisce Beatha: Blues_X: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.


That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."

It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false.  Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.


You mean the one that expired years ago, and all attempts to bring it back have stalled in committee? That ban?

For f*ck's sake, at least find another boogeyman than Dianne Feinstein.

Uisce Beatha: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

Yup.  But of course, lawmakers won't have a dialog with folks who are informed and concerned - that would take time, and "OMG we need to do something NOW!"

I have always found it interesting that in my state, where gun control laws are pretty non-existent, if you go to the state gun owners website and look at their classifieds, pretty much all the sellers will insist on seeing your concealed carry permit before they sell you anything, whether it is a handgun or long gun.  It is how they know you have had a background check and been cleared - so the person-to-person sales "loophole" is pretty easy to close, especially when the sellers are responsible.


Oh, so then you wouldn't oppose an effort to make sure what some gun sellers do in your state becomes a uniform standard in all states for all sellers, then, right?

Saiga410: cameroncrazy1984: Saiga410: Sure expanded background sounds great on the face but once you deal with how it will be implemented... it gets a little do not want depending upon how it is set up.

Seriously, what possible issue could you have with more background checks?

It all depends upon how it is set up.  To have universal have real teeth you would need a registry... none starter.  And how will you impose the checks on private parties, force the sale through an FFL driving an unnecessary cost?

On it's face I wouldnt mind seeing universal but I want some safeguards.


Qualify "safeguards."
 
2013-04-03 12:36:29 PM  
And this is after some dust has settled. We're due another massacre pretty soon, check the numbers again after that.
 
2013-04-03 12:37:09 PM  

Saiga410: I feel the expanded background support is a reverse of ACA support.  Sure expanded background sounds great on the face but once you deal with how it will be implemented... it gets a little do not want depending upon how it is set up.


Yeah, you could definitely stack the deck on background checks.  Which of course is why if the NRA was intelligent they'd show support for the concept and thus ensure they were one of the people at the table when the rules were drafted.  At this point I feel it has to happen, we've had too many crazy farkers with guns shoot stuff up recently.  Some kind of background check/mental health check is going to come down the pipe from this Congress or the next one.  Sadly the NRA is still biatching about arming the entire staff of the school and adopting a position that ensures they'll be frozen out of such talks.  They should be at the table arguing that if the gun owners have gone through the burden of extra checks, they've proved their responsibility and deserve extra perks.
 
2013-04-03 12:38:02 PM  

Bf+: Clearly, the only responsible thing to do is to make 60-round clips mandatory for the criminally insane.
/NRA


The excessive weight would throw off their aim and giant mags like that DO tend to be jammy pieces of crap.

You may be on to something....
 
2013-04-03 12:38:31 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Asking others to disprove your paranoia is pretty weak.


What paranoia?

California is already doing it.
 
2013-04-03 12:38:46 PM  

jaybeezey: I think most of us (gun owners) wouldn't have a problem with having access to a background check system for private gunsales. The use of the system would be passed on in the price of the gun.

The only down side to that is the possibility of gaining some cort of access or insight into someone's past by whether or not they are able to purchase a gun and whther the system could be abused for other reasons.

example: Employer runs a standard background screen on someone looking for criminal records and it comes back clean. He then runs a gun purchase background that denies the purchase. he might not know why, but it would indicate something troubling in the applicant's past and he doesn't get the job.


That's very hypothetical and only makes people wonder how an employer would have access to such a database in the first place.
 
2013-04-03 12:39:12 PM  

Uisce Beatha: sammyk: No one is suggesting we change the current NICS system. Just expand it to all gun purchases. Do you have any issues with the current system?

Nope, and I have no problem expanding it to private sales, so long as it doesn't come with a hefty price tag or some other hidden hurdle to make selling your private property damn near impossible without involved a 3rd party.


I can agree with that. I would hope if it gets implemented that a private buyer would be able to show a CCW as prrof. Not having that I think a 3rd party would be required. It would be nice if the law says a FFl has to process it and can only charge a nominal fee. Say $12-$20.
 
2013-04-03 12:39:31 PM  

Giltric: LasersHurt: Giltric: Where did I lie?

The absolutes which turn that into a false statement?

Why do democrats and the gun control corwd refer to it as gun show loophole....you missed a couple words with your bolding.

"Baffle them with bullshiat" indeed.

So you got nothing?


No, I "got nothing" about why all Democrats and Gun Control advocates use a term you dislike, and how that means they all must believe that every single purchase at a Gun Show goes without any checks. I "got nothing" to respond to your fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts.
 
2013-04-03 12:39:31 PM  
And 60% of voting Californians were not okay with gay marriage.

Big deal.
 
2013-04-03 12:41:43 PM  

HAMMERTOE: And 60% of voting Californians were not okay with gay marriage.

Big deal.


Which is now going to be constitutionally correct per SCOTUS.

What is your argument again?
 
2013-04-03 12:42:05 PM  

justtray: An expanded background check could have never found that she had a mentally unstable son that she tried to commit. Good point.

I love these arguments based on the fiction that no gun laws could ever stop anything. Except that they do, everywhere else in the world, and even within the US based on gun ownership, statistically speaking. But clearly they couldn't work, because when I limit the scope of the scenario, and such as, reasons.


I think you missed where I was going. All I was suggesting is this smells a lot like the whole TSA debacle ,where we could have secured cockpit doors and problem of hijacking greatly reduced (bomb threat still in place)

ps there is nothing in the background check that suggests if you have a mentally unstable family member you could be denied the right to purchase.
 
2013-04-03 12:45:26 PM  

sammyk: Uisce Beatha: sammyk: No one is suggesting we change the current NICS system. Just expand it to all gun purchases. Do you have any issues with the current system?

Nope, and I have no problem expanding it to private sales, so long as it doesn't come with a hefty price tag or some other hidden hurdle to make selling your private property damn near impossible without involved a 3rd party.

I can agree with that. I would hope if it gets implemented that a private buyer would be able to show a CCW as prrof. Not having that I think a 3rd party would be required. It would be nice if the law says a FFl has to process it and can only charge a nominal fee. Say $12-$20.


The only issue I see where is when the criminal ends up with the gun.  When the cops run a check on the gun's serial number (assuming it is still there), they'll see sammyk bought it new from a gun store in 2003.  So they come knock on your door to ask how Icepick the Serial Killer ended up with your gun.  You'll tell them "I sold that to ha-ha-guy in 2011 guys, he showed me his CCW, paid me in cash, and left with the gun."  Meanwhile I'm a scumbag arms broker for some gang so I'll just tell the cops "Yeah I met sammyk at the range a few times, but I never bought anything from him."  So the provable chain of custody is you and the serial killer, which doesn't look good for you.  Unless I was sloppy and kept proof of the transaction the cops can find.  Having some kind of background check fire off or making you go transfer the title, al la a car, protects you in that you would then have proof you sold and did so in the proper manner.
 
2013-04-03 12:46:36 PM  

ha-ha-guy: Ideas for gun licenses.


Apply it all to to the other amendments and I'm game.
 
2013-04-03 12:46:47 PM  

doglover: Rapmaster2000: It was in Red Dawn!

It wasn't actually, but you wouldn't know that because the idea of a moderate liberal is alien to you.


3.bp.blogspot.com

Here's your video evidence Mr. "Moderate" liberal.  John Milius knew all about what was coming when he wrote Red Dawn.  He wouldn't be fooled by "Moderate" liberals.

Neither will I.  Ever vigilant I will defend the perimeter of freedom from those who wish to penetrate its defenses and I will dispatch all enemies of that freedom with extreme prejudice!
 
2013-04-03 12:47:10 PM  

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: Asking others to disprove your paranoia is pretty weak.

What paranoia?

California is already doing it.


I'm sure you're equally concerned that some states don't allow the same people to vote.
 
2013-04-03 12:47:24 PM  

justtray: It's always a good deflection on an arugment to say it hurt your feelings, therefore invalid. I pointed out why your comment, and therefore you by association are stupid. Your response was "since that made me butthurt I'm going to ignore it."


The weapons ban, as it was implemented here, and as it is being championed again, does not keep the weapons most often used in crime out of the hands of criminals.  It also does not resemble weapons bans in other countries, therefor your analogy is disingenuous.

But you will ignore this, because you an asshole.
 
2013-04-03 12:47:41 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Saiga410: And how will you impose the checks on private parties, force the sale through an FFL driving an unnecessary cost?

Or let anyone run a check for $10 (for a $500 handgun, which is cheaper than every handgun at my local shop, that's a 2% surcharge, less than local sales tax) - the dealer gets a "pass/fail" response, and no one's freedoms were sold to the Taliban for crack money.

// IIRC, it costs $10-$15 to run a single NICS check
// I wonder if people can get bulk rates, like 20 checks to be used within the calendar year for a lower rate? Would that be legal?


Gun dealers won't do it for cost.  They'll want to make a profit, or they won't do it at all, which of course would suit many people just fine.

So now you're looking at a $30-50 charge.

In fact, that's in line with what FFLs currently charge for things like out of state transfers.

No FFL is going to touch private transfers for $10 or $15.
 
2013-04-03 12:47:49 PM  

Dimensio: doglover: sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Prove it.

On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused, such as in an effort to shame them through publishing it to the public?


This just happened a few months ago.  I couldn't tell if you were being facetious.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/newspaper-publishes-gu n- owners-names-and-addresses/
 
2013-04-03 12:47:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Well considering you can't find an example of a specific lie, I'm going to go with "truth"


The 40% number comes from a study done the year after the Brady Act mandated background checks. If you purchased your firearm 3 years before the study odds are you did not have to recieve a background check. The study is almost 20 years old, if a new study done with federal money showed that currently less than 5% of people purchased their firearm without a background check it would be ignored and not refferenced because it does not instill the fear the gun control crowd wants and needs from people in order to further their agenda.

This is almost front page news today since Obama is being called out over pushing that stat., but all those submitted links have been redlit....odd how even on Fark a certain pro gun control agenda, lies etc is being pushed....or is it?

You can google it yourself since you will object to any citation given as being detrimental to your senistive pro gun control worldview.
 
2013-04-03 12:48:26 PM  
Guns are useful for three groups: hunters, the weak, and the scared.

You kill some meat? Rock on. Good job, chow down. Share with me, and I'll share with you.

Every other justification for gun ownership is either "I'm really, really weak" or "I'm really, really frightened".

You can disagree with me, but you'd be wrong.
 
2013-04-03 12:50:25 PM  

LasersHurt: No, I "got nothing"


I just reduced your carbon footprint from that post. You're welcome.
 
2013-04-03 12:52:06 PM  

ha-ha-guy: The only issue I see where is when the criminal ends up with the gun.  When the cops run a check on the gun's serial number (assuming it is still there), they'll see sammyk bought it new from a gun store in 2003.


They can already do this, they just have to make a few phone calls.

So they come knock on your door to ask how Icepick the Serial Killer ended up with your gun.  You'll tell them "I sold that to ha-ha-guy in 2011 guys, he showed me his CCW, paid me in cash, and left with the gun."  Meanwhile I'm a scumbag arms broker for some gang so I'll just tell the cops "Yeah I met sammyk at the range a few times, but I never bought anything from him."  So the provable chain of custody is you and the serial killer, which doesn't look good for you.

Yeah, this is why you do the responsible thing when you sell shiat, make a receipt and copy of their driver's license or something. I have documentation from a couch I sold three years ago on craigslist - just scan it all, bytes are cheap. Not that the cops can do anything about it, because presumably you aren't the killer and have an alibi, aren't connected to the crime, and all that shiat.

Having some kind of background check fire off or making you go transfer the title, al la a car, protects you in that you would then have proof you sold and did so in the proper manner.

Sounds like a few billion dollars well spent to me. Oh wait, it doesn't. Oh, and in the case where  it did track to sammyk, scummy dealer, he'll have filed a report for it as being stolen or whatever, so you're not accomplishing anything there. The killer still gets a gun and people are still dead.
 
2013-04-03 12:53:25 PM  
This thread reminds me of all the great republican, conservative, strict constitutionalistic comedians out there.
 
2013-04-03 12:54:48 PM  

dittybopper: Altair: "Gun control" and so-called "stricter guns laws" is so poorly defined these days that opinion polls about them are useless

I'm guessing that 90% of the people polled, including most gun owners btw, don't have a good, comprehensive grasp on current gun laws.


And I think it's the current gun laws that need to be enforced first.

The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

And that's the part that is pissing off most of the gun owners. The people who want to make things illegal don't even know what they are, and THEN they don't understand why we don't want them crafting the laws.
 
2013-04-03 12:55:43 PM  
 
2013-04-03 12:55:55 PM  

dittybopper: hinten: The only solution is that all current owners have to hand in their guns.

I'm sure they'd be willing to do that, after they gave you the bullets first.


25.media.tumblr.com

I'll relinquish one bullet, where do you want it?
 
2013-04-03 12:56:08 PM  

Gonz: Guns are useful for three groups: hunters, the weak, and the scared.

You kill some meat? Rock on. Good job, chow down. Share with me, and I'll share with you.

Every other justification for gun ownership is either "I'm really, really weak" or "I'm really, really frightened".

You can disagree with me, but you'd be wrong.


Yeah, all those abused wives are a bunch of pussies, or handicapped folks in wheelchairs or convenience store owners, or ranchers with an eye on coyodogs, or people in high-crime areas. All those top sports shooters? Weak, frightened pants-pissers. I know someplace just full of what you would consider the biggest cowards - they don't just have guns, but tanks! Their dicks are probably concave, right?

Real men are all seven feet tall MMA masters that can protect an entire orphanage with only their hands and foot-long cocks. They abhor guns.
 
2013-04-03 12:56:57 PM  

BayouOtter: ha-ha-guy: Ideas for gun licenses.

Apply it all to to the other amendments and I'm game.


Bad argument.  Free speech has already ruled to have limits in terms of fire in a movie theater.  Freedom of the press is not absolute in terms of if the WSJ published 10 pages of child porn tomorrow, freedom of the press is not going to save their asses.  Not to mention journalists do occasionally get nailed for libel/slander.

Really DC vs Heller in 2008 made it pretty clear how the Supreme Court sees gun rights currently, namely that the right is not unlimited with regards to keeping and carrying the gun.  Arguing the 2nd as some kind of absolute is not legally defensible and a path to suicide via failure to evolve.

/beside taunting the dynamite monkey and getting another US vs Cruikshank ruling is not a good path
//namely that the Second only limits federal powers but the states can do whatever they want, which would mean that a total ban would be an option for a state
 
2013-04-03 12:57:31 PM  

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: Asking others to disprove your paranoia is pretty weak.

What paranoia?

California is already doing it.


CA is only enforcing the laws that are already on the books. Felons and the mentally ill cannot own guns. This is what the gun lobby was asking for "enforce the laws that are already on the books don't just add more"
 
2013-04-03 12:57:50 PM  

ha-ha-guy: sammyk: Uisce Beatha: sammyk: No one is suggesting we change the current NICS system. Just expand it to all gun purchases. Do you have any issues with the current system?

Nope, and I have no problem expanding it to private sales, so long as it doesn't come with a hefty price tag or some other hidden hurdle to make selling your private property damn near impossible without involved a 3rd party.

I can agree with that. I would hope if it gets implemented that a private buyer would be able to show a CCW as prrof. Not having that I think a 3rd party would be required. It would be nice if the law says a FFl has to process it and can only charge a nominal fee. Say $12-$20.

The only issue I see where is when the criminal ends up with the gun.  When the cops run a check on the gun's serial number (assuming it is still there), they'll see sammyk bought it new from a gun store in 2003.  So they come knock on your door to ask how Icepick the Serial Killer ended up with your gun.  You'll tell them "I sold that to ha-ha-guy in 2011 guys, he showed me his CCW, paid me in cash, and left with the gun."  Meanwhile I'm a scumbag arms broker for some gang so I'll just tell the cops "Yeah I met sammyk at the range a few times, but I never bought anything from him."  So the provable chain of custody is you and the serial killer, which doesn't look good for you.  Unless I was sloppy and kept proof of the transaction the cops can find.  Having some kind of background check fire off or making you go transfer the title, al la a car, protects you in that you would then have proof you sold and did so in the proper manner.


Thats streching it a bit. First off when sammyk buys a gun from a FFL and it goes through NICS the record is destroyed withing 24 hours of the successful sale. Second if there is any chance the sale of the gun is going to come back to me you bet your ass I'm taking a pic of the guy buying it holding the CCW.
 
2013-04-03 12:57:53 PM  

ha-ha-guy: You'll tell them "I sold that to ha-ha-guy in 2011 guys, he showed me his CCW, paid me in cash, and left with the gun." Meanwhile I'm a scumbag arms broker for some gang so I'll just tell the cops "Yeah I met sammyk at the range a few times, but I never bought anything from him."


The people I know who have done private gun sales always have a bill of sale listing the item, price, and signatures of both parties.  Frankly I would probably do that for any private sale over $100.
 
2013-04-03 12:57:55 PM  

verbaltoxin: Oh, so then you wouldn't oppose an effort to make sure what some gun sellers do in your state becomes a uniform standard in all states for all sellers, then, right?


I've said as much.  In this thread, even.  As long as the implementation isn't too onerous, it is a logical thing to do.

sammyk: Not having that I think a 3rd party would be required. It would be nice if the law says a FFl has to process it and can only charge a nominal fee. Say $12-$20.


If they can keep the costs reasonable, that is workable.  Before I had my CCW, that is how I bought, even in state.  My buddy, who has his FFL, would run the check for the seller.

dittybopper: Dr Dreidel: Saiga410:

Gun dealers won't do it for cost.  They'll want to make a profit, or they won't do it at all, which of course would suit many people just fine.

So now you're looking at a $30-50 charge.

In fact, that's in line with what FFLs currently charge for things like out of state transfers.

No FFL is going to touch private transfers for $10 or $15.


I agree with you on almost everything.  However, there are FFLs (generally small gun store owners and the like) that will handle transfers for ~$15.  I have a couple like that that are my go-tos.  The cost of maintaining their FFL isn't too high, and the extra transactions helps justify their renewals.
 
2013-04-03 12:58:38 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: I'm sure you're equally concerned that some states don't allow the same people to vote.


I'm more concerned with the central registry.

It's one thing to have felons who've used guns in crime denied access to firearms.

It's another thing entirely to have a record of everyone who owns a gun. Once you have the registry, it's a simple majority vote to abuse that power and a long, expensive ride to the SCOTUS to get the wrongs undone.


Far better to just not have a central registry.
 
2013-04-03 01:02:10 PM  

Gonz: Guns are useful for three groups: hunters, the weak, and the scared.

You kill some meat? Rock on. Good job, chow down. Share with me, and I'll share with you.

Every other justification for gun ownership is either "I'm really, really weak" or "I'm really, really frightened".

You can disagree with me, but you'd be wrong.


Weak is a comparative argument.

You're weak compared to something.
 
2013-04-03 01:02:42 PM  

doglover: Lionel Mandrake: I'm sure you're equally concerned that some states don't allow the same people to vote.

I'm more concerned with the central registry.

It's one thing to have felons who've used guns in crime denied access to firearms.

It's another thing entirely to have a record of everyone who owns a gun. Once you have the registry, it's a simple majority vote to abuse that power and a long, expensive ride to the SCOTUS to get the wrongs undone.


Far better to just not have a central registry.


So you ignore my replies that completly destroy your paranoid fantasies about acentral registry and move on to someone else with the same ol B.S.

You are a piece of work man.
 
2013-04-03 01:03:01 PM  

ha-ha-guy: BayouOtter: ha-ha-guy: Ideas for gun licenses.

Apply it all to to the other amendments and I'm game.

Bad argument.  Free speech has already ruled to have limits in terms of fire in a movie theater.  Freedom of the press is not absolute in terms of if the WSJ published 10 pages of child porn tomorrow, freedom of the press is not going to save their asses.  Not to mention journalists do occasionally get nailed for libel/slander.


Not an equitable comparison, you can still yell "fire" in a theater. If there isn't one, you will, however, have to answer for doing something that may cause harm to others. It's called "consequences to actions". Your free speech is not being violated, but you are being held accountable for the consequences of choosing to exercise it. I'd just like to see the same standard applied to gun ownership, don't take away my rights, and enforce consequences to those who actually commit crimes, rather than punishing those of us who have not. Now, if we surgically muted you to prevent the possibility that you might yell fire in a theater, then you'd have a accurate analogy to what you want to do to my rights to own firearms.

//namely that the Second only limits federal powers but the states can do whatever they want, which would mean that a total ban would be an option for a state

Not since it was incorporated to the states in McDonald.
 
2013-04-03 01:05:45 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: What's more, the Morning Joe/Marist poll finds that 87 percent of Americans support background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows,

That's a large percentage.


It is, but what percentage of people fifteen years ago believed marriage is between one man and one woman?    What percentage of Democrats and Republicans voted for the Patriot Act(s)?    That's not a real question.  Just saying people are farked in the head and Democracy is far from perfect, particularly when it concerns what people perceive to be the rights of "not me".  "If xxxxxxx was an intelligent choice, then I would already xxxxxxx.  Eveyone else is ignorant and needs my direction"
 
2013-04-03 01:05:55 PM  

ha-ha-guy: Free speech has already ruled to have limits in terms of fire in a movie theater.


When used improperly, yes.  If there is an actual fire in a theater are the patrons supposed to stay silent?  This "fire in a theater" argument does not work because people are not gagged in an effort to prevent this limitation of speech before entering the theater.

/been covered a billion times in these threads and someone still brings it up.  Amazing.
 
2013-04-03 01:12:44 PM  

Dimensio: On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused,


Here is a good example of that from very recent: http://www.longislandfirearms.com/forum/topic/67755-just-the-mention-o f-a-gun-in-school/
 
2013-04-03 01:12:47 PM  
So what's the difference between a magazine and a clip?
 
2013-04-03 01:14:22 PM  

doglover: Once you have the registry, it's a simple majority vote to abuse that power and a long, expensive ride to the SCOTUS to get the wrongs undone.


It doesn not even have to be a majority vote.  See my link above
 
2013-04-03 01:15:43 PM  

Uisce Beatha: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

Yup.  But of course, lawmakers won't have a dialog with folks who are informed and concerned - that would take time, and "OMG we need to do something NOW!"


Laugh out loud. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the stance of the gun lobby that ANY sort of regulation amounts to unacceptable oppression and anyone that attempts any kind of action is an ignorant fascist.
 
2013-04-03 01:16:08 PM  

Paschal: So what's the difference between a magazine and a clip?


A clip is cooler and more actiony
 
2013-04-03 01:16:08 PM  

BayouOtter: Yeah, all those abused wives are a bunch of pussies,


Weak, scared. Justifiably so, but both weak and scared.

or handicapped folks in wheelchairs

Weak

or convenience store owners,

Scared

or ranchers with an eye on coyodogs,

Hunting. Also, in a relative sense, weak against coyotes. This might be an exception to my rule, though.

or people in high-crime areas.

Scared.

All those top sports shooters? Weak, frightened pants-pissers.

They're shooting paper. It's not even something that can bite back. A deer could at leash rush you. Hell, so could a squirrel for that matter.

I know someplace just full of what you would consider the biggest cowards - they don't just have guns, but tanks! Their dicks are probably concave, right?

You said it, not me. But going to combat with 60 tons of steel around you, rather than some body armor...

"God made all men, Samuel Colt made them equal" is probably one of the most famous quotes about handuns that I know of. It also translates as "Some other person would be better than me if I didn't have this metal tool. Thank you, Mr. Colt, for making me a real man."
 
2013-04-03 01:18:50 PM  

Paschal: So what's the difference between a magazine and a clip?


The proper term is clip.  Whenever someone says magazine then you know that this is not a real gun owner so then you can just ignore whatever they say about guns.  Would you care what someone thought about cars if they said "gas pedal"?  No, you would not.
 
2013-04-03 01:19:00 PM  

Paschal: So what's the difference between a magazine and a clip?


Seriously?

A clip is a thin metal band that holds shells and nothing more.

A magazine is a box that contains the shells and feeds them into the weapon.
 
2013-04-03 01:19:00 PM  
Handguns, not handuns. Firearms, not a snacky relative of a Funyon.

Also, the deer can at LEAST rush you, not as leash. Most people don't keep deer on a leash, unless they're Santa Claus and have reindeer.
 
2013-04-03 01:19:14 PM  

sammyk: your paranoid fantasies about acentral registry


The 'paranoid fantasies' agrument itself is destroyed when this type of registry was just recently use by the state of NY in order to confiscate the guns and revolk the license of someone who did nothing unlawful.
 
2013-04-03 01:19:27 PM  

Big_Fat_Liar: t is, but what percentage of people fifteen years ago believed marriage is between one man and one woman?    What percentage of Democrats and Republicans voted for the Patriot Act(s)?    That's not a real question.  Just saying people are farked in the head and Democracy is far from perfect, particularly when it concerns what people perceive to be the rights of "not me".  "If xxxxxxx was an intelligent choice, then I would already xxxxxxx.  Eveyone else is ignorant and needs my direction"


87% of the public agrees on something so they're farked in the head?
 
2013-04-03 01:19:35 PM  
A higher percentage supported warrantless wire taps.
 
2013-04-03 01:20:26 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Laugh out loud. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the stance of the gun lobby that ANY sort of regulation amounts to unacceptable oppression and anyone that attempts any kind of action is an ignorant fascist.


Oh, I won't deny that at the forefront of the gun lobby is a bunch of intractable PITAs.  But the thing is - if you are trying to proactively DO something, like pass a new law, the onus is on you to be deliberate and conscientious about it.  Yes, the gun lobby is stubborn.  But the legislators are the ones who are responsible for making sure new laws are logical, reasonable, and fair, not lobbyists.

Yes, Washington doesn't actually work this way at the moment.  It doesn't really work at all.  But that is how it should, IMO.
 
2013-04-03 01:20:34 PM  

bedtundy: because people are not gagged in an effort to prevent this limitation of speech before entering the theater


Not that I support this for slasher movies.... but somebody should look into the permissablilty of this.
 
2013-04-03 01:20:42 PM  

Gonz: Handguns, not handuns. Firearms, not a snacky relative of a Funyon.

Also, the deer can at LEAST rush you, not as leash. Most people don't keep deer on a leash, unless they're Santa Claus and have reindeer.


I always carry a handgun in the woods.  I pistol whip the wildlife so that they know who really runs the forest.
 
2013-04-03 01:21:13 PM  

ha-ha-guy: //namely that the Second only limits federal powers but the states can do whatever they want, which would mean that a total ban would be an option for a state


You missed the part where the 2nd was fully incorporated against the states, didn't you.
 
2013-04-03 01:25:44 PM  
Gonz:
"God made all men, Samuel Colt made them equal" is probably one of the most famous quotes about handuns that I know of. It also translates as "Some other person would be better than me if I didn't have this metal tool. Thank you, Mr. Colt, for making me a real man."

So whats your point? You hate all technology that makes people to exceed their biological capabilities? Screw eyeglasses, forget leg braces, go to hell levers?

Or it just an issue with self-defense? Are you upset because a diminutive woman can defend herself if you try to forcibly rape her?
 
2013-04-03 01:27:00 PM  

dittybopper: Altair: "Gun control" and so-called "stricter guns laws" is so poorly defined these days that opinion polls about them are useless

I'm guessing that 90% of the people polled, including most gun owners btw, don't have a good, comprehensive grasp on current gun laws.

The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.


Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.
Difficulty: Cannot resort to paranoia or claim that background checks ban transfers to mentally healthy noncriminals to fill in the blank.
NB: If you want to object on cost grounds: Are federal excise taxes on fuel (the right to interstate travel is constitutionally guaranteed) constitutional?
 
2013-04-03 01:28:32 PM  

HeadLever: sammyk: your paranoid fantasies about acentral registry

The 'paranoid fantasies' agrument itself is destroyed when this type of registry was just recently use by the state of NY in order to confiscate the guns and revolk the license of someone who did nothing unlawful.


How so? The conversation is about lawful gun purchases ending up in a centralized registry. The current system with NICS destroys records of successful sales within 24 hours. How many time do you need to hear it before it sinks in? Expanding background checks to all firearm purchases will not change that. the issues in NY are due to a poor implementation of CCW law in NY. It has nothing to do with requiring universal background checks at a national level.

But that's not going to stop you from repeating this B.S. over and over is it? As a lifelong gun owner and supporter of the 2nd amendment I really wish you guys would STFU with the non-sense. YOU ARE NOT HELPING!
 
2013-04-03 01:29:18 PM  

dittybopper: Gun dealers won't do it for cost.


Then it looks like the problem (and the goalposts for claiming "success" in this venture) has shifted.

If the cost of a NICS check was established by law (at $15; hell let it be $20 just so they make a sawbuck on every check they run) and dealers can't - again, by law - charge more than that for the service, would they rather deprive their fellow citizens of their 2A rights by closing up shop or suck it up and do 30 seconds more of paperwork?

Or, wait - this is a call for PRIVATE sales to have to go through NICS; FFLs (like those who run B&M shops) already have to ensure that the person attempting to buy is legally allowed to as well before making the transfer. You bring up a problem that does not exist.
 
2013-04-03 01:30:05 PM  

Uisce Beatha: Car_Ramrod: Laugh out loud. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the stance of the gun lobby that ANY sort of regulation amounts to unacceptable oppression and anyone that attempts any kind of action is an ignorant fascist.

Oh, I won't deny that at the forefront of the gun lobby is a bunch of intractable PITAs.  But the thing is - if you are trying to proactively DO something, like pass a new law, the onus is on you to be deliberate and conscientious about it.  Yes, the gun lobby is stubborn.  But the legislators are the ones who are responsible for making sure new laws are logical, reasonable, and fair, not lobbyists.

Yes, Washington doesn't actually work this way at the moment.  It doesn't really work at all.  But that is how it should, IMO.


The fact is, like it or not, our country is in the middle of renegotiating our relationship to guns.

This being the case, I think it is incumbent upon gun owners to assuage the fears of a public who have been shaken by some high-profile acts of gun violence, and the violent and fascistic rhetoric so often used by ITG gun owners just isn't helpful to their position that they can or should be trusted to be able to possess something that with such a high capacity to threaten the general welfare.
 
2013-04-03 01:30:18 PM  

BayouOtter: Gonz:
"God made all men, Samuel Colt made them equal" is probably one of the most famous quotes about handuns that I know of. It also translates as "Some other person would be better than me if I didn't have this metal tool. Thank you, Mr. Colt, for making me a real man."

So whats your point? You hate all technology that makes people to exceed their biological capabilities? Screw eyeglasses, forget leg braces, go to hell levers?

Or it just an issue with self-defense? Are you upset because a diminutive woman can defend herself if you try to forcibly rape her you can't force the Jews into ovens?


Next time, don't half-ass it.
 
2013-04-03 01:30:19 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.


For me, it is not the checks themselves are bad.  It is the likely manipulation of the system that presents problems.  The system could be used to create a registry which I do not support, and the program could be manipulated in order to price normal folks from even using the system.
 
2013-04-03 01:31:43 PM  

Giltric: dittybopper: Altair: "Gun control" and so-called "stricter guns laws" is so poorly defined these days that opinion polls about them are useless

I'm guessing that 90% of the people polled, including most gun owners btw, don't have a good, comprehensive grasp on current gun laws.

The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

Especially if they are going by the old survey that Obama is using to claim that 40% of people do not get a background check when purchasing a firearm.

And what does federal funding for gun studies matter if new studies will say only 4% do not get a background check....they will ignore the new survey since they have an older one that generates more fear with the 40% number.


as you probably know the 40% number does NOT show up in the old survey. gun show and flea market sales of all guns is shown as 4% in the 1994 report. i have never had a response after challenging folks on the 40% number/quote.
 
2013-04-03 01:32:36 PM  

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.

For me, it is not the checks themselves are bad.  It is the likely manipulation of the system that presents problems.  The system could be used to create a registry which I do not support, and the program could be manipulated in order to price normal folks from even using the system.


I always determine my support of something based not upon the idea itself and its merits, but possible unlikely tangential effects of it, too.
 
2013-04-03 01:32:46 PM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

Fired about 200 rounds of 5.56 from my ARs yesterday, and another couple hundred using a 22LR conversion.  Despite evil features like a bayonet lug, telescoping stock, barrel shroud, flash hider and high capacity assault clip (even a suppressor for the 22LR!) the only thing that got hurt was white spraypaint on a steel plate.
 
2013-04-03 01:35:21 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.


Because every time I go out of town on business, my firearms are legally "transferred" to my wife since she is the person in custody and control of them, even if they are all locked securely in a safe and I take the key with me..  Since I am a firearms instructor, I currently have 40+ firearms.  As you can imagine, there might be a problem if I were required to do a background check each time one of those firearms was transferred.  40+ transfers 10 to 15 times a year might be considered by some to be chilling on my 2nd Amendment rights.  Even if I owned just one firearm, having to run background checks on my wife 10 to 15 times a year would be an issue.
 
2013-04-03 01:35:41 PM  

Paschal: So what's the difference between a magazine and a clip?


Magazine
chamberfour.com

Clip
www.images.asidatabuilder.com
These two items seem very different to me.
Oh wait...  you meant...
 
2013-04-03 01:35:59 PM  

sammyk: How so?


My point is not about the current NCIS checks and the fact that they destroy the registry, but the general opposition we have to the creation of any registry that is mainted.  In this regard, my argument may have not addressed your point here.

However, the fact that NY state is currently using thier regsitry and licensing mechanism to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens is more than ample warning about what can happen when these policies are allowed to stand.
 
2013-04-03 01:38:09 PM  

BayouOtter: Gonz:
"God made all men, Samuel Colt made them equal" is probably one of the most famous quotes about handuns that I know of. It also translates as "Some other person would be better than me if I didn't have this metal tool. Thank you, Mr. Colt, for making me a real man."

So whats your point? You hate all technology that makes people to exceed their biological capabilities? Screw eyeglasses, forget leg braces, go to hell levers?

Or it just an issue with self-defense? Are you upset because a diminutive woman can defend herself if you try to forcibly rape her?


Is there a special class of ad homenim attack where you imply that someone is a rapist because they do not agree with you?

/Does being rape-crazy make one immune to pepper spray?
 
2013-04-03 01:39:02 PM  

CPennypacker: I always determine my support of something based not upon the idea itself and its merits, but possible unlikely tangential effects of it, too.


You should. Those "unlikely" tangential effects are usually the direct goals of the people who have more than two brain cells to rub together in the politics game. Three steps ahead is four steps behind.
 
2013-04-03 01:39:26 PM  
demaL-demaL-yeH:
Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.
Difficulty: Cannot resort to paranoia or claim that background checks ban transfers to mentally healthy noncriminals to fill in the blank.
NB: If you want to object on cost grounds: Are federal excise taxes on fuel (the right to interstate travel is constitutionally guaranteed) constitutional?


Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because, under the current system, FFLs charge a fee for transfers and the accompanying NICS checks.  With background checks for all private transfers, you have essentially created a tax on the exercising of a enumerated right.

And we all know what the reception would be like if, lets say, there was a government-mandated fee for having a blog or Facebook or Twitter account.

That is to say nothing, of course, of how such a law would be written.  If I allow a friend to use my rifle to go to a range, does that require a transfer?  What if he keeps it a day?  A month?  A year?  What if a man buys his girlfriend a handgun for her defense - does he pay the background check when he buys the pistol, then she pays to have one done when its 'transferred' to her?  As many have said, the concept of background checks is valid...but the devil is ALWAYS in the details.

As for the discussion of fuel excise taxes: the the right to interstate travel is not enumerated like the right to bear arms is.  That being said, there are other options for interstate travel beyond petroleum-fueled vehicles.  Their practicality in modern society might be lacking...but they still exist.  There really isn't such alternative when it comes to "bearing arms".
 
2013-04-03 01:40:03 PM  
As a gun owner, I think guns  should be more difficult to obtain.
 
2013-04-03 01:40:45 PM  

CPennypacker: I always determine my support of something based not upon the idea itself and its merits, but possible unlikely tangential effects of it, too.


Who ever said I didn't support it?  You making a strawman again?
 
2013-04-03 01:40:47 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Because every time I go out of town on business, my firearms are legally "transferred" to my wife since she is the person in custody and control of them, even if they are all locked securely in a safe and I take the key with me..  Since I am a firearms instructor, I currently have 40+ firearms.  As you can imagine, there might be a problem if I were required to do a background check each time one of those firearms was transferred.  40+ transfers 10 to 15 times a year might be considered by some to be chilling on my 2nd Amendment rights.  Even if I owned just one firearm, having to run background checks on my wife 10 to 15 times a year would be an issue.


So you just made up an asinine situation to be afraid of, then?
 
2013-04-03 01:41:36 PM  

HeadLever: It is the likely manipulation of the system that presents problems.  The system could be used to create a registry which I do not support, and the program could be manipulated in order to price normal folks from even using the system.


So it all comes down to what could happen (the creation of a registry, even though that is forbidden by law) versus what is happening (30K gun related deaths per year). We can attempt to reduce the latter without the coulds from the former.
 
2013-04-03 01:43:04 PM  

HeadLever: Dimensio: On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused,

Here is a good example of that from very recent: http://www.longislandfirearms.com/forum/topic/67755-just-the-mention-o f-a-gun-in-school/


I'm going to need more than that.  I never heard of "Pistol Licensing" - is that one of New York state's farked up laws?  Got a reference to a real news article?
 
2013-04-03 01:43:04 PM  

Uisce Beatha: I have always found it interesting that in my state, where gun control laws are pretty non-existent, if you go to the state gun owners website and look at their classifieds, pretty much all the sellers will insist on seeing your concealed carry permit before they sell you anything, whether it is a handgun or long gun. It is how they know you have had a background check and been cleared - so the person-to-person sales "loophole" is pretty easy to close, especially when the sellers are responsible


What I have always found interesting is that gun rights advocates will insist most peopel do the "responsible" thing so think any law making them follow "responsible" actions is an infringement on their rights.

/BTW-how do they verify the CC permits?
 
2013-04-03 01:44:04 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: So it all comes down to what could happen


All?  no.  It is, however, a big hurdle that will need to be addressed in order to make this type of policy tolerable to many gun owners, though.
 
2013-04-03 01:44:19 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: 30K gun related deaths per year


Over half of those are suicides. Suicides aren't caused by guns any more than they're caused by trains or bridges or sleeping pills.
 
2013-04-03 01:45:26 PM  

LasersHurt: So you just made up an asinine situation to be afraid of, then?


How is it asinine?  I travel out of state on business quite frequently.  I do own 40+ firearms.  When I am not in residence at my home, the firearms are legally transferred to my wife.

That is all the truth.
 
2013-04-03 01:45:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SCUBA_Archer: 100% of gun owners support enforcing existing laws rather than making new ones.

Existing laws leave about 40% of gun sales without background checks.

So..no, no they don't.


no god dammit they don't. that 40% quote is crap and it's why folks like you aren't taken seriously. you want gun control and will use any method to get it is all that fake quote says.
 
2013-04-03 01:46:31 PM  

HeadLever: CPennypacker: I always determine my support of something based not upon the idea itself and its merits, but possible unlikely tangential effects of it, too.

Who ever said I didn't support it?  You making a strawman again?


I guess only implying you don't support it earns you some sort of internet point?
 
2013-04-03 01:47:44 PM  

HeadLever: Dimensio: On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused,

Here is a good example of that from very recent: http://www.longislandfirearms.com/forum/topic/67755-just-the-mention-o f-a-gun-in-school/


Wait, this is New York CITY.

That explains everything.
 
2013-04-03 01:47:52 PM  

Click Click D'oh: LasersHurt: So you just made up an asinine situation to be afraid of, then?

How is it asinine?  I travel out of state on business quite frequently.  I do own 40+ firearms.  When I am not in residence at my home, the firearms are legally transferred to my wife.

That is all the truth.


It's asinine because nobody, now or in the past, has ever suggested that when you leave town you must legally sell your firearms including background checks to your wife. Nobody, ever, would or has suggested it. You clearly just made up that scenario so you could complain about how hard it would be. You're right, it would be hard, but so would having a camel's head instead of a normal head.

It's ridiculous, though.
 
2013-04-03 01:49:05 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: I'm going to need more than that. I never heard of "Pistol Licensing" - is that one of New York state's farked up laws? Got a reference to a real news article?


No news article yet that I know of (stand by on that), but here is a link to the pistol permit bureau:

The guy has  'lawyered up' so not sure how much information will be coming forth.
 
2013-04-03 01:49:24 PM  

doglover: Over half of those are suicides.


Pretty sure the end result of a suicide is a dead person.

doglover: Suicides aren't caused by guns any more than they're caused by trains or bridges or sleeping pills.


That is correct, suicides are not caused by guns. But a suicidal person with access to a gun has a 90+% chance of death. Without a gun, there's a 90+% chance they don't commit suicide.

HeadLever: It is, however, a big hurdle that will need to be addressed


Addressed like the law on already the books strictly prohibiting it? Okay, consider it addressed.
 
2013-04-03 01:50:35 PM  

doglover: Dusk-You-n-Me: 30K gun related deaths per year

Over half of those are suicides. Suicides aren't caused by guns any more than they're caused by trains or bridges or sleeping pills.


This is inaccurate.  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?_r=2&page w anted=print&;
History shows that when you remove a simple and quick method for suicide, the suicide rate drops.  Turns out all you have to do is make suicide inconvenient and that stops most people.
 
2013-04-03 01:50:40 PM  
Dusk-You-n-Me:
That is correct, suicides are not caused by guns. But a suicidal person with access to a gun has a 90+% chance of death. Without a gun, there's a 90+% chance they don't commit suicide.

People who make this argument assume all suicides are the result of a rational decision making process.
 
2013-04-03 01:50:41 PM  

dittybopper: Gun dealers won't do it for cost. They'll want to make a profit, or they won't do it at all, which of course would suit many people just fine.

So now you're looking at a $30-50 charge.

In fact, that's in line with what FFLs currently charge for things like out of state transfers.

No FFL is going to touch private transfers for $10 or $15


Have the fed do it for free.

To compete dealers will play ball a little more.

CoolHandLucas: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because, under the current system, FFLs charge a fee for transfers and the accompanying NICS checks. With background checks for all private transfers, you have essentially created a tax on the exercising of a enumerated right.


BS.  The tax isn't on the buyer, and the buyer isn't in trouble if it isn't done.
 
2013-04-03 01:50:53 PM  

Curious: Giltric: dittybopper: Altair: "Gun control" and so-called "stricter guns laws" is so poorly defined these days that opinion polls about them are useless

I'm guessing that 90% of the people polled, including most gun owners btw, don't have a good, comprehensive grasp on current gun laws.

The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

Especially if they are going by the old survey that Obama is using to claim that 40% of people do not get a background check when purchasing a firearm.

And what does federal funding for gun studies matter if new studies will say only 4% do not get a background check....they will ignore the new survey since they have an older one that generates more fear with the 40% number.

as you probably know the 40% number does NOT show up in the old survey. gun show and flea market sales of all guns is shown as 4% in the 1994 report. i have never had a response after challenging folks on the 40% number/quote.



Yeah thats a different survey. The survey with the 4% number is one asking people where they purchase their firearms. They also did one where they asked inmates of correctional facilities who used a firearm in a crime where they got their gun.  The one with the 40% number is one asking people if they got a background check when they purchased their firearm.

but even so...if 40% of people don't get a background check at a gun show and only 4% of people buy their firearms at a gun show ...why are people getting all up in arms about a number that is less than 2%? 2% can be considered a margin of error in most surveys. It could even be a statistical anomoly like spree killings.
 
2013-04-03 01:51:07 PM  

Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.

Because every time I go out of town on business, my firearms are legally "transferred" to my wife since she is the person in custody and control of them, even if they are all locked securely in a safe and I take the key with me..  Since I am a firearms instructor, I currently have 40+ firearms.  As you can imagine, there might be a problem if I were required to do a background check each time one of those firearms was transferred.  40+ transfers 10 to 15 times a year might be considered by some to be chilling on my 2nd Amendment rights.  Even if I owned just one firearm, having to run background checks on my wife 10 to 15 times a year would be an issue.


Simple.  Don't let your wife stay in the house when you leave.  That way the gun ownership will transfer to your dog.  And nobody messes with a dog with a gun.
 
2013-04-03 01:51:12 PM  

CPennypacker: I guess only implying you don't support it earns you some sort of internet point?


Even when I say the checks themselves aren't bad in the first sentence?  Do you read much? Or do you just make stuff up as you go?
 
2013-04-03 01:51:21 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: That is correct, suicides are not caused by guns. But


But nothing. Suicides aren't caused by guns. Disingenuous statistics are disingenuous.
 
2013-04-03 01:51:51 PM  

CPennypacker: People who make this argument assume all suicides are the result of a rational decision making process.


His argument or mine?
 
2013-04-03 01:52:21 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Addressed like the law on already the books strictly prohibiting it? Okay, consider it addressed.


You realize that NY state has a gun registry, correct?  Not as prohibited as you may think.  Check my link to the Pistol Permit Bureau above for more information.
 
2013-04-03 01:53:09 PM  

doglover: But nothing. Suicides aren't caused by guns. Disingenuous statistics are disingenuous.


There's nothing disingenuous about it. More than 30,000 people die every year from gun violence. Some of those people die from gun suicides. Their death is not any less violent. They are not any less dead.
 
2013-04-03 01:53:15 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: nobody messes with a dog with a gun.


www.digmydog.org
 
2013-04-03 01:54:23 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: CPennypacker: People who make this argument assume all suicides are the result of a rational decision making process.

His argument or mine?


His
 
2013-04-03 01:54:58 PM  

HeadLever: You realize that NY state has a gun registry, correct?  Not as prohibited as you may think.


And? States rights, right? Either way, we're talking about federal law here. Registries are forbidden and the background checks that Senator Coburn and Manchin are working on would not change that and would not allow the government to create one.
 
2013-04-03 01:55:16 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: There's nothing disingenuous about it.


If you kill yourself, it's not violence. It's also morally debatable if anyone else should even care (as long as you keep your blood and offal off the carpet) since there's good reasons a body can have for suicide.
 
2013-04-03 01:55:18 PM  

LasersHurt:It's asinine because nobody, now or in the past, has ever suggested that when you leave town you must legally sell your firearms including background checks to your wife.

I didn't say anything about selling my firearms to my wife.  I said that custody and control of them transfers to my wife when I am not in residence.  And it does, legally.  Right now that isn't a problem since transfers of firearms between private citizens requires no legal action or documentation (unless you are dealing with Class 3 items)  Which means, right now, the firearms transfers back and forth automatically no fuss, no muss.

However, read what demaL said, not what you think he said.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.


Transfer, not sale.  Under Federal Firearm law, a transfer would take place if I left the state and my wife remains with the firearm.  Just as a transfer would take place if I left a firearm at my friends house and went home.

This is why many on the guns rights side are so touchy.  Because people on the other side don't understand what they are doing.  What you consider asinine and ridiculous is exactly how the law would function if every transfer required a background check.  Transfer and sale are not the same thing in the eyes of the law.

 
2013-04-03 01:57:38 PM  

LasersHurt: Click Click D'oh: LasersHurt: So you just made up an asinine situation to be afraid of, then?

How is it asinine?  I travel out of state on business quite frequently.  I do own 40+ firearms.  When I am not in residence at my home, the firearms are legally transferred to my wife.

That is all the truth.

It's asinine because nobody, now or in the past, has ever suggested that when you leave town you must legally sell your firearms including background checks to your wife. Nobody, ever, would or has suggested it. You clearly just made up that scenario so you could complain about how hard it would be. You're right, it would be hard, but so would having a camel's head instead of a normal head.

It's ridiculous, though.


Actually the Universal Background check bill proposed by Schumer would do this. Assuming he is out of town for more than 7 days.
 
2013-04-03 01:57:50 PM  

liam76: dittybopper: Gun dealers won't do it for cost. They'll want to make a profit, or they won't do it at all, which of course would suit many people just fine.

So now you're looking at a $30-50 charge.

In fact, that's in line with what FFLs currently charge for things like out of state transfers.

No FFL is going to touch private transfers for $10 or $15

Have the fed do it for free.

To compete dealers will play ball a little more.

CoolHandLucas: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because, under the current system, FFLs charge a fee for transfers and the accompanying NICS checks. With background checks for all private transfers, you have essentially created a tax on the exercising of a enumerated right.

BS.  The tax isn't on the buyer, and the buyer isn't in trouble if it isn't done.



In the proposed UBC legislation the fee for background checks is set by the AG. that could be an amount anywhere between free and 20 brazillion dollars. It will probably be closer to 20 brazillion dollars thus putting firearms ownership out of reach of all but the elitists who can buy and sell senators as well as firearms.

Poor people have a right to defend themselves too.

Make background checks free and make access to the NICS system available to all citizens who wish to sell a firearm.

We don't need to know why a person can't buy a firearm, just if they can or can not.
 
2013-04-03 01:58:06 PM  

doglover: If you kill yourself, it's not violence.


Whether you consider that violence or not doesn't really matter. In those cases there was still a gun involved. Had that gun not been available, 90% of those people would not have taken their own life.
 
2013-04-03 01:58:30 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Either way, we're talking about federal law here.


Which matters little when the system is abused like NY state is currently doing.  State's rights stop at being able to infringe on enumerated rights oulined in the constitution.  In any case, it is just more reason to ensure that any type of registry is opposed.
 
2013-04-03 01:58:31 PM  

HeadLever: CPennypacker: I guess only implying you don't support it earns you some sort of internet point?

Even when I say the checks themselves aren't bad in the first sentence?  Do you read much? Or do you just make stuff up as you go?


I'm talking about mandatory checks. You seem to support the idea of checks, but not making them mandatory, cuz ooga-booga! Since non-mandatory theoretical checks accomplish nothing, and you go on to criticize mandatory checks for imaginary tangential horrors, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. Clearly I can read what you type better than you can yourself. Who gives a shiat if you support the idea of checks yourself but not implementing them?

I support unicorns but if we have them we might all get aids. Clearly I am in favor of getting unicorns.
 
2013-04-03 01:59:40 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Had that gun not been available, 90% of those people would not have taken their own life.


Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
 
2013-04-03 01:59:41 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Had that gun not been available, 90% of those people would not have taken their own life.


I am interested in reading the rest of the study this stat came from.  Can you direct me to it, please?
 
2013-04-03 02:00:24 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: doglover: If you kill yourself, it's not violence.

Whether you consider that violence or not doesn't really matter. In those cases there was still a gun involved. Had that gun not been available, 90% of those people would not have taken their own life.


Can I borrow your crystal ball?
 
2013-04-03 02:00:49 PM  

HeadLever: Which matters little when the system is abused like NY state is currently doing.


What system? Does NY have their own system? Are they tapping into some federal registry (even though they are, again, explicitly banned by law)? Take it up with NY. The Senate proposal being worked on for background checks does not create a federal gun registry.
 
2013-04-03 02:01:06 PM  

doglover: Dusk-You-n-Me: Had that gun not been available, 90% of those people would not have taken their own life.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.


This person is clearly a mental health professional
 
2013-04-03 02:01:18 PM  
Uranus Is Huge!:
So whats your point? You hate all technology that makes people to exceed their biological capabilities? Screw eyeglasses, forget leg braces, go to hell levers?

Or it just an issue with self-defense? Are you upset because a diminutive woman can defend herself if you try to forcibly rape her?

Is there a special class of ad homenim attack where you imply that someone is a rapist because they do not agree with you?


No, I'm just trying to figure out what your issue is, and how far it extends.

/Does being rape-crazy make one immune to pepper spray?

Does pepper-spray stop a rape as effectively or easily as a firearm?

Though the real question he poses is, does picking up some pepper spray make you a weak, cowardly pants-wetter who just wants to be a 'real man'?

"Some other person would be better than me if I didn't have this pepper spray. Thank you, pepper spray, for making me a real man."
 
2013-04-03 02:01:34 PM  

BayouOtter: LasersHurt: Click Click D'oh: LasersHurt: So you just made up an asinine situation to be afraid of, then?

How is it asinine?  I travel out of state on business quite frequently.  I do own 40+ firearms.  When I am not in residence at my home, the firearms are legally transferred to my wife.

That is all the truth.

It's asinine because nobody, now or in the past, has ever suggested that when you leave town you must legally sell your firearms including background checks to your wife. Nobody, ever, would or has suggested it. You clearly just made up that scenario so you could complain about how hard it would be. You're right, it would be hard, but so would having a camel's head instead of a normal head.

It's ridiculous, though.

Actually the Universal Background check bill proposed by Schumer would do this. Assuming he is out of town for more than 7 days.


You're assuming anyone who is pro gun control actually owns any guns or thinks anything through.
 
2013-04-03 02:02:01 PM  

doglover: Dusk-You-n-Me: Had that gun not been available, 90% of those people would not have taken their own life.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.


Do you know how hard it is to commit suicide without a gun?
 
2013-04-03 02:03:19 PM  
My new ride.


i1123.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-03 02:03:39 PM  

doglover: Pull the other one, it's got bells on.


I guess we're good here.

The Muthaship: I am interested in reading the rest of the study this stat came from.  Can you direct me to it, please?


I linked to the article. There's a link to Harvard in there.
 
2013-04-03 02:04:05 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Dusk-You-n-Me: doglover: If you kill yourself, it's not violence.

Whether you consider that violence or not doesn't really matter. In those cases there was still a gun involved. Had that gun not been available, 90% of those people would not have taken their own life.

Can I borrow your crystal ball?


Actually, most suicides attempts occur with little planning during a crisis. About 90% of suicide attempters who survive never attempt it again
 
2013-04-03 02:04:59 PM  
doglover:
You're assuming anyone who is pro gun control actually owns any guns or thinks anything through.

I assume they things things through, but mostly to the aim of civil disarmament.
 
2013-04-03 02:05:53 PM  
Here are the key points at which I begin to diverge substantially from certain other gun owners:

1. It's always "enforce the laws we have" with them, but when you point out that the ATF is understaffed, they don't want to hire agents. The ATF can't require gun shops to keep accurate inventory so inspections are of questionable usefulness. Can't keep records of who has what, that would be terrible. And, of course, there's the general attitude among a significant number of gun owners that the ATF is just some jack-booted government agency out to get them.

2. They spent 12 weeks screeching about mental health being the real issue, then when it was proposed that people who are diagnosed with certain illnesses that may make them a threat to themselves or others, the tune instantly changed to "that's just like guilty until proven innocent, we can't do anything like that!"

And, most broadly:

3. Why is it that virtually every time they talk about their proposed "solutions" to gun violence, the step at which they want to start is a maniac already on the loose shooting at people? It's never "how can we keep dangerous people from obtaining guns", it's always "a dangerous person has a gun, how can we stop him?"

Gun proponents don't want to acknowledge the problem and they don't want to be part of the solution and that's all there is to it. That's the only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from their rhetoric.
 
2013-04-03 02:06:16 PM  

Giltric: In the proposed UBC legislation the fee for background checks is set by the AG. that could be an amount anywhere between free and 20 brazillion dollars. It will probably be closer to 20 brazillion dollars thus putting firearms ownership out of reach of all but the elitists who can buy and sell senators as well as firearms.


BayouOtter: Actually the Universal Background check bill proposed by Schumer would do this. Assuming he is out of town for more than 7 days


Do either of you have a link to the bill?  Or a synopsysis of it from a non partisan source?

/Giltric-I agree they should be free
 
2013-04-03 02:06:20 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: doglover: Dusk-You-n-Me: Had that gun not been available, 90% of those people would not have taken their own life.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you know how hard it is to commit suicide without a gun?


As hard as jumping off a bridge.
 
2013-04-03 02:06:33 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: doglover: But nothing. Suicides aren't caused by guns. Disingenuous statistics are disingenuous.

There's nothing disingenuous about it. More than 30,000 people die every year from gun violence. Some of those people die from gun suicides. Their death is not any less violent. They are not any less dead.


Blaming the method is not the route with suicides, though.  So, if we magically make guns inaccessible to people who are suicidal, and suffocation or pill suicides go up, what next, ban meds and ropes?

Instead, maybe look at the root cause?
 
wee
2013-04-03 02:06:44 PM  

hinten: The only solution is that all current owners have to hand in their guns.


The Fourth and Fifth Amendments are laughing, pointing, and calling your "solution" a retard.
 
2013-04-03 02:07:00 PM  
And the inexorable expansion of State-sponsored violence marches on.

So society's right to self defense trumps the individual's right to self defense, because once nobody is safe, EVERYONE will be safe. But first, it will be enforced by...you guessed it, men with guns showing up to assault and disarm you, backed by a license to murder.

Don't be confused, gun control advocates LOVE guns, but only in the hands of the privileged.
 
2013-04-03 02:07:10 PM  
 demaL-demaL-yeH: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.

For me, it is not the checks themselves are bad.  It is the likely manipulation of the system that presents problems.  The system could be used to create a registry which I do not support, and the program could be manipulated in order to price normal folks from even using the system.



BZZZZZZZZT!
Background checks for  every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.
Difficulty: Cannot  resort to paranoia or claim that background checks ban transfers to mentally healthy noncriminals to fill in the blank.
NB: If you want to object on cost grounds: Are federal excise taxes on fuel (the right to interstate travel is constitutionally guaranteed) constitutional?
 
2013-04-03 02:07:28 PM  

CPennypacker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Dusk-You-n-Me: doglover: If you kill yourself, it's not violence.

Whether you consider that violence or not doesn't really matter. In those cases there was still a gun involved. Had that gun not been available, 90% of those people would not have taken their own life.

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

Actually, most suicides attempts occur with little planning during a crisis. About 90% of suicide attempters who survive never attempt it again


Suicide is almost completely an impulsive act.  94% of bridge jumpers never attempted again.
 
2013-04-03 02:07:56 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Do you know how hard it is to commit suicide without a gun?


Since almost a full 1/2 of people that commit suicide do it without a gun... apparently pretty easy.
 
2013-04-03 02:08:03 PM  

Uisce Beatha: Blaming the method is not the route with suicides, though.


I didn't blame the method, I posted a statistic.
 
wee
2013-04-03 02:08:14 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: My new ride.


I dig it!  Pity they are so expensive to feed these days...
 
2013-04-03 02:08:38 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I guess we're good here.


You're wrong and disingenuous. I'm now aware you're wrong and disingenuous. So yeah, we're good.
 
2013-04-03 02:08:58 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: doglover: But nothing. Suicides aren't caused by guns. Disingenuous statistics are disingenuous.

There's nothing disingenuous about it. More than 30,000 people die every year from gun violence. Some of those people die from gun suicides. Their death is not any less violent. They are not any less dead.


If you were evaluating the safety of balconies, you would not include deaths from people who set out to kill themselves off of one.  Same for railroad crossings.  The gate doesn't need to be repaired just because 10 people choose to exercise their freedom of choice by using the train to end their lives.  Nobody else should be burdened with paying for extra building codes or being subjected to waiting periods for train tickets just because others happen to use a particular device for suicide over others.
 
2013-04-03 02:09:00 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Do you know how hard it is to commit suicide without a gun?


1. Close garage door.
2, Start car.
3. Take nap.
 
2013-04-03 02:09:59 PM  
Responsible gun owners should be cautious about letting the tea-party/libertarian paranoic wing do all of their talking. Their ongoing demographic decline as well as the next inevitable mass shooting will be enough to introduce really regressive gun control laws.
 
2013-04-03 02:10:08 PM  

doglover: cameroncrazy1984: doglover: Dusk-You-n-Me: Had that gun not been available, 90% of those people would not have taken their own life.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you know how hard it is to commit suicide without a gun?

As hard as jumping off a bridge.


As hard as falling asleep in your car in the garage with the engine running?
 
2013-04-03 02:10:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: doglover: Dusk-You-n-Me: Had that gun not been available, 90% of those people would not have taken their own life.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you know how hard it is to commit suicide without a gun?


Pretty easy, I've known and mourned few, and none used a gun.
 
2013-04-03 02:11:11 PM  

liam76: Giltric: In the proposed UBC legislation the fee for background checks is set by the AG. that could be an amount anywhere between free and 20 brazillion dollars. It will probably be closer to 20 brazillion dollars thus putting firearms ownership out of reach of all but the elitists who can buy and sell senators as well as firearms.

BayouOtter: Actually the Universal Background check bill proposed by Schumer would do this. Assuming he is out of town for more than 7 days

Do either of you have a link to the bill?  Or a synopsysis of it from a non partisan source?

/Giltric-I agree they should be free


Here: This has an analysis and links to more.

I've made a lot of posts about it, I should have saved them.
 
2013-04-03 02:11:25 PM  

doglover: You're wrong and disingenuous.


I'm not wrong. Every year 30,000 people in this country die gun related deaths. That's a fact. You can choose not to count suicides, but that doesn't make those people any less dead, or the gun any less a part of the act.
 
2013-04-03 02:11:41 PM  

Uisce Beatha: Dusk-You-n-Me: doglover: But nothing. Suicides aren't caused by guns. Disingenuous statistics are disingenuous.

There's nothing disingenuous about it. More than 30,000 people die every year from gun violence. Some of those people die from gun suicides. Their death is not any less violent. They are not any less dead.

Blaming the method is not the route with suicides, though.  So, if we magically make guns inaccessible to people who are suicidal, and suffocation or pill suicides go up, what next, ban meds and ropes?

Instead, maybe look at the root cause?


Wrong.  Rates do not generally go up when you remove a handy source of suicide.
 
2013-04-03 02:12:26 PM  

doglover: cameroncrazy1984: doglover: Dusk-You-n-Me: Had that gun not been available, 90% of those people would not have taken their own life.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Do you know how hard it is to commit suicide without a gun?

As hard as jumping off a bridge.


Funny I don't have a bridge at my house. I do have a gun though and if I decided to kill myself it would be a lot easier to pull the trigger real quick than to go to a bridge, climb over the safety walls, and jump. Not to mention how much more likely it is I'd be stopped trying to jump off a bridge than shoot myself in the head.
 
2013-04-03 02:13:17 PM  

wee: I dig it! Pity they are so expensive to feed these days...


.357 Sig. Traded some .22 LR for a few boxes of target and PP.
 
2013-04-03 02:14:35 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Every year 30,000 people in this country die gun related deaths.


More than half commit suicide.

That's not a gun death, that's a suicide death.
 
2013-04-03 02:15:36 PM  
You just can't make this shiat up. Diana DeGette (D-Denver) the sponsor of the magazine ban in the US House doesn't seem to understand how they work. Link

She seems to think magazines come pre-loaded or something. Check out the video, 31 min. in for the gold.
 
2013-04-03 02:16:08 PM  

Big_Fat_Liar: If you were evaluating the safety of balconies, you would not include deaths from people who set out to kill themselves off of one.  Same for railroad crossings.  The gate doesn't need to be repaired just because 10 people choose to exercise their freedom of choice by using the train to end their lives.  Nobody else should be burdened with paying for extra building codes or being subjected to waiting periods for train tickets just because others happen to use a particular device for suicide over others.


Um, people are burdened by conforming to building codes all of the time. You're not going to stop every single determined person from killing themselves. OK. And? People still speed so we shouldn't have speed limits?

Jesus christ gun suicide statistics really drive you guys up the wall. Those people are dead. A gun was involved. It's OK to admit that. It's what happened. It's what is happening, every day, many many times a year.
 
2013-04-03 02:17:51 PM  

doglover: That's not a gun death, that's a suicide death.


With a gun. That person is not any less dead. A gun was not any less involved.

You guys are acting insane about this statistic. Wow.
 
2013-04-03 02:18:08 PM  

doglover: Dusk-You-n-Me: Every year 30,000 people in this country die gun related deaths.

More than half commit suicide.

That's not a gun death, that's a suicide death.


It was wrong and stupid the first time you said it. Why retype it? I hope you at least used control-c
 
2013-04-03 02:18:19 PM  

skozlaw: The ATF can't require gun shops to keep accurate inventory so inspections are of questionable usefulness.



I take it you've never had and FFL... because that's just laughable.

skozlaw: Can't keep records of who has what, that would be terrible


Actually, it would be against Federal law.

skozlaw: And, of course, there's the general attitude among a significant number of gun owners that the ATF is just some jack-booted government agency out to get them.


To be fair, they haven't done themselves any favors in attempting to not fulfill that stereotype.

skozlaw: 2. They spent 12 weeks screeching about mental health being the real issue, then when it was proposed that people who are diagnosed with certain illnesses that may make them a threat to themselves or others, the tune instantly changed to "that's just like guilty until proven innocent, we can't do anything like that!"


Huh?  Show me a major firearms supporter or gun rights organization that is against reforming the mental health system.

skozlaw: It's never "how can we keep dangerous people from obtaining guns",


You know the list of prohibited person was written in part by the guns rights lobby right?
 
2013-04-03 02:19:38 PM  
There is nothing more undemocratic than the violent disarmament of the electorate.
 
2013-04-03 02:19:46 PM  
Sorry about that extra bold post, Fark.

CoolHandLucas: As for the discussion of fuel excise taxes: the the right to interstate travel is not enumerated like the right to bear arms is.


It was enumerated in Article 4 of the Articles of Confederation and repeatedly confirmed under the Rights and Privileges clause by the SCOTUS.

CoolHandLucas: What if a man buys his girlfriend a handgun for her defense - does he pay the background check when he buys the pistol, then she pays to have one done when its 'transferred' to her?


Did her run a background check on her? No. Irresponsible. Also stupid, since fit and ability to handle recoil are personal, and, at best, pistols are unergonomic cudgels.

CoolHandLucas: If I allow a friend to use my rifle to go to a range, does that require a transfer?  What if he keeps it a day?  A month?  A year?


Did you run a background check on your friend? No? That's irresponsible.

CoolHandLucas: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because, under the current system, FFLs charge a fee for transfers and the accompanying NICS checks.  With background checks for all private transfers, you have essentially created a tax on the exercising of a enumerated right.


Fails cost condition.

Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.

Because every time I go out of town on business, my firearms are legally "transferred" to my wife since she is the person in custody and control of them, even if they are all locked securely in a safe and I take the key with me..  Since I am a firearms instructor, I currently have 40+ firearms.  As you can imagine, there might be a problem if I were required to do a background check each time one of those firearms was transferred.  40+ transfers 10 to 15 times a year might be considered by some to be chilling on my 2nd Amendment rights.  Even if I owned just one firearm, having to run background checks on my wife 10 to 15 times a year would be an issue.


Ridiculous on its face. Ignores the rights inherent to marriage.

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.

For me, it is not the checks themselves are bad.  It is the likely manipulation of the system that presents problems.  The system could be used to create a registry which I do not support, and the program could be manipulated in order to price normal folks from even using the system.


Fails paranoia test.

Original conditions:

demaL-demaL-yeH: Difficulty: Cannot resort to paranoia or claim that background checks ban transfers to mentally healthy noncriminals to fill in the blank.
NB: If you want to object on cost grounds: Are federal excise taxes on fuel (the right to interstate travel is constitutionally guaranteed) constitutional?

 
2013-04-03 02:20:11 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Uisce Beatha: Blaming the method is not the route with suicides, though.

I didn't blame the method, I posted a statistic.


Oh, a statistic!  Then I guess we are all done here.
 
2013-04-03 02:21:21 PM  

Uisce Beatha: Oh, a statistic!


Right, a statistic. I wasn't blaming the method. Okay then.
 
2013-04-03 02:21:29 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: People still speed so we shouldn't have speed limits?


Well that's just stupid.  We obviously need MORE speed limits if people are still speeding.  We don't need to worry about enforcing the existing speed limits, we need to make additional laws that say speeding is illegal!
 
2013-04-03 02:22:51 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: My new ride.


[i1123.photobucket.com image 850x634]


It's not a .22. Doesn't that make it too loose?
 
2013-04-03 02:23:12 PM  

skozlaw: Here are the key points at which I begin to diverge substantially from certain other gun owners:

1. It's always "enforce the laws we have" with them, but when you point out that the ATF is understaffed, they don't want to hire agents. The ATF can't require gun shops to keep accurate inventory so inspections are of questionable usefulness. Can't keep records of who has what, that would be terrible. And, of course, there's the general attitude among a significant number of gun owners that the ATF is just some jack-booted government agency out to get them.


If the ATF actually tried to do their job, it might help. Consider, one of their primary duties is handling paperwork - which is currently at an 8 month backlog. When they do get resources, they seem apt to spend them on big flash stuff like Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Fast and Furious. So even when trying to be flash they fark it up. If they spent time handing paperwork and inspecting things and tracking down straw purchasers and stuff, it'd be a no brainer.

2. They spent 12 weeks screeching about mental health being the real issue, then when it was proposed that people who are diagnosed with certain illnesses that may make them a threat to themselves or others, the tune instantly changed to "that's just like guilty until proven innocent, we can't do anything like that!"

Well honestly, 1 in ten Americans are currently on antidepressants, 1 in four have been in the past - so if you say 'any mental health problems, no guns' you have some massive overreach.Okay, what if you were suicidal for a bit, but its been 10 years and you're fit as a fiddle - should you get your rights back? Who determines what and when there is 'too much' mental illness? Also, could it make people less likely to seek care if they think their rights will be abrogated?

It is a more complex issue than just guns, the entire mental health system and our attitudes to mental health need to change, drastically.
 3. Why is it that virtually every time they talk about their proposed "solutions" to gun violence, the step at which they want to start is a maniac already on the loose shooting at people? It's never "how can we keep dangerous people from obtaining guns", it's always "a dangerous person has a gun, how can we stop him?"


Really, the question should be 'how do we keep people from wanting to do harm?' Because if they don't have guns, they might start a fire, or crash an airplane or something. Revamping mental health care might be a good first step.

Gun proponents don't want to acknowledge the problem and they don't want to be part of the solution and that's all there is to it. That's the only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from their rhetoric.

Its clear that 'gun control' advocates don't want to acknowledge the problem of homicidal maniacs, and instead insist that guns generate some kind of murder-field that makes people more deadly and willing to kill.
 
2013-04-03 02:23:14 PM  

GanjSmokr: Well that's just stupid.


His argument was stupid, which is why I pointed it out with this analogy.
 
2013-04-03 02:23:36 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: . I wasn't blaming the method.


Then you agree it's immaterial if a gun was used or a razor or a bridge.
 
2013-04-03 02:25:02 PM  

GanjSmokr: Well that's just stupid.  We obviously need MORE speed limits if people are still speeding.  We don't need to worry about enforcing the existing speed limits, we need to make additional laws that say speeding is illegal!


Or, you know, alternatively, we could make sure that all roads have posted speed limits so people don't get confused.

/Sometimes the analogy gets away from you.
 
2013-04-03 02:25:57 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: And the inexorable expansion of State-sponsored violence marches on.

So society's right to self defense trumps the individual's right to self defense, because once nobody is safe, EVERYONE will be safe. But first, it will be enforced by...you guessed it, men with guns showing up to assault and disarm you, backed by a license to murder.

Don't be confused, gun control advocates LOVE guns, but only in the hands of the privileged.


FYI, "But I may need them to shoot cops" isn't as compelling an argument against gun control as you think it is.....
 
2013-04-03 02:26:00 PM  
Some people kill themselves with guns, so you can't have a gun citizen.  While you're here, give me your car keys, your pocket knife, your belt, your shoe laces.....
 
2013-04-03 02:26:12 PM  

doglover: Then you agree it's immaterial if a gun was used or a razor or a bridge.


Half of 30,000 people killing themselves with a gun isn't immaterial. It's a number we should try to reduce.
 
2013-04-03 02:26:15 PM  

BayouOtter: liam76: Giltric: In the proposed UBC legislation the fee for background checks is set by the AG. that could be an amount anywhere between free and 20 brazillion dollars. It will probably be closer to 20 brazillion dollars thus putting firearms ownership out of reach of all but the elitists who can buy and sell senators as well as firearms.

BayouOtter: Actually the Universal Background check bill proposed by Schumer would do this. Assuming he is out of town for more than 7 days

Do either of you have a link to the bill?  Or a synopsysis of it from a non partisan source?

/Giltric-I agree they should be free

Here: This has an analysis and links to more.

I've made a lot of posts about it, I should have saved them.


He seems to be full of shiat, as ar the links he rests on.  They imply you must fill out a from within 24 hours of a gun being lost/stolen, whent he law says you must only "report it" within 24 hours of "knowing about it".  I make a phone call and I have reported on it.

They lie and say if you hand a gun to a friend to shoot it is crime, even though page 12 calls that out as an exemption from a "transfer".  Aslo as long as the gun stays in yoru house it isn't a "transfer".  YOu can gift to your kids, and wife and it is not a transfer.
 
2013-04-03 02:26:23 PM  

doglover: Dusk-You-n-Me: . I wasn't blaming the method.

Then you agree it's immaterial if a gun was used or a razor or a bridge.


It is immaterial after it is done. It is not immaterial if we want to prevent suicides.
 
2013-04-03 02:28:08 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Half of 30,000 people killing themselves with a gun isn't immaterial.


Or realistic. 15,000 killed themselves with guns. 15,000 were killed by others.

Stop being disingenuous and maybe we can have a dialogue.
 
2013-04-03 02:30:10 PM  

sammyk: Funny how you guys always run to the AWB that is never going to happen. Do you not support universal background checks? If not why? Difficulty:There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.


There IS a list. I found that out when a Pennsylvania State Police trooper told me every firearm I own. The list is composed of every firearm purchased with a background check. Remember, Pennsylvania doesn't have registration. Yet there it was, a comprehensive compilation of everything I have.

You know what? I don't have a problem with that. I am in favor of 100% background checks, for two reasons: First, it will help, if only in a small way, to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. My concern is what we will have to do about the firearms we already have, but it's a small concern. All of mine have checks and records of the checks to go with them. The idea of a list does not concern me, because to confiscate the weapons they also have to abrogate the 4th Amendment, and the ACLU and others will put the kibosh on that.

Second, it will get the gun-control people to shut the hell up about the so-called "gun show loophole", which was neither confined to gun shows nor was a loophole. if they had wanted private sales covered they would have written it that way. But let's let it go away. One less rallying cry for the gun-control people, and it's such a small thing that we can hand it to them.
 
2013-04-03 02:30:21 PM  
Lets let the suicide experts weigh in here.

http://www.afsp.org/advocacy-public-policy/state-policy/access-to-fi re arms-for-persons-at-risk-for-suicide

Access to Firearms for Persons At Risk for Suicide

AFSP supports efforts to reduce access to firearms for persons who are at risk for suicide. These include gun safety policies, targeted education and outreach, and voluntary programs in partnership with gun owners.

Firearms are used in over half of all completed suicides in the United States, and firearm suicides outnumber firearm homicides almost 2 to 1.  AFSP therefore includes reducing access to firearms for persons at risk for suicide as part of our overall policy approach for reducing suicide.

Reducing access to firearms for persons at risk for suicide works by giving those individuals and the people who care for them something they desperately need - TIME - time to change their minds, time for someone to intervene, and time to seek help.

AFSP encourages the voluntary safe storage of firearms, works with the gun owning community to incorporate suicide prevention into existing gun safety efforts, and works to eliminate barriers to mental health care, among other efforts.
 
2013-04-03 02:30:48 PM  

GanjSmokr: Dusk-You-n-Me: People still speed so we shouldn't have speed limits?

Well that's just stupid.  We obviously need MORE speed limits if people are still speeding.  We don't need to worry about enforcing the existing speed limits, we need to make additional laws that say speeding is illegal!


Well, speeding can be very dangerous.  If we as a society felt that the ratio of deaths to utilization and benefit was too high (meaning if the number of people who died from speeding compared to the number of people who speed and the benefit speeding provides), we could take steps to mitigate that, such as Speed limiters which would prevent the vehicle from exceeding a certain MPH.  We could also use GPS monitoring devices that could record or even transfer velocity information to authorities.

That said, speed doesn't seem to have a very strong correlation to highway death rates or they wouldn't be increasing speed limits in many areas, such as Ohio.
 
2013-04-03 02:31:06 PM  

doglover: 15,000 killed themselves with guns.


Hey, progress!

doglover: 15,000 were killed by others.


With guns.

doglover: Stop being disingenuous and maybe we can have a dialogue.


I'm not so maybe we shouldn't bother.
 
2013-04-03 02:35:44 PM  
The anti background check/registration argument is fundamentally rooted in conspiracy theory and slippery slope scaremongering.

But the liberals are making emotion based arguments. Sure.
 
2013-04-03 02:38:50 PM  
liam76:Did you run a background check on your friend? No? That's irresponsible.

How, exactly, do you find it "irresponsible"?

Would you find it less "irresponsible" if I told you said friend had previously been vetted by DHS and FBI and allowed to carry firearms onboard airliners as a federal agent?

Would you find it more "irresponsible" if it was just some guy that drove a truck for a living?

And for the record, I'm not skeered of Bammer and his jack-booted homeland security thugs (note the dripping sarcasm) coming to grab my guns as a result of background checks: I own a Title II device, they already know who and where I am.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-04-03 02:41:42 PM  

PDid: The anti background check/registration argument is fundamentally rooted in conspiracy theory and slippery slope scaremongering.

But the liberals are making emotion based arguments. Sure.


I fail to understand how something like, "I want stricter gun control so fewer people die each year," gets turned into "Gun Control advocates want to disarm the populace."  That is very black and white thinking.  I highly doubt that most gun control advocates want to completely disarm anyone, but if banning certain types of weapons, or requiring more background checks, or some form of registration could make a dent in those numbers, don't we owe it to our neighbors, our families, and ourselves to at least try?  If it sucks we can get rid of it.
 
2013-04-03 02:45:30 PM  

Tomahawk513: PDid: The anti background check/registration argument is fundamentally rooted in conspiracy theory and slippery slope scaremongering.

But the liberals are making emotion based arguments. Sure.

I fail to understand how something like, "I want stricter gun control so fewer people die each year," gets turned into "Gun Control advocates want to disarm the populace."  That is very black and white thinking.  I highly doubt that most gun control advocates want to completely disarm anyone, but if banning certain types of weapons, or requiring more background checks, or some form of registration could make a dent in those numbers, don't we owe it to our neighbors, our families, and ourselves to at least try?  If it sucks we can get rid of it.


80,000 people a year die from alcohol.  What are you willing to give up to reduce that number?
 
2013-04-03 02:45:34 PM  

CoolHandLucas: liam76:Did you run a background check on your friend? No? That's irresponsible.


I didn't say that, I don't know why you quoted me.
 
2013-04-03 02:46:05 PM  

Tomahawk513: I fail to understand how something like, "I want stricter gun control so fewer people die each year," gets turned into "Gun Control advocates want to disarm the populace."


Here's your answer:

PDid: The anti background check/registration argument is fundamentally rooted in conspiracy theory and slippery slope scaremongering.


It's happened several times in this very thread.
 
2013-04-03 02:48:45 PM  
liam76:
He seems to be full of shiat, as ar the links he rests on.  They imply you must fill out a from within 24 hours of a gun being lost/stolen, whent he law says you must only "report it" within 24 hours of "knowing about it".  I make a phone call and I have reported on it.

Just make sure you call the attorney general!

It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses or owns a firearm that has been shipped or transported in, or has been possessed in or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce, to fail to report the theft or  loss of the firearm, within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to 19  the appropriate local authorities.


They lie and say if you hand a gun to a friend to shoot it is crime, even though page 12 calls that out as an exemption from a "transfer".

Actually:
For purposes of this subsection, the term 'transfer'- ''
(A) shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition; and
(B) shall not include temporary possession of 10 the firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee while in the presence 12 of the prospective transferee.

So a transfer is any form of possession: in your 'hand a gun to a friend to shoot it' scenario, you have just loaned it, a transfer.

Paragraph (1) [BG checks] shall not apply to -
''(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if -
''(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;  [In your house or the immediate area, such as the porch]
"(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
''(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and
''(D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title made in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs-
''(i) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation
purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range; [Better make sure the range has an incorporation statement that fits this.]
''(ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition; and [Shooting sports, take note]
''(iii) while hunting or trapping, if
"(I) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm; the temporary transfer of possession occurs during the designated hunting season; and
''(III) the unlicensed transferee holds any required license or permit.

Can you make sense of that? I don't see the exceptions for your friend to shoot your rifle unless you check incorporation statements, go to a competition, have a shooting range in your basement, etc.

And really, with all the and statements and structure, it seems like you can't do anything at all anyhow because you can't let a transfer happen outside your home in any case. This is supposed to be reasonable law?

  Also as long as the gun stays in your house it isn't a "transfer".

''(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and

You can gift to your kids, and wife and it is not a transfer.

They are a 'transfer', but the gifting process might allow them to avoid the background requirement.
If you want to play chicken with a Federal prosecutor over whether ten back-and-forth exchanges with the wife are "bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or be tween grandparents and their grandchildren;" with felonies and prison time hanging over your head, be my guest.

Of course, gay folks like me who can't get married are out of farking luck.
 
2013-04-03 02:49:12 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Tomahawk513: PDid: The anti background check/registration argument is fundamentally rooted in conspiracy theory and slippery slope scaremongering.

But the liberals are making emotion based arguments. Sure.

I fail to understand how something like, "I want stricter gun control so fewer people die each year," gets turned into "Gun Control advocates want to disarm the populace."  That is very black and white thinking.  I highly doubt that most gun control advocates want to completely disarm anyone, but if banning certain types of weapons, or requiring more background checks, or some form of registration could make a dent in those numbers, don't we owe it to our neighbors, our families, and ourselves to at least try?  If it sucks we can get rid of it.

80,000 people a year die from alcohol.  What are you willing to give up to reduce that number?


Well, I'd be willing to install vehicle interlock devices into every new car.  I'd be willing to give up Flaming Dr. Peppers and ban alcohol over a certain proof.  I'd be willing to limit the amount of alcohol one could purchase at one time.  Those are a few examples that I think I could live with.  What would you be willing to give up to make a dent in gun-related deaths?
 
2013-04-03 02:50:32 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Tomahawk513: PDid: The anti background check/registration argument is fundamentally rooted in conspiracy theory and slippery slope scaremongering.

But the liberals are making emotion based arguments. Sure.

I fail to understand how something like, "I want stricter gun control so fewer people die each year," gets turned into "Gun Control advocates want to disarm the populace."  That is very black and white thinking.  I highly doubt that most gun control advocates want to completely disarm anyone, but if banning certain types of weapons, or requiring more background checks, or some form of registration could make a dent in those numbers, don't we owe it to our neighbors, our families, and ourselves to at least try?  If it sucks we can get rid of it.

80,000 people a year die from alcohol.  What are you willing to give up to reduce that number?


Your guns?
 
2013-04-03 02:51:02 PM  

ha-ha-guy: As a gun owner, what I'm really torn in is how much federal regulation I want regarding guns.  On one hand the fact that various states have varying laws is a giant pain in my ass in terms of figuring out whether my carry permit is recongized or I need to go lock it in the trunk for transport, it's an annoying balkanization of rules and legs.  On the other hand the fact that the 2nd Amendment talks about states having the power to regulate the bearing of arms, as opposed to the Feds, can be a useful check.

What I'd really like is a gun license.  Either the state or the federal government issues me a piece of plastic that says "Ha-ha-guy can buy guns, ammo, and carry them".  Once I have this piece of plastic I can stop by the gun store on the way home and fill my trunk with AR-15s if I want, no hassle.  Perhaps if the Feds were issuing said card it could also grant me CCW perks in all 50 states in one fell swoop.  It could serve as the thing that lets me buy the guns and carry them.

Now getting this piece of plastic should of course be somewhat difficult. You have to pass a test to drive, why not have one for guns?  Show up with a piece of paper from your family doctor saying you're not a crazy son of a biatch, do the gun safety test, perhaps get a basic background check, wait a bit, then you are issued your piece of plastic.  There can also be a renewal required tied in, so when you end up 80 and senile, walk into the office to renew the permit, the state can go "Oh shiat" and tell your kids to take your damn guns or they'll send the sheriff over to do it themselves.  Plus the gun permit could be medically linked somehow (laws permitting) so if you get diagnosed as a paranoid or something a flag is raised and the guns are taken.  We could have some kind of rule where if a doctor decides your nuts the police get to take the guns, but before anything is done with the guns (beside the cops locking them in their armory) the whole thing is sorted out before a judge and ...


You've more or less described gun control in Canada. There are a few points where we are less restrictive than what you have proposed (no need for license to buy parts or cleaning kits, just need it for firearms and loaded ammunition), and a couple of places where you have proposed things that would never be allowed (temporary permits).
 
2013-04-03 02:52:03 PM  

CoolHandLucas: How, exactly, do you find it "irresponsible"?

Would you find it less "irresponsible" if I told you said friend had previously been vetted by DHS and FBI and allowed to carry firearms onboard airliners as a federal agent?

Would you find it more "irresponsible" if it was just some guy that drove a truck for a living?


How? Handing a bullet launcher over to somebody without knowing whether that person is a criminal or mentally ill and letting that person walk away with it is irresponsible.
 
2013-04-03 02:52:34 PM  

Tomahawk513: PDid: The anti background check/registration argument is fundamentally rooted in conspiracy theory and slippery slope scaremongering.

But the liberals are making emotion based arguments. Sure.

I fail to understand how something like, "I want stricter gun control so fewer people die each year," gets turned into "Gun Control advocates want to disarm the populace."


Probably because they say stuff like "If I had the votes, I would tell them to turn in them all [guns]in." and such things.


That is very black and white thinking.  I highly doubt that most gun control advocates want to completely disarm anyone, but if banning certain types of weapons, or requiring more background checks, or some form of registration could make a dent in those numbers,
don't we owe it to our neighbors, our families, and ourselves to at least try?  If it sucks we can get rid of it.


You're advancing a really big 'could' there. I don't think its proper to shred rights for a 'maybe' or a 'could be'. If you want to do that, go all the way, put everyone in concrete cells and pipe in reality TV, medical care, and food. We'd be a lot safer without heart disease, traffic accidents and alcohol.
 
2013-04-03 02:55:37 PM  

BayouOtter: I don't think its proper to shred rights for a 'maybe' or a 'could be'.


Background checks don't shred rights. And we're not talking about maybe or could be, we're talking about what is happening. 30K gun related deaths annually in this country.
 
2013-04-03 02:56:00 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Tomahawk513: PDid: The anti background check/registration argument is fundamentally rooted in conspiracy theory and slippery slope scaremongering.

But the liberals are making emotion based arguments. Sure.

I fail to understand how something like, "I want stricter gun control so fewer people die each year," gets turned into "Gun Control advocates want to disarm the populace."  That is very black and white thinking.  I highly doubt that most gun control advocates want to completely disarm anyone, but if banning certain types of weapons, or requiring more background checks, or some form of registration could make a dent in those numbers, don't we owe it to our neighbors, our families, and ourselves to at least try?  If it sucks we can get rid of it.

80,000 people a year die from alcohol.  What are you willing to give up to reduce that number?


I'll offer this quote in response:
"No, but we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties, charge bartenders for serving drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question, and we do all those things because it might just help bring drunk driving rates down - I don't know - by 2/3s in a few decades." - J. Stewart
 
2013-04-03 02:56:46 PM  
BayouOtter:

You're advancing a really big 'could' there. I don't think its proper to shred rights for a 'maybe' or a 'could be'. If you want to do that, go all the way, put everyone in concrete cells and pipe in reality TV, medical care, and food. We'd be a lot safer without heart disease, traffic accidents and alcohol.

Black-and-white thinking, case in point.  You're equating being inconvenienced, or giving up a small portion of a right, with giving up all rights.  Thank you for illustrating my point.  And like I said, if it sucks, we can always get rid of it.
 
2013-04-03 02:59:19 PM  

BayouOtter: liam76:
He seems to be full of shiat, as ar the links he rests on. They imply you must fill out a from within 24 hours of a gun being lost/stolen, whent he law says you must only "report it" within 24 hours of "knowing about it". I make a phone call and I have reported on it.

Just make sure you call the attorney general!


They also mentionthe authorities.  You call the cops, you are good.  If you are really concerned that they would get you on not contacting the AG, you can shoot him an email.


BayouOtter: Paragraph (1) [BG checks] shall not apply to -
''(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if -
''(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor; [In your house or the immediate area, such as the porch]
"(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
''(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and The following "D" denotes a new section the previous (iii) dosn't apply.
''(D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title made in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs-
''(i) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation
purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range; [Better make sure the range has an incorporation statement that fits this.]
''(ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition; and [Shooting sports, take note] -no "and" for the next section
''(iii) while hunting or trapping, if
"(I) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm; the temporary transfer of possession occurs during the designated hunting season; and
''(III) the unlicensed transferee holds any required license or permit.


BayouOtter: Can you make sense of that? I don't see the exceptions for your friend to shoot your rifle unless you check incorporation statements, go to a competition, have a shooting range in your basement, etc.

And really, with all the and statements and structure, it seems like you can't do anything at all anyhow because you can't let a transfer happen outside your home in any case. This is supposed to be reasonable law?


The exemption is if you they are out hunting.

A reasonable law?  No.  They need a few more exemptions, but it is a reasonable starting point.
 
2013-04-03 02:59:39 PM  

Tomahawk513: Well, I'd be willing to install vehicle interlock devices into every new car.  I'd be willing to give up Flaming Dr. Peppers and ban alcohol over a certain proof.  I'd be willing to limit the amount of alcohol one could purchase at one time.  Those are a few examples that I think I could live with.  What would you be willing to give up to make a dent in gun-related deaths?


Vehicle locks can be disabled.  Even if the rest of your solutions did work, they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.  Aren't you willing to do just a little more to put in even more of a dent to that number?
 
2013-04-03 02:59:57 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: I'll offer this quote in response:
"No, but we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties, charge bartenders for serving drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question, and we do all those things because it might just help bring drunk driving rates down - I don't know - by 2/3s in a few decades." - J. Stewart


Boom. We've managed to reduce both DUIs and the rates of smoking in this country through legislation, policy, and public awareness. But somehow the greatest most wealthiest country in the world is uniquely helpless to even attempt to reduce gun violence. A-mazing.
 
2013-04-03 03:00:50 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.


That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.
 
2013-04-03 03:01:49 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: BayouOtter: I don't think its proper to shred rights for a 'maybe' or a 'could be'.

Background checks don't shred rights.


We were talking about 'gun control' in general, but the currently proposed Universal Background system is right-shredding, as discussed. Book and religion control are just as bad.

And we're not talking about maybe or could be, we're talking about what is happening. 30K gun related deaths annually in this country.


Mind sourcing your numbers? I have some FBI numbers from 2011 showing firearm homicides at about 8.5K, so that means there were 22,000 suicides and accidental deaths. Where did you get those numbers (30k) from?

Oh, and maybe the fact that suicide racked up almost 3 times the homicide rate (with your numbers), maybe its really suicide prevention we should focus on first? I'm pretty sure we don;t have to attack the Bill of Rights for that.
 
2013-04-03 03:01:59 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: I'll offer this quote in response:
"No, but we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties, charge bartenders for serving drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question, and we do all those things because it might just help bring drunk driving rates down - I don't know - by 2/3s in a few decades." - J. Stewart


But clearly if alcohol is still about 5x as deadly as a firearm is, this isn't enough, right?  Why does anyone NEED alcohol in the first place?  Let me guess, you have a small penis and you need alcohol to get girls to sleep with you...
 
2013-04-03 03:02:39 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: demaL-demaL-yeH: I'll offer this quote in response:
"No, but we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties, charge bartenders for serving drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question, and we do all those things because it might just help bring drunk driving rates down - I don't know - by 2/3s in a few decades." - J. Stewart

Boom. We've managed to reduce both DUIs and the rates of smoking in this country through legislation, policy, and public awareness. But somehow the greatest most wealthiest country in the world is uniquely helpless to even attempt to reduce gun violence. A-mazing.


Or manage to provide universal health insurance coverage, even though we spend almost twice as much per capita as the next country.
 
2013-04-03 03:05:01 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.


But current laws for guns have already curbed fatalities.  Sure we haven't reached 100%, but there appears to be no set goal in mind for the gun control advocates.  You're less likely to be in a mass shooting than you are to be killed by drowning, so why are you pushing for more limits?  What is the magic number of deaths per year that is acceptable to you?
 
2013-04-03 03:05:25 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Paschal: So what's the difference between a magazine and a clip?

The proper term is clip.  Whenever someone says magazine then you know that this is not a real gun owner so then you can just ignore whatever they say about guns.  Would you care what someone thought about cars if they said "gas pedal"?  No, you would not.


Umm, http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7l0HfFxRPl4AUiNXNyoA?p=303%20 e nfield%20detachable%20magazine&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-900
 
2013-04-03 03:05:33 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Tomahawk513: Well, I'd be willing to install vehicle interlock devices into every new car.  I'd be willing to give up Flaming Dr. Peppers and ban alcohol over a certain proof.  I'd be willing to limit the amount of alcohol one could purchase at one time.  Those are a few examples that I think I could live with.  What would you be willing to give up to make a dent in gun-related deaths?

Vehicle locks can be disabled.  Even if the rest of your solutions did work, they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.  Aren't you willing to do just a little more to put in even more of a dent to that number?


You have not answered the question.  I answered your question, it's now your turn to answer mine.  What would you be willing to give up to make a dent in gun-related deaths?

/It's absolutely brainless to demand that a solution be effective 100% of the time, or solve 100% of the problem.
 
2013-04-03 03:06:22 PM  

liam76: I didn't say that, I don't know why you quoted me.


Because I FAIL at the new Fark commenter thingie.

My bad...
 
2013-04-03 03:07:05 PM  

BayouOtter: Mind sourcing your numbers?


2011: 32,1635
2010: 31,6726
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874

Link

In the last twenty-four years, an average of 32,300 Americans died each year from firearm injuries. Link, .pdf
 
2013-04-03 03:07:18 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.


Well, what exactly is the goal?

With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".  At what point will people decide that we're finally safe enough?
 
2013-04-03 03:07:29 PM  
Easy for them to say
Their hearts have never been broken
Their pride has never been stolen
Not yet
Not yet
Not yet
 
2013-04-03 03:09:07 PM  

GanjSmokr: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.

Well, what exactly is the goal?

With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".  At what point will people decide that we're finally safe enough?


I'm gonna say its somewhere between 0 and 30,000
 
2013-04-03 03:09:57 PM  

liam76: BayouOtter: liam76:
He seems to be full of shiat, as ar the links he rests on. They imply you must fill out a from within 24 hours of a gun being lost/stolen, whent he law says you must only "report it" within 24 hours of "knowing about it". I make a phone call and I have reported on it.

Just make sure you call the attorney general!

They also mention the authorities.  You call the cops, you are good.  If you are really concerned that they would get you on not contacting the AG, you can shoot him an email.


Page 14, line 17
within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.''

You can't just 'call the cops'. I really hope you don't go on a week-long trip and lose your gun - you've got 24 hours to get back to civilization or you get slapped with a felony. (You also can't just report things over the phone, there are papers to sign and statements to make that require being face to face with officers.)

The exemption is if you they are out hunting.

No, its legal if it is the season and the other fellow has all his licenses with him. No mention of hunting game that has no fixed season, which is nice. Also, if the and portions from Section C applies (You claim it doesn't, but then I ask why 'and' is there. Do you have a legal background or citation? Without it, it is unclear) you better be on your home and curtilage.


Tomahawk513: Black-and-white thinking, case in point.  You're equating being inconvenienced, or giving up a small portion of a right, with giving up all rights.  Thank you for illustrating my point.  And like I said, if it sucks, we can always get rid of it.


If you steal a penny, you're as much a thief as if you steal a hundred bucks. 'Giving up a little bit' of a right is no different than all of it. And if we can legislate away one amendment, whats to stop the rest from being legislated away?
 
2013-04-03 03:10:15 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: But current laws for guns have already curbed fatalities.  Sure we haven't reached 100%, but there appears to be no set goal in mind for the gun control advocates.  You're less likely to be in a mass shooting than you are to be killed by drowning, so why are you pushing for more limits?  What is the magic number of deaths per year that is acceptable to you?


Now that we agree gun control policies can reduce gun related deaths, we're just haggling over price. I understand that the number of gun-related deaths in the country will never be zero per year. That's an unrealistic goal. I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.
 
2013-04-03 03:10:24 PM  

CoolHandLucas: liam76: I didn't say that, I don't know why you quoted me.

Because I FAIL at the new Fark commenter thingie.

My bad...


Now orries.

There is a button to make it switch back to the old version, I wish you could set it to default...
 
2013-04-03 03:10:59 PM  

GanjSmokr: With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".


Less than 30,000 a year. As I stated before, I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.
 
2013-04-03 03:12:08 PM  

Tomahawk513: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Tomahawk513: Well, I'd be willing to install vehicle interlock devices into every new car.  I'd be willing to give up Flaming Dr. Peppers and ban alcohol over a certain proof.  I'd be willing to limit the amount of alcohol one could purchase at one time.  Those are a few examples that I think I could live with.  What would you be willing to give up to make a dent in gun-related deaths?

Vehicle locks can be disabled.  Even if the rest of your solutions did work, they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.  Aren't you willing to do just a little more to put in even more of a dent to that number?

You have not answered the question.  I answered your question, it's now your turn to answer mine.  What would you be willing to give up to make a dent in gun-related deaths?

/It's absolutely brainless to demand that a solution be effective 100% of the time, or solve 100% of the problem.


No more than we already have.  I think that since we have fewer fatalities from firearms, than we do from alcoholic beverages shows we're doing a fantastic job as far as firearm safety is concerned.
 
2013-04-03 03:12:26 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: demaL-demaL-yeH: I'll offer this quote in response:
"No, but we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties, charge bartenders for serving drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question, and we do all those things because it might just help bring drunk driving rates down - I don't know - by 2/3s in a few decades." - J. Stewart

But clearly if alcohol is still about 5x as deadly as a firearm is, this isn't enough, right?  Why does anyone NEED alcohol in the first place?  Let me guess, you have a small penis and you need alcohol to get girls to sleep with you...


It's an all or nothing kind of thing for you. My perspective is that reducing the occurrence of Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) is a Very Good Thing(TM).
Certainly, we should look at better identification and medical treatment for alcoholics.
/Are you a closeted size queen? You seem to be obsessed with my penis. (Well, it seems to accompany obsessions with firearms.)
//One other note: Inebriated people cannot consent to sex.
 
2013-04-03 03:12:54 PM  

BayouOtter: Tomahawk513: Black-and-white thinking, case in point.  You're equating being inconvenienced, or giving up a small portion of a right, with giving up all rights.  Thank you for illustrating my point.  And like I said, if it sucks, we can always get rid of it.

If you steal a penny, you're as much a thief as if you steal a hundred bucks. 'Giving up a little bit' of a right is no different than all of it. And if we can legislate away one amendment, whats to stop the rest from being legislated away?


Incorrect.  We have given up the right to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater, yet we have not lost the right to free speech.
 
2013-04-03 03:13:20 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: sammyk: Funny how you guys always run to the AWB that is never going to happen. Do you not support universal background checks? If not why? Difficulty:There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

There IS a list. I found that out when a Pennsylvania State Police trooper told me every firearm I own. The list is composed of every firearm purchased with a background check. Remember, Pennsylvania doesn't have registration. Yet there it was, a comprehensive compilation of everything I have.

You know what? I don't have a problem with that. I am in favor of 100% background checks, for two reasons: First, it will help, if only in a small way, to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. My concern is what we will have to do about the firearms we already have, but it's a small concern. All of mine have checks and records of the checks to go with them. The idea of a list does not concern me, because to confiscate the weapons they also have to abrogate the 4th Amendment, and the ACLU and others will put the kibosh on that.

Second, it will get the gun-control people to shut the hell up about the so-called "gun show loophole", which was neither confined to gun shows nor was a loophole. if they had wanted private sales covered they would have written it that way. But let's let it go away. One less rallying cry for the gun-control people, and it's such a small thing that we can hand it to them.


I find any database or list like that troubling for any reason, not just firearms. I feel there should be a compeling reason for any level of government to keep personal details on its citizens. For instance I am ok with them keeping a DB on pistol permits or CCW. Law enforcement has a legitemite need to verify the authenticity of any documentation you provide them if you encounter them. They DO NOT have a need to know what kind of hardware you have. I would preferstate governments do the same as NICS and destroy the record of successful purchases in a certain timeframe. The background check has served it purpose and I can not think of a compelling reason to keep it that does not shiat all over your privacy.

For me it's just a simple privacy issue. If we ever get to the point that the govt is confiscating firearms this little experiment is over anyway. I just do not see it happening. But I have a small libertarian streak when it comes to matters of privacy.

I disagree with your second point. We should not be enacting laws for the purpose of shutting whiners up. And there are plenty of whiners on both sides of the gun debate. Thanks for not being one and actually being willing to engage in honest debate. That's getting rare on fark.
 
2013-04-03 03:14:11 PM  

BayouOtter: If you steal a penny, you're as much a thief as if you steal a hundred bucks. 'Giving up a little bit' of a right is no different than all of it. And if we can legislate away one amendment, whats to stop the rest from being legislated away?


That is the slippery slope argument that I bet $1000 Obama lectured on at U of Chicago as a valid concern where Constitutional rights are concerned, but now is a non-issue when he is advocating curtailing your rights.

/my Con Law prof used the old 'Camel's nose under the tent' analogy
 
2013-04-03 03:14:26 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: But current laws for guns have already curbed fatalities.  Sure we haven't reached 100%, but there appears to be no set goal in mind for the gun control advocates.  You're less likely to be in a mass shooting than you are to be killed by drowning, so why are you pushing for more limits?  What is the magic number of deaths per year that is acceptable to you?

Now that we agree gun control policies can reduce gun related deaths, we're just haggling over price. I understand that the number of gun-related deaths in the country will never be zero per year. That's an unrealistic goal. I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.


You cannot compare other nations to ours.  The do not have the same levels of social and economic diversity as we do.  Guns aren't the sole factor to violence.  If they were, you could drop a crate of bazookas into a stadium of brain surgeons and wind up with a blood bath, the fact is though, that nothing would happen.
 
2013-04-03 03:14:57 PM  

BayouOtter: Really, the question should be 'how do we keep people from wanting to do harm?'


No, there shouldn't be a single "the question". They're all valid questions and require valid responses.  Minimizing the impact of gun violence is going to require a layered approach that starts with helping people who need help, keeping people who can't be helped from becoming armed, and being prepared to deal with those who manage to get armed anyway once it's otherwise too late. If you're not willing to address all three of those issues, you're not willing to address the problem seriously.

And you can mince about with that histrionic crap you posted at the end of your comment all you like, it's just histrionic crap meant to demonize your opponent in lieu of any valid point. Nobody has ever advanced the argument that guns have some mystical power about them that makes people kill other people, that's just the sort of stupid strawman rhetoric gun proponents invent because they want to paint their opposition as nutty instead of using logical, valid arguments based on objective facts and reasoned opinions.

Despite being misguided in their approach to the specifics, gun control advocates are still the only side of this debate that seems to want to address all facets of the problem.
 
2013-04-03 03:15:46 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: But current laws for guns have already curbed fatalities.  Sure we haven't reached 100%, but there appears to be no set goal in mind for the gun control advocates.  You're less likely to be in a mass shooting than you are to be killed by drowning, so why are you pushing for more limits?  What is the magic number of deaths per year that is acceptable to you?

Now that we agree gun control policies can reduce gun related deaths, we're just haggling over price. I understand that the number of gun-related deaths in the country will never be zero per year. That's an unrealistic goal. I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.

You cannot compare other nations to ours.  The do not have the same levels of social and economic diversity as we do.  Guns aren't the sole factor to violence.  If they were, you could drop a crate of bazookas into a stadium of brain surgeons and wind up with a blood bath, the fact is though, that nothing would happen.


www.walkoffwalk.com
 
2013-04-03 03:15:48 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: How? Handing a bullet launcher over to somebody without knowing whether that person is a criminal or mentally ill and letting that person walk away with it is irresponsible.


"Bullet launcher"..nice imagery there.
 But you failed to note how is it irresponsible.  After all, is it irresponsible to hand over a gas guzzler to somebody without knowing whether that person is a drunk or drug user or human trafficker?

Additionally, does NICS somehow posses new Minority Report-type powers where it can predict if somebody will commit a crime with their gun in the future?
 
2013-04-03 03:15:51 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: BraveNewCheneyWorld: demaL-demaL-yeH: I'll offer this quote in response:
"No, but we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties, charge bartenders for serving drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question, and we do all those things because it might just help bring drunk driving rates down - I don't know - by 2/3s in a few decades." - J. Stewart

But clearly if alcohol is still about 5x as deadly as a firearm is, this isn't enough, right?  Why does anyone NEED alcohol in the first place?  Let me guess, you have a small penis and you need alcohol to get girls to sleep with you...

It's an all or nothing kind of thing for you. My perspective is that reducing the occurrence of Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) is a Very Good Thing(TM).
Certainly, we should look at better identification and medical treatment for alcoholics.
/Are you a closeted size queen? You seem to be obsessed with my penis. (Well, it seems to accompany obsessions with firearms.)
//One other note: Inebriated people cannot consent to sex.


I guess my comments went over your head, they were analogous to anti gun arguments commonly presented here.
 
2013-04-03 03:15:59 PM  

CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.

Well, what exactly is the goal?

With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".  At what point will people decide that we're finally safe enough?

I'm gonna say its somewhere between 0 and 30,000


Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".

Less than 30,000 a year. As I stated before, I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.


So if we can shave off ~2,000 firearms deaths per year, you'll both be OK with those numbers?  Fair enough.
 
2013-04-03 03:16:18 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You cannot compare other nations to ours.


Sure I can. I just did.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The do not have the same levels of social and economic diversity as we do.


They're different than us, so we're uniquely powerless to reduce gun violence. I do not agree with that.
 
2013-04-03 03:17:39 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You cannot compare other nations to ours.  The do not have the same levels of social and economic diversity as we do.  Guns aren't the sole factor to violence.  If they were, you could drop a crate of bazookas into a stadium of brain surgeons and wind up with a blood bath, the fact is though, that nothing would happen


That is the ugliest claim for American exceptionalism ever.
 
2013-04-03 03:18:07 PM  

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.

Well, what exactly is the goal?

With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".  At what point will people decide that we're finally safe enough?

I'm gonna say its somewhere between 0 and 30,000

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".

Less than 30,000 a year. As I stated before, I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.

So if we can shave off ~2,000 firearms deaths per year, you'll both be OK with those numbers?  Fair enough.


No, but I'd be more OK than I am now. Let's keep going!
 
2013-04-03 03:19:38 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I guess my comments went over your head, they were analogous to anti gun arguments commonly presented here.


?????
Like most first shots in the dark, that one had the ants worried.
 
2013-04-03 03:19:45 PM  

CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.

Well, what exactly is the goal?

With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".  At what point will people decide that we're finally safe enough?

I'm gonna say its somewhere between 0 and 30,000

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".

Less than 30,000 a year. As I stated before, I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.

So if we can shave off ~2,000 firearms deaths per year, you'll both be OK with those numbers?  Fair enough.

No, but I'd be more OK than I am now. Let's keep going!


And there is it... what non-zero number makes you not say "Let's keep going!"?
 
2013-04-03 03:19:52 PM  

GanjSmokr: So if we can shave off ~2,000 firearms deaths per year


www.washingtonpost.com

That's just homicides buuuut the UK, France, and the Scandinavian countries seem to be doing a pretty good job. Getting close to those numbers is a good goal.
 
2013-04-03 03:20:36 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You cannot compare other nations to ours.

Sure I can. I just did.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The do not have the same levels of social and economic diversity as we do.

They're different than us, so we're uniquely powerless to reduce gun violence. I do not agree with that.


Can you back up those statements with scientific data?  Quite honestly, your claims cannot be taken seriously.  It's the same level of simplistic thinking that appeals to racists.
 
2013-04-03 03:21:08 PM  

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.

Well, what exactly is the goal?

With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".  At what point will people decide that we're finally safe enough?

I'm gonna say its somewhere between 0 and 30,000

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".

Less than 30,000 a year. As I stated before, I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.

So if we can shave off ~2,000 firearms deaths per year, you'll both be OK with those numbers?  Fair enough.

No, but I'd be more OK than I am now. Let's keep going!

And there is it... what non-zero number makes you not say "Let's keep going!"?


I dunno, lets stop around Turkey and see how our rights are impacted? Cuz that right there is farking embarassing
 
2013-04-03 03:21:48 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You cannot compare other nations to ours.  The do not have the same levels of social and economic diversity as we do.  Guns aren't the sole factor to violence.  If they were, you could drop a crate of bazookas into a stadium of brain surgeons and wind up with a blood bath, the fact is though, that nothing would happen

That is the ugliest claim for American exceptionalism ever.


Exceptionalism?  I'm saying that we have a different set of problems.  You cannot simply put every industrialized nation into the same basket.
 
2013-04-03 03:21:53 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You cannot compare other nations to ours.

Sure I can. I just did.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The do not have the same levels of social and economic diversity as we do.

They're different than us, so we're uniquely powerless to reduce gun violence. I do not agree with that.

Can you back up those statements with scientific data?  Quite honestly, your claims cannot be taken seriously.  It's the same level of simplistic thinking that appeals to racists.


You mean like blaming our gun crime rates on the fact that we have more poor brown people here? Or is that OK to do?
 
2013-04-03 03:22:27 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Can you back up those statements with scientific data?  Quite honestly, your claims cannot be taken seriously.


I don't think my sarcastic uniquely powerless statement needs to be scientifically backed up.
 
2013-04-03 03:22:41 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Can you back up those statements with scientific data?  Quite honestly, your claims cannot be taken seriously.  It's the same level of simplistic thinking that appeals to racists.


That comment is you. You are arguing with the monkey in the mirror.
 
2013-04-03 03:23:21 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: BayouOtter: Mind sourcing your numbers?

2011: 32,1635


I would have liked you linking me directly to the source, as opposed to a partisan page like you did. I consider the CDC a reliable source, but it is only mentioned for 2010 and 2011. The other numbers may well be made up and I'm not going to chase citations for you. I do like how they use preliminary, and not final reports for their numbers - I wonder why?

From your report, Table 2, page 18
Cause                                         Raw Number      Rate
Motor Vehicle Accidents                 34,677               11.1
Falls                                                26,631               8.5
Accidental Firearm Discharge             851               0.3
Drowning                                         3,555                1.1
Suicide (Firearm)                            19,766               6.3
Suicide (Other)                                18,519              5.9
Homicide                                            4,852             1.6
Homicide (Firearm)                          11,101             3.6


Weird how these numbers and the FBI numbers don't match, but I'm not seeing a gulf of difference between the rates of suicide with or without firearms, and those rates are much higher than homicide. A lot lower than falls or car crashes, though!

Thanks for the numbers.

 
2013-04-03 03:23:22 PM  
How many Fudds are thinking:  'Hell, I don't have an AR or anything like that.  Sure ban those things.'

Only they probably don't realize that quite a few of their hunting weapons are classified by the grabbers as "assault weapons".
 
2013-04-03 03:24:12 PM  

BayouOtter: liam76: BayouOtter: liam76:
He seems to be full of shiat, as ar the links he rests on. They imply you must fill out a from within 24 hours of a gun being lost/stolen, whent he law says you must only "report it" within 24 hours of "knowing about it". I make a phone call and I have reported on it.

Just make sure you call the attorney general!

They also mention the authorities. You call the cops, you are good. If you are really concerned that they would get you on not contacting the AG, you can shoot him an email.

Page 14, line 17
within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.''

You can't just 'call the cops'. I really hope you don't go on a week-long trip and lose your gun - you've got 24 hours to get back to civilization or you get slapped with a felony. (You also can't just report things over the phone, there are papers to sign and statements to make that require being face to face with officers.)


Where does the law say you muct fill out forms or make statements in pwrson.  If I make a "call" I have reported it.

BayouOtter: No, its legal if it is the season and the other fellow has all his licenses with him. No mention of hunting game that has no fixed season, which is nice. Also, if the and portions from Section C applies (You claim it doesn't, but then I ask why 'and' is there. Do you have a legal background or citation? Without it, it is unclear) you better be on your home and curtilage.


If it has no fixed season, and doesn't require a permit, it is "in season" and you are "properly licensced".

Three reasons stuff from "C" doesn't apply to "D".

Most places you can't hunt from your curtilage, as that would be right next to your house.
There is nothing "above" C which says it must meet C+D to work.
The "and" was in section C(iii), that means it applies to C(iv), or to a subset of C(iii).  Stuff in "D" is a higher level.

Once again this would be a bad law, but it is great starting point for a law.
 
2013-04-03 03:24:16 PM  

CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.

Well, what exactly is the goal?

With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".  At what point will people decide that we're finally safe enough?

I'm gonna say its somewhere between 0 and 30,000

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".

Less than 30,000 a year. As I stated before, I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.

So if we can shave off ~2,000 firearms deaths per year, you'll both be OK with those numbers?  Fair enough.

No, but I'd be more OK than I am now. Let's keep going!

And there is it... what non-zero number makes you not say "Let's keep going!"?

I dunno, lets stop around Turkey and see how our rights are impacted? Cuz that right there is farking embarassing


So let's make more laws and regulations to try to get us to a situation you like and then look back to see how it impacted our rights.  Brilliant.

/see Patriot Act
 
2013-04-03 03:26:26 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: sammyk: Funny how you guys always run to the AWB that is never going to happen. Do you not support universal background checks? If not why? Difficulty:There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

There IS a list. I found that out when a Pennsylvania State Police trooper told me every firearm I own. The list is composed of every firearm purchased with a background check. Remember, Pennsylvania doesn't have registration. Yet there it was, a comprehensive compilation of everything I have.

You know what? I don't have a problem with that. I am in favor of 100% background checks, for two reasons: First, it will help, if only in a small way, to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. My concern is what we will have to do about the firearms we already have, but it's a small concern. All of mine have checks and records of the checks to go with them. The idea of a list does not concern me, because to confiscate the weapons they also have to abrogate the 4th Amendment, and the ACLU and others will put the kibosh on that.

Second, it will get the gun-control people to shut the hell up about the so-called "gun show loophole", which was neither confined to gun shows nor was a loophole. if they had wanted private sales covered they would have written it that way. But let's let it go away. One less rallying cry for the gun-control people, and it's such a small thing that we can hand it to them.


I actually do have a problem with that. While I do, in general, support expanded background* checks I don't like the idea of any government entity having an inventory of my belongings. If I want to buy a gun it seems like I should get my background check run and the gun dealer should get a reply saying yes or no. Depending on licensing restrictions it could come back with yes for class A, B and no for C,D (completely arbitrary classifications, only for example's sake). Then, once I pass the background check, I should be able to buy any amount of anything I choose that I've been approved for.
The Constitution says I can own guns. The background check says I'm not disqualified. That's the end of it. I don't see why they should be privileged to a list of my guns or my model trains or my StarWars toys or anything else I have in my home.

*I'm all for checks on sales, even private sales, but they better be very explicit on some of the rules regarding transfers. I can't see why a person couldn't loan their rifle out to a friend for hunting season without having to worry about federal weapons charges.
 
2013-04-03 03:26:30 PM  
Dusk-You-n-Me:
[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

That's just homicides buuuut the UK, France, and the Scandinavian countries seem to be doing a pretty good job. Getting close to those numbers is a good goal.


Maybe if we had matching systems of universal health care, education, and other factors, maybe ditched our systemic racism, poverty, income inequality, the drug war, and some other things....we could see numbers like that.
 
2013-04-03 03:26:42 PM  

BayouOtter: I would have liked you linking me directly to the source, as opposed to a partisan page like you did.


gunpolicy.org is partisan? U Penn is partisan? Are they Ds Rs or Is?

BayouOtter: The other numbers may well be made up and I'm not going to chase citations for you.


I'm not asking you to chase citations, which is why I provided them. You don't like the data, sure, but that doesn't make it any less true. Jesus christ dude.
 
2013-04-03 03:27:32 PM  

BayouOtter: Maybe if we had matching systems of universal health care, education, and other factors, maybe ditched our systemic racism, poverty, income inequality, the drug war, and some other things....we could see numbers like that.


YES! We should also do those things! I'm am totally on board with that!
 
2013-04-03 03:28:14 PM  

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.

Well, what exactly is the goal?

With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".  At what point will people decide that we're finally safe enough?

I'm gonna say its somewhere between 0 and 30,000

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".

Less than 30,000 a year. As I stated before, I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.

So if we can shave off ~2,000 firearms deaths per year, you'll both be OK with those numbers?  Fair enough.

No, but I'd be more OK than I am now. Let's keep going!

And there is it... what non-zero number makes you not say "Let's keep going!"?

I dunno, lets stop around Turkey and see how our rights are impacted? Cuz that right there is farking embarassing

So let's make more laws and regulations to try to get us to a situation you like and then look back to see how it impacted our rights.  Brilliant.

/see Patriot Act


No, lets continue doing nothing while our per capita gun death rate is obscenely higher than every other country and pretend like there's no problem at all cuz you don't think you should have to fill out a form and have your background checked in order to buy a combusion powered high velocity rapid fire portable projectile weapon.
 
2013-04-03 03:29:03 PM  

CPennypacker: You mean like blaming our gun crime rates on the fact that we have more poor brown people here? Or is that OK to do?


It's ok to do if you have data backing it up, don't you agree?

Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Can you back up those statements with scientific data?  Quite honestly, your claims cannot be taken seriously.

I don't think my sarcastic uniquely powerless statement needs to be scientifically backed up.


Ah, so you're just here to threadshiat.

demaL-demaL-yeH: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Can you back up those statements with scientific data?  Quite honestly, your claims cannot be taken seriously.  It's the same level of simplistic thinking that appeals to racists.

That comment is you. You are arguing with the monkey in the mirror.


Lol whut?  I have to cite data to ask you for data?
 
2013-04-03 03:30:18 PM  

CoolHandLucas: liam76:Did you run a background check on your friend? No? That's irresponsible.

How, exactly, do you find it "irresponsible"?

Would you find it less "irresponsible" if I told you said friend had previously been vetted by DHS and FBI and allowed to carry firearms onboard airliners as a federal agent?

Would you find it more "irresponsible" if it was just some guy that drove a truck for a living?

And for the record, I'm not skeered of Bammer and his jack-booted homeland security thugs (note the dripping sarcasm) coming to grab my guns as a result of background checks: I own a Title II device, they already know who and where I am.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x634]


How about "uncivilized"? Does that capture you and your friend?
 
2013-04-03 03:30:34 PM  

moanerific: How many Fudds are thinking:  'Hell, I don't have an AR or anything like that.  Sure ban those things.'

Only they probably don't realize that quite a few of their hunting weapons are classified by the grabbers as "assault weapons".


[citation_needed.jpg]
Yah, I'm certain that all those Remington 700s, Winchester 30-30s, and Browning Superposeds are going to be classified as "assault weapons" by the "grabbers".
 
2013-04-03 03:31:03 PM  

udhq: Lawyers With Nukes: And the inexorable expansion of State-sponsored violence marches on.

So society's right to self defense trumps the individual's right to self defense, because once nobody is safe, EVERYONE will be safe. But first, it will be enforced by...you guessed it, men with guns showing up to assault and disarm you, backed by a license to murder.

Don't be confused, gun control advocates LOVE guns, but only in the hands of the privileged.

FYI, "But I may need them to shoot cops" isn't as compelling an argument against gun control as you think it is.....


Clever strawman, there! If only you could use your intellect to elevate the discussion, rather than confuse it.
 
2013-04-03 03:33:51 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ah, so you're just here to threadshiat.


What? You asked me to back up my claims with scientific data - while replying to my sarcastic comment. How am I supposed to back up sarcasm with data? Were you referring to a different post of mine? 36 posts in and you're the first to accuse me of threadshiatting. Hell, ten years in and you're the first to accuse me of threadshiatting. I'm a pretty reasonable guy on here. Maybe re-calibrate your last request because I'm having a hard time following what exactly has gotten you so upset.
 
2013-04-03 03:35:00 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: How many Fudds are thinking:  'Hell, I don't have an AR or anything like that.  Sure ban those things.'

Only they probably don't realize that quite a few of their hunting weapons are classified by the grabbers as "assault weapons".

[citation_needed.jpg]
Yah, I'm certain that all those Remington 700s, Winchester 30-30s, and Browning Superposeds are going to be classified as "assault weapons" by the "grabbers".



Here's one for you cupcake: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/01/popular-standard-shotgun-could- b e-banned-under-proposed-bill/

These idiots will classify ANYTHING they want to as an "assault weapon".  Don't know if this passed muster in this form, but it just shows that they are willing to ban guns that have nothing in common with AR/AK pattern rifles.
 
2013-04-03 03:36:51 PM  
BraveNewCheneyWorld:
It's ok to do if you have data backing it up, don't you agree?

I don't get it. If you underline it does that make it true?
 
2013-04-03 03:39:19 PM  

CPennypacker: combusion powered high velocity rapid fire portable projectile weapon.


You don't like the military standard "bullet launcher"?

/OK, it's really "lightweight, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed, shoulder- or hip-fired rifle with a rotating bolt, actuated by direct impingement of gas" for the AR series.
 
2013-04-03 03:40:12 PM  

CPennypacker: No, lets continue doing nothing while our per capita gun death rate is obscenely higher than every other country and pretend like there's no problem at all cuz you don't think you should have to fill out a form and have your background checked in order to buy a combusion powered high velocity rapid fire portable projectile weapon.


You sound like you might need a nap.

Screw it - let's just do whatever it takes to get gun deaths down that extra 7-8% you want from where they are now and look back only after we're done to determine what rights we've infringed upon.

/you must have really loved the Patriot Act.
 
2013-04-03 03:42:44 PM  

geek_mars: *I'm all for checks on sales, even private sales, but they better be very explicit on some of the rules regarding transfers. I can't see why a person couldn't loan their rifle out to a friend for hunting season without having to worry about federal weapons charges.


Excellent point! The unintended consequences could be very very bad. While you as the gun owner have a responsibility to not lend your gun to someone that is bugfark crazy, where do we draw reasonable lines?

Sidepoint: It's already illegal to let someone have access to your guns if you know they are a felon or otherwise disqualified.
 
2013-04-03 03:43:54 PM  

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: No, lets continue doing nothing while our per capita gun death rate is obscenely higher than every other country and pretend like there's no problem at all cuz you don't think you should have to fill out a form and have your background checked in order to buy a combusion powered high velocity rapid fire portable projectile weapon.

You sound like you might need a nap.

Screw it - let's just do whatever it takes to get gun deaths down that extra 7-8% you want from where they are now and look back only after we're done to determine what rights we've infringed upon.

/you must have really loved the Patriot Act.


Why are you operating under the assumption that it would take extreme measures to reduce gun deaths significantly? Or do you just consider any measure an extreme measure.

And your Patriot Act argument is bullshiat. I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?
 
2013-04-03 03:44:26 PM  

moanerific: demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: How many Fudds are thinking:  'Hell, I don't have an AR or anything like that.  Sure ban those things.'

Only they probably don't realize that quite a few of their hunting weapons are classified by the grabbers as "assault weapons".

[citation_needed.jpg]
Yah, I'm certain that all those Remington 700s, Winchester 30-30s, and Browning Superposeds are going to be classified as "assault weapons" by the "grabbers".


Here's one for you cupcake: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/01/popular-standard-shotgun-could- b e-banned-under-proposed-bill/

These idiots will classify ANYTHING they want to as an "assault weapon".  Don't know if this passed muster in this form, but it just shows that they are willing to ban guns that have nothing in common with AR/AK pattern rifles.


From your link:
"Boyd asked Senate Democrats about Brophy's concerns. They sent her a statement saying an amendment dealing with thats issue is currently being drafted and will be presented in a committee hearing Monday. What that amendment looks like and whether it passes remains to be seen."

So, twinkie (more rare than cupcakes), a potential problem in proposed legislation was recognized and is being addressed.
OH NOES!
 
2013-04-03 03:44:28 PM  

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: No, lets continue doing nothing while our per capita gun death rate is obscenely higher than every other country and pretend like there's no problem at all cuz you don't think you should have to fill out a form and have your background checked in order to buy a combusion powered high velocity rapid fire portable projectile weapon.

You sound like you might need a nap.

Screw it - let's just do whatever it takes to get gun deaths down that extra 7-8% you want from where they are now and look back only after we're done to determine what rights we've infringed upon.

/you must have really loved the Patriot Act.


Well, the wonderful thing about laws, is that if they really, really suck, we can elect politicians that will repeal them.
 
2013-04-03 03:49:03 PM  

CPennypacker: I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?


This from the guy who insists that gun restrictions must be part of any plan for gun crime reduction...
 
2013-04-03 03:50:24 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: How many Fudds are thinking:  'Hell, I don't have an AR or anything like that.  Sure ban those things.'

Only they probably don't realize that quite a few of their hunting weapons are classified by the grabbers as "assault weapons".

[citation_needed.jpg]
Yah, I'm certain that all those Remington 700s, Winchester 30-30s, and Browning Superposeds are going to be classified as "assault weapons" by the "grabbers".


Here's one for you cupcake: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/01/popular-standard-shotgun-could- b e-banned-under-proposed-bill/

These idiots will classify ANYTHING they want to as an "assault weapon".  Don't know if this passed muster in this form, but it just shows that they are willing to ban guns that have nothing in common with AR/AK pattern rifles.

From your link:
"Boyd asked Senate Democrats about Brophy's concerns. They sent her a statement saying an amendment dealing with thats issue is currently being drafted and will be presented in a committee hearing Monday. What that amendment looks like and whether it passes remains to be seen."

So, twinkie (more rare than cupcakes), a potential problem in proposed legislation was recognized and is being addressed.
OH NOES!



My argument is that they will try ban anything.  Even the ones who honestly don't want to ban everything often lack the knowledge about what they are crafting legislation for.
 
2013-04-03 03:51:03 PM  

CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: No, lets continue doing nothing while our per capita gun death rate is obscenely higher than every other country and pretend like there's no problem at all cuz you don't think you should have to fill out a form and have your background checked in order to buy a combusion powered high velocity rapid fire portable projectile weapon.

You sound like you might need a nap.

Screw it - let's just do whatever it takes to get gun deaths down that extra 7-8% you want from where they are now and look back only after we're done to determine what rights we've infringed upon.

/you must have really loved the Patriot Act.

Why are you operating under the assumption that it would take extreme measures to reduce gun deaths significantly? Or do you just consider any measure an extreme measure.

And your Patriot Act argument is bullshiat. I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?


Because I personally believe it would take extreme measures to reduce gun deaths to a number that you personally find acceptable.

I'm using the Patriot Act as an example of doing what it takes to accomplish a goal and worrying about the negative impacts later.  I think it was a bad idea then and I think it's a bad idea now.

Tomahawk513:Well, the wonderful thing about laws, is that if they really, really suck, we can elect politicians that will repeal them.

OK, that made me chuckle.  Thanks.
 
2013-04-03 03:53:39 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?

This from the guy who insists that gun restrictions must be part of any plan for gun crime reduction...


We await your constructive suggestions that directly address the problem of Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) with unbated breath. (No farking way I'm holding my breath until you produce an intelligent, cogent, and relevant comment.)
 
2013-04-03 03:53:40 PM  
Am I the only one around here who is farking tired of the simple fact that the only gun violence events that are used for these arguments are the ones where mostly white people are getting killed instead of the vast amounts of gang related violence in large cities?
 
2013-04-03 03:55:09 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?

This from the guy who insists that gun restrictions must be part of any plan for gun crime reduction...


Why don't we just ban brown poor people. They are the problem according to you, am i rite?

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: No, lets continue doing nothing while our per capita gun death rate is obscenely higher than every other country and pretend like there's no problem at all cuz you don't think you should have to fill out a form and have your background checked in order to buy a combusion powered high velocity rapid fire portable projectile weapon.

You sound like you might need a nap.

Screw it - let's just do whatever it takes to get gun deaths down that extra 7-8% you want from where they are now and look back only after we're done to determine what rights we've infringed upon.

/you must have really loved the Patriot Act.

Why are you operating under the assumption that it would take extreme measures to reduce gun deaths significantly? Or do you just consider any measure an extreme measure.

And your Patriot Act argument is bullshiat. I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?

Because I personally believe it would take extreme measures to reduce gun deaths to a number that you personally find acceptable.

I'm using the Patriot Act as an example of doing what it takes to accomplish a goal and worrying about the negative impacts later.  I think it was a bad idea then and I think it's a bad idea now.


I think its a bad idea too. Unfortunately, one side of the debate repeatedly shuts down discourse and research into the topic. So our choices are do nothing or forge forward blindly. I would prefer reasoned, informed regulation.
 
2013-04-03 03:56:09 PM  

moanerific: From your link:
"Boyd asked Senate Democrats about Brophy's concerns. They sent her a statement saying an amendment dealing with thats issue is currently being drafted and will be presented in a committee hearing Monday. What that amendment looks like and whether it passes remains to be seen."

So, twinkie (more rare than cupcakes), a potential problem in proposed legislation was recognized and is being addressed.
OH NOES!


My argument is that they will try ban anything.  Even the ones who honestly don't want to ban everything often lack the knowledge about what they are crafting legislation for.


Your own farking source contradicts that very argument. Why isn't that giving you pause?
 
2013-04-03 03:56:49 PM  

spif: Am I the only one around here who is farking tired of the simple fact that the only gun violence events that are used for these arguments are the ones where mostly white people are getting killed instead of the vast amounts of gang related violence in large cities?


Psh, who cares about brown people?

/No.  Race does not play a factor but age can.
 
2013-04-03 03:57:04 PM  

spif: Am I the only one around here who is farking tired of the simple fact that the only gun violence events that are used for these arguments are the ones where mostly white people are getting killed instead of the vast amounts of gang related violence in large cities?


Best part is, all the proposed bans will do NOTHING to alleviate that problem.  Local gangbangers aren't rolling around with $1000 AR-15s with $600 holographic scopes on them.
 
2013-04-03 03:57:21 PM  

Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Yeah dude like totally.


It's like the Harvard study they were using for the health care debate....counted all these people who owed at least 1000 dollars in medical expenses as a medical bankruptcy while ignoring all the other debt the person had.

If the democrats told the tuth HCR would never have been passed.

Democrats have to resort to lies. They don't have any other process to get what they want.


You are aware that many of those were well over $1000 and the medical bills were the actual cause of bankruptcy?  It happens frequently and it isn't right to lose everything because you got sick or hurt.
 
2013-04-03 03:58:27 PM  

moanerific: spif: Am I the only one around here who is farking tired of the simple fact that the only gun violence events that are used for these arguments are the ones where mostly white people are getting killed instead of the vast amounts of gang related violence in large cities?

Best part is, all the proposed bans will do NOTHING to alleviate that problem.  Local gangbangers aren't rolling around with $1000 AR-15s with $600 holographic scopes on them.


So you're saying that pistols should be the target.
/Good. They're mostly useless and often worse.
 
2013-04-03 03:59:17 PM  

geek_mars: *I'm all for checks on sales, even private sales, but they better be very explicit on some of the rules regarding transfers. I can't see why a person couldn't loan their rifle out to a friend for hunting season without having to worry about federal weapons charges.


Well, that depends; what's your friend hunting?
 
2013-04-03 03:59:43 PM  

asimplescribe: You are aware that many of those were well over $1000 and the medical bills were the actual cause of bankruptcy?  It happens frequently and it isn't right to lose everything because you got sick or hurt.


Not in civilized industrial countries, it doesn't.
 
2013-04-03 03:59:44 PM  

moanerific: Best part is, all the proposed bans will do NOTHING to alleviate that problem.


Best part is, the AWB is DOA. You can sleep tight.
 
2013-04-03 04:00:51 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: From your link:
"Boyd asked Senate Democrats about Brophy's concerns. They sent her a statement saying an amendment dealing with thats issue is currently being drafted and will be presented in a committee hearing Monday. What that amendment looks like and whether it passes remains to be seen."

So, twinkie (more rare than cupcakes), a potential problem in proposed legislation was recognized and is being addressed.
OH NOES!


My argument is that they will try ban anything.  Even the ones who honestly don't want to ban everything often lack the knowledge about what they are crafting legislation for.

Your own farking source contradicts that very argument. Why isn't that giving you pause?


In that case sure, but that also reinforces my second statement even more.

Also, how about things like 1 feature cosmetic bans?  Do you realize how many weapons could be shoehorned into that group?  Or maybe the next crazy uses a pump action and they ban that anyway.

I am for background checks BTW, I am against impotent bans based on ignorance.  Mental health is where all of this political capital should be being spent.
 
2013-04-03 04:01:45 PM  

CPennypacker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?

This from the guy who insists that gun restrictions must be part of any plan for gun crime reduction...

Why don't we just ban brown poor people. They are the problem according to you, am i rite?


Their poorness is the problem, and yes, we should fix it.  But yeah, try to paint me as a racist for acknowledging that fact, because quite honestly, you don't' want a solution, you want gun bans.
 
2013-04-03 04:02:20 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Ridiculous on its face. Ignores the rights inherent to marriage.


What "right" inherent in marriage supersedes Federal firearms law?

If there was, as you claim, some inherent right in marriage that invalidates Federal firearms law, it would be impossible for a husband or wife to make a straw purchase for their spouse, or for a husband or wife to be prohibited from having a firearm in the house because their spouse qualifies as a prohibited person.  Both conditions which are entirely possible under current law.

There is no right in marriage that allows for violations of Federal firearms laws, or redefines what a transfer is under the purview of Federal firearms law.  Even today, if my wife wasn't on the documents for my Class 3 stuff, I wouldn't be allowed to leave it with her when I leave the state or it would illegally transfer to her.

Perhaps a better understanding of firearms law is in order for people in this thread, because you guys really have no clue what you are talking about.
 
2013-04-03 04:03:33 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?

This from the guy who insists that gun restrictions must be part of any plan for gun crime reduction...

Why don't we just ban brown poor people. They are the problem according to you, am i rite?

Their poorness is the problem, and yes, we should fix it.  But yeah, try to paint me as a racist for acknowledging that fact, because quite honestly, you don't' want a solution, you want gun bans.


I don't want gun bans, I want solutions. What you want is the status quo which is why you derp out with the same tired BS in every gun thread no matter who you are arguing with.
 
2013-04-03 04:04:42 PM  

CPennypacker: So our choices are do nothing or forge forward blindly.


Which is the better of these choices is where we disagree.  I'd rather see us put some thought in and do something that will actually accomplish something instead of forging forward blindly hoping what we do will help.

CPennypacker: I would prefer reasoned, informed regulation.


On this we agree.
 
2013-04-03 04:05:23 PM  

CPennypacker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?

This from the guy who insists that gun restrictions must be part of any plan for gun crime reduction...

Why don't we just ban brown poor people. They are the problem according to you, am i rite?

Their poorness is the problem, and yes, we should fix it.  But yeah, try to paint me as a racist for acknowledging that fact, because quite honestly, you don't' want a solution, you want gun bans.

I don't want gun bans, I want solutions. What you want is the status quo which is why you derp out with the same tired BS in every gun thread no matter who you are arguing with.


Yeah, and I'm still waiting on an answer to my question.  What restrictions could you BraveNewCheneyWorldstomach to put a dent in gun violence?  All I want is an answer to that question.  I answered yours, now it's your turn to answer mine.
 
2013-04-03 04:07:22 PM  

HeartBurnKid: geek_mars: *I'm all for checks on sales, even private sales, but they better be very explicit on some of the rules regarding transfers. I can't see why a person couldn't loan their rifle out to a friend for hunting season without having to worry about federal weapons charges.

Well, that depends; what's your friend hunting?


Well, if he's borrowing my rifle he's going to be legally hunting something that's in season and within his bag limit.
 
2013-04-03 04:15:32 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: spif: Am I the only one around here who is farking tired of the simple fact that the only gun violence events that are used for these arguments are the ones where mostly white people are getting killed instead of the vast amounts of gang related violence in large cities?

Best part is, all the proposed bans will do NOTHING to alleviate that problem.  Local gangbangers aren't rolling around with $1000 AR-15s with $600 holographic scopes on them.

So you're saying that pistols should be the target.
/Good. They're mostly useless and often worse.


No, I think we should be focusing on keeping guns out of criminals hands and increasing mental health awareness. Banning things never works. See war on drugs.
 
2013-04-03 04:15:56 PM  

moanerific: demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: From your link:
"Boyd asked Senate Democrats about Brophy's concerns. They sent her a statement saying an amendment dealing with thats issue is currently being drafted and will be presented in a committee hearing Monday. What that amendment looks like and whether it passes remains to be seen."

So, twinkie (more rare than cupcakes), a potential problem in proposed legislation was recognized and is being addressed.
OH NOES!


My argument is that they will try ban anything.  Even the ones who honestly don't want to ban everything often lack the knowledge about what they are crafting legislation for.

Your own farking source contradicts that very argument. Why isn't that giving you pause?

In that case sure, but that also reinforces my second statement even more.


Also, how about things like 1 feature cosmetic bans?  Do you realize how many weapons could be shoehorned into that group?  Or maybe the next crazy uses a pump action and they ban that anyway.

I am for background checks BTW, I am against impotent bans based on ignorance.  Mental health is where all of this political capital should be being spent.


O.o
Hold an internally consistent position that is not based on paranoia, and I will listen.
 
2013-04-03 04:16:07 PM  

geek_mars: HeartBurnKid: geek_mars: *I'm all for checks on sales, even private sales, but they better be very explicit on some of the rules regarding transfers. I can't see why a person couldn't loan their rifle out to a friend for hunting season without having to worry about federal weapons charges.

Well, that depends; what's your friend hunting?

Well, if he's borrowing my rifle he's going to be legally hunting something that's in season and within his bag limit.


What if he's trying to hunt an elephant in his pajamas?  Shouldn't you at least ask him how the elephant got in his pajamas?
 
2013-04-03 04:17:44 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: moanerific: Best part is, all the proposed bans will do NOTHING to alleviate that problem.

Best part is, the AWB is DOA. You can sleep tight.


Federally sure, but some states are creating their own.
 
2013-04-03 04:18:59 PM  

Click Click D'oh: husband or wife to be prohibited from having a firearm in the house because their spouse qualifies as a prohibited person


D'oh, see what you wrote? Who said anything about contradicting federal law?
 
2013-04-03 04:21:48 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: From your link:
"Boyd asked Senate Democrats about Brophy's concerns. They sent her a statement saying an amendment dealing with thats issue is currently being drafted and will be presented in a committee hearing Monday. What that amendment looks like and whether it passes remains to be seen."

So, twinkie (more rare than cupcakes), a potential problem in proposed legislation was recognized and is being addressed.
OH NOES!


My argument is that they will try ban anything.  Even the ones who honestly don't want to ban everything often lack the knowledge about what they are crafting legislation for.

Your own farking source contradicts that very argument. Why isn't that giving you pause?

In that case sure, but that also reinforces my second statement even more.

Also, how about things like 1 feature cosmetic bans?  Do you realize how many weapons could be shoehorned into that group?  Or maybe the next crazy uses a pump action and they ban that anyway.

I am for background checks BTW, I am against impotent bans based on ignorance.  Mental health is where all of this political capital should be being spent.

O.o
Hold an internally consistent position that is not based on paranoia, and I will listen.


I'm not paranoid. Lawmakers across the nation have been proposing and even passing bans.

Here is something simple: No more bans. Keep guns out of criminals' hands, don't turn law-abiding citzens into them. Increase funding and awareness for mental health issues.
 
2013-04-03 04:25:17 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: BayouOtter: Maybe if we had matching systems of universal health care, education, and other factors, maybe ditched our systemic racism, poverty, income inequality, the drug war, and some other things....we could see numbers like that.

YES! We should also do those things! I'm am totally on board with that!


I'm one of those wacky liberal dudes that enjoys firearms. If I could wave a magic wand and get some golden-age European social reforms while keeping our Second Amendment rights, you better call a doctor because my heart would explode with joy.

I hate all this stupid gun-ban bullshiat because it sucks up all kinds of money and effort - if we fixed the kind of stuff we're talking about we'd reduce violence across the board and make everyone's lives better at the same time.

But no, can't let poor people have good nutrition or healthcare says one side, and oh noes a man has 11 rounds in his magazine on the other, and nothing gets farkin' done.
 
2013-04-03 04:26:43 PM  

Tomahawk513: geek_mars: HeartBurnKid: geek_mars: *I'm all for checks on sales, even private sales, but they better be very explicit on some of the rules regarding transfers. I can't see why a person couldn't loan their rifle out to a friend for hunting season without having to worry about federal weapons charges.

Well, that depends; what's your friend hunting?

Well, if he's borrowing my rifle he's going to be legally hunting something that's in season and within his bag limit.

What if he's trying to hunt an elephant in his pajamas?  Shouldn't you at least ask him how the elephant got in his pajamas?


I'd let the admitting psychologist ask him those types of questions.
 
2013-04-03 04:26:50 PM  

moanerific: Federally sure, but some states are creating their own.


States rights!
 
2013-04-03 04:28:52 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: moanerific: Federally sure, but some states are creating their own.

States rights!


Yep, it bites both ways. Just glad I live in a sane state as far as bans go. Legalization on the other hand...
 
2013-04-03 04:31:01 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: D'oh, see what you wrote? Who said anything about contradicting federal law?


You suggested that the inherent rights of marriage would prevent the scenario I described from happening.  I pointed out several scenarios in which that is plainly not the case: straw purchases, prohibited persons and registered items.

Ergo, I have asked you what inherent right of marriage invalidates already existing Federal firearms law, which clearly holds that even though two people may still be married, the laws regarding the transfer or possession of a firearm still clearly apply to them as individuals.  Could you please tell us why you think this to not be so?
 
2013-04-03 04:31:48 PM  

Giltric: The one with the 40% number is one asking people if they got a background check when they purchased their firearm.


thanks you very much, hate not to have the proper facts. found the study with google and bookmarked it.
 
2013-04-03 04:39:42 PM  

Curious: Giltric: The one with the 40% number is one asking people if they got a background check when they purchased their firearm.

thanks you very much, hate not to have the proper facts. found the study with google and bookmarked it.


Mind giving us the link?
 
2013-04-03 04:40:55 PM  

Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: D'oh, see what you wrote? Who said anything about contradicting federal law?

You suggested that the inherent rights of marriage would prevent the scenario I described from happening.  I pointed out several scenarios in which that is plainly not the case: straw purchases, prohibited persons and registered items.

Ergo, I have asked you what inherent right of marriage invalidates already existing Federal firearms law, which clearly holds that even though two people may still be married, the laws regarding the transfer or possession of a firearm still clearly apply to them as individuals.  Could you please tell us why you think this to not be so?


Would you have to transfer your weapons when you go on a family vacation under the proposed legislation?
No?
Then what the hell are you talking about? You don't transfer non-joint car ownership when you're working out of town for a few months (or register it in the other state), either.
Temporary absence from your domicile is not a transfer to your spouse under any proposed law.
 
2013-04-03 04:42:56 PM  
demaL-demaL-yeH:
Would you have to transfer your weapons when you go on a family vacation under the proposed legislation?
No?


Yes.

Then what the hell are you talking about? You don't transfer non-joint car ownership when you're working out of town for a few months (or register it in the other state), either.

Well that isn't covered by the proposed legislation.

Temporary absence from your domicile is not a transfer to your spouse under any proposed law.

It is under Schumer's.
 
2013-04-03 04:47:14 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SCUBA_Archer: 100% of gun owners support enforcing existing laws rather than making new ones.

Existing laws leave about 40% of gun sales without background checks.

So..no, no they don't.



Thank you for being the posterboy of anti-gun ignorance.  #1.  Your 40% is bullshiat, I challenge you to prove otherwise (preferably with a survey done this century), and #2 I didn't realize that felons could legally purchase and possess a gun as long as they don't have to submit to that pesky background check!  Good to know.  Makes me wonder why all these gangs and mafia strongholds don't just set up weekend "gun shows" to acquire and trade their wares instead of buying cheap drop guns and having to steal them from legal gunowners and the police.
 
2013-04-03 04:55:09 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Would you have to transfer your weapons when you go on a family vacation under the proposed legislation?


Hell, I don't know... or care.  I was answering a question you asked.  What was:

demaL-demaL-yeH: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.


You made no references to any proposed laws.  All you asked about was a background check for every firearm transfer, so all we can speak of, in regards to the question, is what the law currently says.

Also, firearms don't transfer if your family goes on vacation (assuming you take the family on vacation with you) since there is no one in the residence for the firearms to transfer to

.

demaL-demaL-yeH: You don't transfer non-joint car ownership when you're working out of town for a few months (or register it in the other state), either.


We aren't talking about cars.  You are 100% off base if you think the two are comparable.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Temporary absence from your domicile is not a transfer to your spouse under any proposed law.


It is under current law.  Any time a firearm is left with another person, or in their custody and control, it transfers to that person.  Period, dot, end of sentence.  This is why you should have paid attention to my prior example.  Let's say you have a felony, but you live in a house with a person who does not... can they own a firearm?  No, they can not.  Because, any time they are not in the home, that firearm transfers to you, a prohibited person.  Unless that person takes all of his firearms with him every time he leaves the house....
 
2013-04-03 05:00:19 PM  
Let's have another example for people that don't understand firearms law.  Let's say that I'm at the range having fun with my Class 3 stuff.  What if I leave that item with a person who is shooting it on the range and go inside to get a cold coke?  No, that's a felony because by leaving the immediate presence of the item I have illegally transferred a Class 3 item.

"transfer" as it applies to firearms law does not hold the same meaning that most people assume for other legal transfers.
 
2013-04-03 05:11:29 PM  

BayouOtter: demaL-demaL-yeH:
Would you have to transfer your weapons when you go on a family vacation under the proposed legislation?
No?

Yes.

Then what the hell are you talking about? You don't transfer non-joint car ownership when you're working out of town for a few months (or register it in the other state), either.

Well that isn't covered by the proposed legislation.

Temporary absence from your domicile is not a transfer to your spouse under any proposed law.

It is under Schumer's.


[citation_sorely_needed.jpg] Keeping your weapons in your home while you are temporarily away is not a transfer under this law. Even if it were, the law specifically exempts spouses, children, grandparents, and siblings.
 
2013-04-03 05:44:15 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?

This from the guy who insists that gun restrictions must be part of any plan for gun crime reduction...

Why don't we just ban brown poor people. They are the problem according to you, am i rite?

Their poorness is the problem, and yes, we should fix it.  But yeah, try to paint me as a racist for acknowledging that fact, because quite honestly, you don't' want a solution, you want gun bans.


Listen CPennypacker, BraveNewCheneyWorld can read your soul through a Fark thread. He knows the madness that lies in your heart. Don't you try and fool him with reasonable discussion, you huckster. If it were up to you, we'd lock all the brave patriot militia members in Wyoming and let the Mexicans take over the rest of this once proud nation.

He knows. He knows.

Cryingeagle.jpg
 
2013-04-03 06:30:27 PM  
demaL-demaL-yeH:
Temporary absence from your domicile is not a transfer to your spouse under any proposed law.
It is under Schumer's.

[citation_sorely_needed.jpg] Keeping your weapons in your home while you are temporarily away is not a transfer under this law.


It is, its a transfer of possession thanks to rulings on 'constructive possession', and assuming it never leaves the house and is under 7 days, it might be alright.

I've covered and quoted this twice now I think, stop repeating your false point.

Paragraph (1) [Background checks] shall not apply to a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if -
''(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the uncensed transferor;
''(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
''(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days;

Even if it were, the law specifically exempts spouses, children, grandparents, and siblings.

Only for 'bona fide' gifts. I don't know if ten transfers back and forth of every gun you own from your spouse to you thanks so business trips could be called 'bona fide gifts' and I wouldn't want to tangle with a Federal prosecutor in court over the matter.

It also screws over us gay folks, since we can't legally marry in most states.
 
2013-04-03 06:41:57 PM  

BayouOtter: I've covered and quoted this twice now I think, stop repeating your false point.


And I called you out for not finishing the exceptions.

Firing ranges, and hunting.


BayouOtter: Only for 'bona fide' gifts. I don't know if ten transfers back and forth of every gun you own from your spouse to you thanks so business trips could be called 'bona fide gifts' and I wouldn't want to tangle with a Federal prosecutor in court over the matter.


You don't have to "transfer" it if you are leaving it at home.

And you are once again ignoring that this isn't a law, but a bill.  These problems are no brainers to fix.
 
2013-04-03 07:00:00 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Listen CPennypacker, BraveNewCheneyWorld can read your soul through a Fark thread.


No, I just watch him kick and scream any time someone brings up a solution that's based in anything other than gun control.  No internet telepathy required.
 
2013-04-03 07:08:44 PM  

liam76: BayouOtter: I've covered and quoted this twice now I think, stop repeating your false point.

And I called you out for not finishing the exceptions.

Firing ranges, and hunting.


We weren't talking about those- and I have posted them.

BayouOtter: Only for 'bona fide' gifts. I don't know if ten transfers back and forth of every gun you own from your spouse to you thanks so business trips could be called 'bona fide gifts' and I wouldn't want to tangle with a Federal prosecutor in court over the matter.

You don't have to "transfer" it if you are leaving it at home.


Christ, you DO. If you leave the house and your spouse stays there, who is in 'possession' of the weapon?
The spouse! Or roommate, or whatever! Any temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title still counts as a transfer, and outside the very specific listed exceptions falls afoul of the bill. One of those exceptions is a time limit of seven days.

So yes, if I go out of state for a business trip for 8 days, I have to do a transfer.

And you are once again ignoring that this isn't a law, but a bill.  These problems are no brainers to fix.

Christ, its not like I ever said 'his proposed legislation' ten times. If its such a no-brainer, call your congressman and propose a fix for us to talk about.
 
2013-04-03 08:27:34 PM  
That sounds about right, 43% of gun owners are reasonable.
 
2013-04-03 08:42:46 PM  

BayouOtter: Christ, you DO. If you leave the house and your spouse stays there, who is in 'possession' of the weapon?
The spouse! Or roommate, or whatever! Any temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title still counts as a transfer, and outside the very specific listed exceptions falls afoul of the bill. One of those exceptions is a time limit of seven days.

So yes, if I go out of state for a business trip for 8 days, I have to do a transfer.


Transfer of possession requires some act witht he gun. Just leaving it stored wherever you regularly do doesn't fit the bill. Plus if you look at the actual text there is a glaring lack of "and" between C(i) and (ii).

Paragraph (1) [Background checks] shall not apply to a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if -
''(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the uncensed transferor;
''(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
''(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days;


BayouOtter: Christ, its not like I ever said 'his proposed legislation' ten times. If its such a no-brainer, call your congressman and propose a fix for us to talk about


I misread you, I saw the quoted text and thought you called it the law.

It is a no-brainer. Problem is that since NRA stopped becoming a civil rights group and an industry lobby, they don't really back the no-brainer things anymore. And given their money and the help of people like you and the blogs you are so fond of on this topic the "no-brainer" sane responses to this are going to be drowned out by people crying that you will go to jail if you don't fill out paperwork for the attorney general in 24 hours, that if you leave your guns at home for more than 7 days you will go to jail, and that if you hand your buddy your gun on a hunting trip it is a felony.
 
2013-04-03 09:25:43 PM  

liam76: Transfer of possession requires some act with the gun.


I don't believe so. I'd like to see how you can to this conclusion.

I misread you, I saw the quoted text and thought you called it the law.

Happens.

It is a no-brainer. Problem is that since NRA stopped becoming a civil rights group and an industry lobby, they don't really back the no-brainer things anymore.


Actually, the NSSF is the industry lobby group. And they do support measures like making the NICS system available, but not when it comes with mandatory hooks and seems designed to entrap otherwise lawful gun owners. I'm a sharp guy, and you seem on the ball, but we can't seem to figure this out either way - whats Joe American going to do if this passes?
 
2013-04-03 09:43:28 PM  

BayouOtter: liam76: Transfer of possession requires some act with the gun.

I don't believe so. I'd like to see how you can to this conclusion.

I misread you, I saw the quoted text and thought you called it the law.

Happens.

It is a no-brainer. Problem is that since NRA stopped becoming a civil rights group and an industry lobby, they don't really back the no-brainer things anymore.

Actually, the NSSF is the industry lobby group. And they do support measures like making the NICS system available, but not when it comes with mandatory hooks and seems designed to entrap otherwise lawful gun owners. I'm a sharp guy, and you seem on the ball, but we can't seem to figure this out either way - whats Joe American going to do if this passes?


NRA is more an industry lobby group than a civil rights group.  Maybe more of a "conservative" action group than either, but that is another conversation.

You realize the difference between available and required, right?  Pretending that saying it should be available will do anything is moronic.

Well if you are "Joe American" the lawful gun owner, so farking what.  When you want to sell your gun you will have to do the responsible thing (that some many people pretend most gun owners do, so it really shouldn't be that big a deal, and the right to bear arms, while protected the right to sell them with no responsibility is not so ti isn't a constitutional question) and go through the govt or a licensed dealer.

If you are "Joe American" the straw purchaser you are probably going to re-think your career, and if you don't the authorities will have a lot more tools to get you.

If you are "Joe American" he thug you are probably going to have to work a lot farking harder to get a gun because of how tought it will be to sell one to someoen who shouldn't own one.
 
2013-04-03 09:48:52 PM  

BayouOtter: iam76: Transfer of possession requires some act with the gun.

I don't believe so. I'd like to see how you can to this conclusion.


Missed this bit.

The text of the law.  C(i) gives you an out.  C doesn't claim all below.  C(i) doesn't have "and".  And I realize common sense isn't the best way to look at laws, even if they did not have those "outs" put into the law, this wouldn't be constitutional.  Putting a big asterisk next to the right to bear arms, so that you can never leave home for more than 7 days without a massive paperwork shuffle isn't going to fly.
 
2013-04-03 10:03:33 PM  

liam76: If you are "Joe American" the straw purchaser you are probably going to re-think your career, and if you don't the authorities will have a lot more tools to get you.

If you are "Joe American" he thug you are probably going to have to work a lot farking harder to get a gun because of how tought it will be to sell one to someoen who shouldn't own one.


Joe Strawpurchaser- "Dammit, that gun I bought last month is stolen! Guess I'll go buy another one! Hope this one doesn't get stolen again."

Or better yet, just fake a name. Buy a gun under someone else's name from a private buyer.

That you think criminals are stupid to not take any precautions doesn't  mean they'll be hard pressed. What you will guarantee though is people who do have legitimate issues get caught up in the legal system having to defend themselves.

But luckily once you have someone who would normally not be on the wrong side of the legal system gets thrown in prison we'll have the usuals biatching about how we imprison too many people. Because really, that's the solution to America's crime problem, subject more people to criminal scrutiny and have cops chasing around technical violators... who we all know are the REAL criminals.
 
2013-04-03 10:10:11 PM  

liam76: Transfer of possession requires some act witht he gun. Just leaving it stored wherever you regularly do doesn't fit the bill. Plus if you look at the actual text there is a glaring lack of "and" between C(i) and (ii).

Paragraph (1) [Background checks] shall not apply to a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if -
''(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the uncensed transferor;
''(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
''(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days;


The sentence is divided into parts but it's one long declaration. Consider it a serial semi-colon.
 
2013-04-04 12:35:25 AM  
22% of Americans own guns.  Not to be confused with the oft touted polling that 35% of households that have guns.

22% of Americans.

57% of that 22% want gun laws to stay the same, or be relaxed.

That's 13% of all Americans.

Clearly we should do what they say.
 
2013-04-04 01:11:05 AM  

Kludge: 22% of Americans own guns.  Not to be confused with the oft touted polling that 35% of households that have guns.

22% of Americans.

57% of that 22% want gun laws to stay the same, or be relaxed.

That's 13% of all Americans.

Clearly we should do what they say.


Even if your stats were right (they aren't), the bill of rights was put there, among other things, to balance majority rule vs minority rights.
 
2013-04-04 01:30:11 AM  

redmid17: Even if your stats were right (they aren't)...


Okay, even if we work from the inflated Gallup poll from 2011, and we ignore that gun owners as a percentage of the population has been in decline...

That's 34% of adult Americans who own guns.

57% of that 34% want gun laws to stay the same, or be relaxed.

That's 19% of all Americans... Counting persons under 18, 16%.
 
2013-04-04 01:33:28 AM  

Kludge: redmid17: Even if your stats were right (they aren't)...

Okay, even if we work from the inflated Gallup poll from 2011, and we ignore that gun owners as a percentage of the population has been in decline...

That's 34% of adult Americans who own guns.

57% of that 34% want gun laws to stay the same, or be relaxed.

That's 19% of all Americans... Counting persons under 18, 16%.


So if polls said slavery was ripe to make a comback or that RvW should be overturned you would be okay with it?

What about mandatory registration of real name and address  for everyone to see for being able to post on messgae boards....
 
2013-04-04 01:33:41 AM  

redmid17: Kludge: 22% of Americans own guns.  Not to be confused with the oft touted polling that 35% of households that have guns.

22% of Americans.

57% of that 22% want gun laws to stay the same, or be relaxed.

That's 13% of all Americans.

Clearly we should do what they say.

Even if your stats were right (they aren't), the bill of rights was put there, among other things, to balance majority rule vs minority rights.


Now the paranoid farks who are already armed to the tooth are an oppressed minority because some congresscritters are proposing to regulate the Militia for once?
That's farking hilarious - in a throw up until dry heaves start and then throw up some more kind of way.

/What of the right of the 100,000+ Americans who suffer from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) to remain unshot?
 
2013-04-04 01:36:14 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: /What of the right of the 100,000+ Americans who suffer from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) to remain unshot?


Maybe they should find better friends who are not involved in criminal activity, they may even be involved in criminal activity themselves.

They should find a hobby like hunting to kill time instead of selling drugs. Hunting is safer by far.
 
2013-04-04 01:36:50 AM  

Giltric: What about mandatory registration of real name and address  for everyone to see for being able to post on messgae boards


Let me launch a scathing post in your direction and let's see if you or some other random innocent farkerstander drops dead as a result.
/Surprise, surprise. It didn't work.
/You're still alive, stupid.
 
2013-04-04 01:38:58 AM  

Giltric: Kludge: redmid17: ...

So if polls said slavery was ripe to make a comback or that RvW should be overturned you would be okay with it?

What about mandatory registration of real name and address  for everyone to see for being able to post on messgae boards....


Slavery is not making a comeback.  Abortion is heavily regulated. The last one would be debatable if the first amendment mentioned "well-regulated speech".
 
2013-04-04 01:45:09 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Giltric: What about mandatory registration of real name and address  for everyone to see for being able to post on messgae boards

Let me launch a scathing post in your direction and let's see if you or some other random innocent farkerstander drops dead as a result.
/Surprise, surprise. It didn't work.
/You're still alive, stupid.


So you don't care about saving the lives of self concious teen and pre teen girls from asphyixiating themselves?
Even if it saves one life?
Go tell the parents of this girl she is not worth saving and neither are other girls like her.
Look at her face long and hard.

media.katu.com
 
2013-04-04 01:47:07 AM  

Kludge: Giltric: Kludge: redmid17: ...

So if polls said slavery was ripe to make a comback or that RvW should be overturned you would be okay with it?

What about mandatory registration of real name and address  for everyone to see for being able to post on messgae boards....

Slavery is not making a comeback.  Abortion is heavily regulated. The last one would be debatable if the first amendment mentioned "well-regulated speech".


The militia is to be "well regulated", but he right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".

Have you never read the amendment?
 
2013-04-04 01:47:51 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: redmid17: Kludge: 22% of Americans own guns.  Not to be confused with the oft touted polling that 35% of households that have guns.

22% of Americans.

57% of that 22% want gun laws to stay the same, or be relaxed.

That's 13% of all Americans.

Clearly we should do what they say.

Even if your stats were right (they aren't), the bill of rights was put there, among other things, to balance majority rule vs minority rights.

Now the paranoid farks who are already armed to the tooth are an oppressed minority because some congresscritters are proposing to regulate the Militia for once?
That's farking hilarious - in a throw up until dry heaves start and then throw up some more kind of way.

/What of the right of the 100,000+ Americans who suffer from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) to remain unshot?


If you want to say something useful, feel free to.
 
2013-04-04 01:55:19 AM  
Giltric: ...

The militia is to be "well regulated", but he right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".

Have you never read the amendment?


It's only one sentence long.  And no where does it say or imply that guns cannot be subject to regulation, in fact it specifically says regulation.

But clearly you are a man who is a passionate defender of what you imagine the constitution says, so I won't argue with you further.
 
2013-04-04 01:57:56 AM  

Kludge: And no where does it say or imply that guns cannot be subject to regulation, in fact it specifically says regulation.


Citation?
 
2013-04-04 01:59:43 AM  

Giltric: Kludge: And no where does it say or imply that guns cannot be subject to regulation, in fact it specifically says regulation.

Citation?


You seriously need a citation for the second amendment?
 
2013-04-04 02:04:28 AM  

Giltric: Kludge: And no where does it say or imply that guns cannot be subject to regulation, in fact it specifically says regulation.

Citation?


The 2nd amendment obviously has regulation in it, and Heller does allow for regulation:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "

The issue is that most of the proposed legislation really isn't reasonable when working from a framework of Miller, Heller, and McDonald for a variety of reasons.
 
2013-04-04 02:07:11 AM  

Kludge: Giltric: Kludge: And no where does it say or imply that guns cannot be subject to regulation, in fact it specifically says regulation.

Citation?

You seriously need a citation for the second amendment?



Problem?
Maybe you are reading the amendment out of some Brady Group propaganda leaflet.
 
2013-04-04 03:39:30 AM  
I'm kind of torn.  As I have stated before, we need to enforce the gun laws we already have instead of creating new ones.  It is, however, very easy to get a pistol if you're a law abiding citizen and a clean record.  I know because I just bought my first one and it took all of about 5 minutes and I was paying for it.  I wouldn't have a problem with a 7 day waiting period for a pistol bought through a dealer.  I mean, if you HAVE to have that pistol NOW then you are probably the exact person who doesn't need one NOW.  Criminals will always get illegal throw away guns.  Harsher penalties won't deter them.  The fear of the death sentence won't deter them.  More gun laws will just make it harder for the ones who are responsible gun owners.
 
2013-04-04 03:49:00 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: I'm kind of torn.  As I have stated before, we need to enforce the gun laws we already have instead of creating new ones.  It is, however, very easy to get a pistol if you're a law abiding citizen and a clean record.  I know because I just bought my first one and it took all of about 5 minutes and I was paying for it.  I wouldn't have a problem with a 7 day waiting period for a pistol bought through a dealer.  I mean, if you HAVE to have that pistol NOW then you are probably the exact person who doesn't need one NOW.  Criminals will always get illegal throw away guns.  Harsher penalties won't deter them.  The fear of the death sentence won't deter them.  More gun laws will just make it harder for the ones who are responsible gun owners.


Is there really any good reason to force a waiting period? Has it actually been proven to reduce anything? Certainly hasn't helped the Chicago murder rate, but that's hardly a thorough review of the topic.
 
2013-04-04 06:53:52 AM  
Mrbogey: liam76: If you are "Joe American" the straw purchaser you are probably going to re-think your career, and if you don't the authorities will have a lot more tools to get you.

If you are "Joe American" he thug you are probably going to have to work a lot farking harder to get a gun because of how tought it will be to sell one to someoen who shouldn't own one.

Joe Strawpurchaser- "Dammit, that gun I bought last month is stolen! Guess I'll go buy another one! Hope this one doesn't get stolen again."


You don't think police are going to notice the guy who loses 20+ guns a year?


Or better yet, just fake a name. Buy a gun under someone else's name from a private buyer.

What is stopping them from just faking a name now?


That you think criminals are stupid to not take any precautions doesn't  mean they'll be hard pressed. What you will guarantee though is people who do have legitimate issues get caught up in the legal system having to defend themselves.

I never said they are stupid (thought many are). My point was that this will make it more difficult for them and give better tools to law enforcement to catch people who are selling guns to people who shouldn't have them. Just because there is no magic bullet or perfect answer that will stop all of them doesn't mean this is a bad idea.


But luckily once you have someone who would normally not be on the wrong side of the legal system gets thrown in prison we'll have the usuals biatching about how we imprison too many people. Because really, that's the solution to America's crime problem, subject more people to criminal scrutiny and have cops chasing around technical violators... who we all know are the REAL criminals.

If you are selling guns to people who can't pass a background check (which is the main point of this bill, every other "problem, real or imagined" can be fixed) you should be subject to criminal scrutiny. That is not a "technical violation".
 
2013-04-04 06:57:45 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: I'm kind of torn.  As I have stated before, we need to enforce the gun laws we already have instead of creating new ones.  It is, however, very easy to get a pistol if you're a law abiding citizen and a clean record.  I know because I just bought my first one and it took all of about 5 minutes and I was paying for it.  I wouldn't have a problem with a 7 day waiting period for a pistol bought through a dealer.  I mean, if you HAVE to have that pistol NOW then you are probably the exact person who doesn't need one NOW.  Criminals will always get illegal throw away guns.  Harsher penalties won't deter them.  The fear of the death sentence won't deter them.  More gun laws will just make it harder for the ones who are responsible gun owners.


That isn't true for all states.

As far as criminals always getting throw away guns?  I don't buy that.

"Some" criminals will.  But the ease of them getting guns is directly tired to how easy it is for "law abiding responsible" gun owners to sell to them.
 
2013-04-04 07:17:38 AM  

Kludge: But clearly you are a man who is a passionate defender of what you imagine the constitution says, so I won't argue with you further.


Actually, he has the USSC on his side. You're the passionate defender of what you believe it says since you're arguing counter to them.

liam76: If you are selling guns to people who can't pass a background check (which is the main point of this bill, every other "problem, real or imagined" can be fixed) you should be subject to criminal scrutiny. That is not a "technical violation".


You seem to be operating under the believe that law enforcement will only catch "real criminals". It doesn't. It catches violators of the law. Not all of who are out to commit criminal activity. But the person who accidentally fails to properly file paperwork or commits a technical violation of the law with no criminal intent won't feel better knowing it makes America 0.000001% safer.
 
2013-04-04 07:35:28 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: redmid17: Kludge: 22% of Americans own guns.  Not to be confused with the oft touted polling that 35% of households that have guns.

22% of Americans.

57% of that 22% want gun laws to stay the same, or be relaxed.

That's 13% of all Americans.

Clearly we should do what they say.

Even if your stats were right (they aren't), the bill of rights was put there, among other things, to balance majority rule vs minority rights.

Now the paranoid farks who are already armed to the tooth are an oppressed minority because some congresscritters are proposing to regulate the Militia for once?
That's farking hilarious - in a throw up until dry heaves start and then throw up some more kind of way.

/What of the right of the 100,000+ Americans who suffer from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) to remain unshot?


Everyone has the right not to get shot, it's up to you to exercise it.
The paranoia is firmly with the 'Ban Everything' crowd right now, they're just trying to get others to feed off of it.  Maybe you need a tank to drive to work, to feel safe.  Supporting the current administrations efforts to take guns and ammunition out of the hands of law abiding citizens, while arming the drug cartels?  Now that is one incredible perspective.
 
2013-04-04 08:11:05 AM  

Mrbogey: liam76: If you are selling guns to people who can't pass a background check (which is the main point of this bill, every other "problem, real or imagined" can be fixed) you should be subject to criminal scrutiny. That is not a "technical violation".

You seem to be operating under the believe that law enforcement will only catch "real criminals". It doesn't. It catches violators of the law. Not all of who are out to commit criminal activity. But the person who accidentally fails to properly file paperwork or commits a technical violation of the law with no criminal intent won't feel better knowing it makes America 0.000001% safer


If you are selling guns to people who haven't had a background check, if that is the law of ther land, that isn't an "accident".  Nor is it a "technical violation".

That is what you are biatching about.  A law saying that if you are going to sell a gun to someone you have to make sure they have a background check.
 
2013-04-04 08:55:21 AM  

BayouOtter: liam76: BayouOtter: liam76:
He seems to be full of shiat, as ar the links he rests on. They imply you must fill out a from within 24 hours of a gun being lost/stolen, whent he law says you must only "report it" within 24 hours of "knowing about it". I make a phone call and I have reported on it.

Just make sure you call the attorney general!

They also mention the authorities.  You call the cops, you are good.  If you are really concerned that they would get you on not contacting the AG, you can shoot him an email.

Page 14, line 17
within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.''

You can't just 'call the cops'. I really hope you don't go on a week-long trip and lose your gun - you've got 24 hours to get back to civilization or you get slapped with a felony. (You also can't just report things over the phone, there are papers to sign and statements to make that require being face to face with officers.)



You're right. Losing a gun should be treated exactly the same way as losing your reading glasses.  Heaven forbid what would happen if gun owners had to contemplate the paperwork involved with losing their gun in between their couch and the wall.  It might make them. . .*gasp* more responsible with their guns.
 
2013-04-04 09:01:09 AM  

spif: Am I the only one around here who is farking tired of the simple fact that the only gun violence events that are used for these arguments are the ones where mostly white people are getting killed instead of the vast amounts of gang related violence in large cities?


No, just like I'm tired of us focusing on rifles when handguns are far more often involved in crimes.  But sometimes we do go for style over substance.
 
2013-04-04 09:05:38 AM  

pueblonative: You're right. Losing a gun should be treated exactly the same way as losing your reading glasses. Heaven forbid what would happen if gun owners had to contemplate the paperwork involved with losing their gun in between their couch and the wall. It might make them. . .*gasp* more responsible with their guns


Thsi is a red herring.

There is no requirement for paperwork.

All you are going to have to do is call the cops.

And if you think calling the cops is too much of a hassle when a gun is lost or stolen, you aren't a responsible gun owner.
 
2013-04-04 09:07:25 AM  

liam76: There is no requirement for paperwork.

All you are going to have to do is call the cops.

And if you think calling the cops is too much of a hassle when a gun is lost or stolen, you aren't a responsible gun owner.


Agreed.  I'm saying that if there was I wouldn't have a problem with it.  And since most of the gun owners here are responsible, they shouldn't have a problem with it either, or much of a need.
 
2013-04-04 09:13:43 AM  

liam76: Bigdogdaddy: I'm kind of torn.  As I have stated before, we need to enforce the gun laws we already have instead of creating new ones.  It is, however, very easy to get a pistol if you're a law abiding citizen and a clean record.  I know because I just bought my first one and it took all of about 5 minutes and I was paying for it.  I wouldn't have a problem with a 7 day waiting period for a pistol bought through a dealer.  I mean, if you HAVE to have that pistol NOW then you are probably the exact person who doesn't need one NOW.  Criminals will always get illegal throw away guns.  Harsher penalties won't deter them.  The fear of the death sentence won't deter them.  More gun laws will just make it harder for the ones who are responsible gun owners.

That isn't true for all states.

As far as criminals always getting throw away guns?  I don't buy that.

"Some" criminals will.  But the ease of them getting guns is directly tired to how easy it is for "law abiding responsible" gun owners to sell to them.


Respectfully, I know of no gun owner that would sell his pistol to someone who was a criminal or someone he didn't know.  I'm sure it happens, but the people I know are smart enough to know that is a bad idea.
 
2013-04-04 09:30:47 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: liam76: Bigdogdaddy: I'm kind of torn.  As I have stated before, we need to enforce the gun laws we already have instead of creating new ones.  It is, however, very easy to get a pistol if you're a law abiding citizen and a clean record.  I know because I just bought my first one and it took all of about 5 minutes and I was paying for it.  I wouldn't have a problem with a 7 day waiting period for a pistol bought through a dealer.  I mean, if you HAVE to have that pistol NOW then you are probably the exact person who doesn't need one NOW.  Criminals will always get illegal throw away guns.  Harsher penalties won't deter them.  The fear of the death sentence won't deter them.  More gun laws will just make it harder for the ones who are responsible gun owners.

That isn't true for all states.

As far as criminals always getting throw away guns?  I don't buy that.

"Some" criminals will.  But the ease of them getting guns is directly tired to how easy it is for "law abiding responsible" gun owners to sell to them.

Respectfully, I know of no gun owner that would sell his pistol to someone who was a criminal or someone he didn't know.  I'm sure it happens, but the people I know are smart enough to know that is a bad idea.


But the fact is that it is happening.  So why the opposition to punich those that are doing soemthing none of the gun owners you know would ever do?

While owning a gun is a right, selling it comes with responsibility.  Half an hour of extra paperwork is completely reasonable.
 
2013-04-04 09:41:52 AM  

liam76: Bigdogdaddy: liam76: Bigdogdaddy: I'm kind of torn.  As I have stated before, we need to enforce the gun laws we already have instead of creating new ones.  It is, however, very easy to get a pistol if you're a law abiding citizen and a clean record.  I know because I just bought my first one and it took all of about 5 minutes and I was paying for it.  I wouldn't have a problem with a 7 day waiting period for a pistol bought through a dealer.  I mean, if you HAVE to have that pistol NOW then you are probably the exact person who doesn't need one NOW.  Criminals will always get illegal throw away guns.  Harsher penalties won't deter them.  The fear of the death sentence won't deter them.  More gun laws will just make it harder for the ones who are responsible gun owners.

That isn't true for all states.

As far as criminals always getting throw away guns?  I don't buy that.

"Some" criminals will.  But the ease of them getting guns is directly tired to how easy it is for "law abiding responsible" gun owners to sell to them.

Respectfully, I know of no gun owner that would sell his pistol to someone who was a criminal or someone he didn't know.  I'm sure it happens, but the people I know are smart enough to know that is a bad idea.

But the fact is that it is happening.  So why the opposition to punich those that are doing soemthing none of the gun owners you know would ever do?

While owning a gun is a right, selling it comes with responsibility.  Half an hour of extra paperwork is completely reasonable.


Legislating responsibility has never worked.  Punishing the irresponsible for their actions might.  However, we do not do that.  When we start punishing those that break the spider web of laws already on the books, I will support more laws and regulations.
 
2013-04-04 09:58:14 AM  

JunkyJu: Now the paranoid farks who are already armed to the tooth are an oppressed minority because some congresscritters are proposing to regulate the Militia for once?
That's farking hilarious - in a throw up until dry heaves start and then throw up some more kind of way.

/What of the right of the 100,000+ Americans who suffer from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) to remain unshot?

Everyone has the right not to get shot, it's up to you to exercise it.
The paranoia is firmly with the 'Ban Everything' crowd right now, they're just trying to get others to feed off of it.  Maybe you need a tank to drive to work, to feel safe.  Supporting the current administrations efforts to take guns and ammunition out of the hands of law abiding citizens, while arming the drug cartels?  Now that is one incredible perspective.


The current administration is trying to take guns and ammunition out of the hands of anybody except the mentally ill and criminals?
[citation_sorely_needed.jpg]
[you're_trippin_balls,_yo.gif]
 
2013-04-04 10:02:26 AM  

liam76: Mrbogey: liam76: If you are selling guns to people who can't pass a background check (which is the main point of this bill, every other "problem, real or imagined" can be fixed) you should be subject to criminal scrutiny. That is not a "technical violation".

You seem to be operating under the believe that law enforcement will only catch "real criminals". It doesn't. It catches violators of the law. Not all of who are out to commit criminal activity. But the person who accidentally fails to properly file paperwork or commits a technical violation of the law with no criminal intent won't feel better knowing it makes America 0.000001% safer

If you are selling guns to people who haven't had a background check, if that is the law of ther land, that isn't an "accident".  Nor is it a "technical violation".

That is what you are biatching about.  A law saying that if you are going to sell a gun to someone you have to make sure they have a background check.


The ATF *loves* going after technical violations and paperwork violations. Hell that's most of why FOPA was passed and they certainly haven't eased up on it much since, given that they pretty much ignore it when a felon tries to buy a gun legally. Yes it's good that the felon was denied a gun purchase, but it's also a ten year penalty for lying on a 4473. It's kind of hard to forget that you have a felony record or spent more than a year in jail, amongst other disqualifying characteristics. Do you think that the 35K or so felons a year  who fail this route being off the street would have an effect on violent crime?

So while they "lack the resources" to go after what should be a fairly easy prosecution with defendant provided, concrete evidence, they can roll in with plenty of officers to search for illegal explosives on a guy whose company is sponsored by a tannerite manufacturer (allegedly for making money, not selling to criminals or anything violent) or this trainwreck of stupidity?
 
2013-04-04 10:16:41 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: Legislating responsibility has never worked. Punishing the irresponsible for their actions might. However, we do not do that. When we start punishing those that break the spider web of laws already on the books, I will support more laws and regulations


Laws about drunk driving beg to disagree.

What spider web of laws do I break by selling my gun to somebody I know nothing about?


redmid17: The ATF *loves* going after technical violations and paperwork violations. Hell that's most of why FOPA was passed and they certainly haven't eased up on it much since, given that they pretty much ignore it when a felon tries to buy a gun legally. Yes it's good that the felon was denied a gun purchase, but it's also a ten year penalty for lying on a 4473. It's kind of hard to forget that you have a felony record or spent more than a year in jail, amongst other disqualifying characteristics. Do you think that the 35K or so felons a year who fail this route being off the street would have an effect on violent crime


It is easy to argue in court that you *thought* it was expunged, didn't apply to you, that your parole officer told you it was cool, etc.

At the end of the day no felon got a gun, no criminal was armed, so I am not that butt hurt about them not going after those people.

If I were crafting the law it would be a misdemeanor for selling your gun simply without having the person do a background check.  It woudl be a felony if you sold to someone who couldn't pass a background check.


redmid17: So while they "lack the resources" to go after what should be a fairly easy prosecution with defendant provided, concrete evidence, they can roll in with plenty of officers to search for illegal explosives on a guy whose company is sponsored by a tannerite manufacturer (allegedly for making money, not selling to criminals or anything violent) or this trainwreck of stupidity


I am not going to argue that the ATF is a great or even good LE agency.

The point is that this would give them very big teeth when it came to people doing what we can all agree is very bad, selling guns to felons and the like.
 
2013-04-04 10:18:28 AM  

redmid17: what should be a fairly easy prosecution with defendant provided


You should re-read your link.

It spelled otu a number of reasons why they don't, and in rebuttal to your point there,

We believe that the number of referrals and prosecutions is low because of the difficulty in obtaining convictions in NICS cases.  These cases lack "jury appeal" for various reasons.  The factors prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm may have been nonviolent or committed many years ago.  The basis for the prohibition may have been noncriminal (e.g., a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military).  It is also difficult to prove that the prohibited person was aware of the prohibition and intentionally lied to the FFL [federally licensed dealer].  We were also told that in parts of the United States where hunting historically has been part of the regional culture, juries are reluctant to convict a person who attempted to purchase a hunting rifle.
 
2013-04-04 10:20:20 AM  

liam76: redmid17: what should be a fairly easy prosecution with defendant provided

You should re-read your link.

It spelled otu a number of reasons why they don't, and in rebuttal to your point there,

We believe that the number of referrals and prosecutions is low because of the difficulty in obtaining convictions in NICS cases.  These cases lack "jury appeal" for various reasons.  The factors prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm may have been nonviolent or committed many years ago.  The basis for the prohibition may have been noncriminal (e.g., a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military).  It is also difficult to prove that the prohibited person was aware of the prohibition and intentionally lied to the FFL [federally licensed dealer].  We were also told that in parts of the United States where hunting historically has been part of the regional culture, juries are reluctant to convict a person who attempted to purchase a hunting rifle.


I did see that part. Still doesn't change the fact that 35K former felons applied and surely more than the 64 prosecuted had some type of felony that was the kind that wouldn't fall into those categories.
 
2013-04-04 10:28:07 AM  

redmid17: liam76: redmid17: what should be a fairly easy prosecution with defendant provided

You should re-read your link.

It spelled otu a number of reasons why they don't, and in rebuttal to your point there,

We believe that the number of referrals and prosecutions is low because of the difficulty in obtaining convictions in NICS cases. These cases lack "jury appeal" for various reasons. The factors prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm may have been nonviolent or committed many years ago. The basis for the prohibition may have been noncriminal (e.g., a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military). It is also difficult to prove that the prohibited person was aware of the prohibition and intentionally lied to the FFL [federally licensed dealer]. We were also told that in parts of the United States where hunting historically has been part of the regional culture, juries are reluctant to convict a person who attempted to purchase a hunting rifle.

I did see that part. Still doesn't change the fact that 35K former felons applied and surely more than the 64 prosecuted had some type of felony that was the kind that wouldn't fall into those categories


Doesn't matter what type of felony it is, it is still difficult to prove they knowingly lied.

At I said above, the point is that this would give them very big teeth when it came to people doing what we can all agree is very bad, selling guns to felons and the like.
 
2013-04-04 10:46:05 AM  

liam76: redmid17: liam76: redmid17: what should be a fairly easy prosecution with defendant provided

You should re-read your link.

It spelled otu a number of reasons why they don't, and in rebuttal to your point there,

We believe that the number of referrals and prosecutions is low because of the difficulty in obtaining convictions in NICS cases. These cases lack "jury appeal" for various reasons. The factors prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm may have been nonviolent or committed many years ago. The basis for the prohibition may have been noncriminal (e.g., a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military).

Doesn't matter what type of felony it is, it is still difficult to prove they knowingly lied.


I disagree, actually. Martha Stewart shouldn't be barred from own guns, or voting. She did some insider trading, not brutally shot and kidnapped some nuns. Felonies used to be serious, violent crimes, but these days so many things are felonies that you end up barring a ton of people that don't need to be barred.

Honestly, I don't really get the 'prohibited persons' part anyhow - if somebody is so dangerous and violent they can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted with gasoline, or axes, or giant 1-ton hunks of metal they can accelerate to 60 miles per hour. In short, they should be locked up until they aren't dangerous anymore.

Somebody that did some dumbass robbery thirty years ago and served his time/parole shouldn't have his rights eliminated forever. Its stupid.
 
2013-04-04 10:46:29 AM  

liam76: redmid17: liam76: redmid17: what should be a fairly easy prosecution with defendant provided

You should re-read your link.

It spelled otu a number of reasons why they don't, and in rebuttal to your point there,

We believe that the number of referrals and prosecutions is low because of the difficulty in obtaining convictions in NICS cases. These cases lack "jury appeal" for various reasons. The factors prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm may have been nonviolent or committed many years ago. The basis for the prohibition may have been noncriminal (e.g., a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military). It is also difficult to prove that the prohibited person was aware of the prohibition and intentionally lied to the FFL [federally licensed dealer]. We were also told that in parts of the United States where hunting historically has been part of the regional culture, juries are reluctant to convict a person who attempted to purchase a hunting rifle.

I did see that part. Still doesn't change the fact that 35K former felons applied and surely more than the 64 prosecuted had some type of felony that was the kind that wouldn't fall into those categories

Doesn't matter what type of felony it is, it is still difficult to prove they knowingly lied.

At I said above, the point is that this would give them very big teeth when it came to people doing what we can all agree is very bad, selling guns to felons and the like.


I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon?

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-04 10:51:01 AM  

redmid17: I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon


Peopel are idiots, not really paying attention, etc.

the point is it is very tought to prove beyond a reasoanbel doubt they knew that should be a no.

And now that I think about it, what happens if you check yes?  Does the dealer say, no dice and stops there, ro submit it anyway?
 
2013-04-04 11:06:27 AM  

liam76: redmid17: I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon

Peopel are idiots, not really paying attention, etc.

the point is it is very tought to prove beyond a reasoanbel doubt they knew that should be a no.

And now that I think about it, what happens if you check yes?  Does the dealer say, no dice and stops there, ro submit it anyway?


The dealer will run the NCIS check regardless of the 4473 answer.  A non-violent felony doesn't necessarily prohibit a person from possessing a weapon, only certain classes of felonies  (violent, weapons, kidnapping, rape, etc.).  However if you lie on the 4473 and are caught, that is a felony, so you can automatically check YES from that point forward.
 
2013-04-04 11:11:01 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Now the paranoid farks who are already armed to the tooth are an oppressed minority because some congresscritters are proposing to regulate the Militia for once?
That's farking hilarious - in a throw up until dry heaves start and then throw up some more kind of way.

/What of the right of the 100,000+ Americans who suffer from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) to remain unshot?


Something quite ironic about a person who fears everyone who owns a gun claiming that gun owners are the paranoid ones.

Maybe we just need to make the Gun Free Zone signs at schools bigger.  Clearly Lanza just didn't see them and didn't realize he should leave his guns at home that day.  Never mind that the only thing that stopped his rampage was a bullet.
 
2013-04-04 11:11:28 AM  

liam76: redmid17: I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon

Peopel are idiots, not really paying attention, etc.

the point is it is very tought to prove beyond a reasoanbel doubt they knew that should be a no.

And now that I think about it, what happens if you check yes?  Does the dealer say, no dice and stops there, ro submit it anyway?


I don't think it's automatic show stopper. Plenty of people have remedied those records (ie gotten themselves declared mentally sound and taken off the mentally adjudicated list or had a crime expunged), so I imagine they'd want the check run anyway. You can appeal those decisions anyway, as the article also notes.
 
2013-04-04 11:12:01 AM  

SCUBA_Archer: liam76: redmid17: I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon

Peopel are idiots, not really paying attention, etc.

the point is it is very tought to prove beyond a reasoanbel doubt they knew that should be a no.

And now that I think about it, what happens if you check yes?  Does the dealer say, no dice and stops there, ro submit it anyway?

The dealer will run the NCIS check regardless of the 4473 answer.  A non-violent felony doesn't necessarily prohibit a person from possessing a weapon, only certain classes of felonies  (violent, weapons, kidnapping, rape, etc.).  However if you lie on the 4473 and are caught, that is a felony, so you can automatically check YES from that point forward.


Then isn't the conclusion he drew fromthe article he linked wrong, that all 35k of the peopel with felonies are guilty of a crime?
 
2013-04-04 11:14:07 AM  

liam76: SCUBA_Archer: liam76: redmid17: I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon

Peopel are idiots, not really paying attention, etc.

the point is it is very tought to prove beyond a reasoanbel doubt they knew that should be a no.

And now that I think about it, what happens if you check yes?  Does the dealer say, no dice and stops there, ro submit it anyway?

The dealer will run the NCIS check regardless of the 4473 answer.  A non-violent felony doesn't necessarily prohibit a person from possessing a weapon, only certain classes of felonies  (violent, weapons, kidnapping, rape, etc.).  However if you lie on the 4473 and are caught, that is a felony, so you can automatically check YES from that point forward.

Then isn't the conclusion he drew fromthe article he linked wrong, that all 35k of the peopel with felonies are guilty of a crime?


The 35K quoted in the article would fall under the the "certain classes" of felonies he mentioned. If they weren't banned, they wouldn't have failed the NICS check

/circular i know
 
2013-04-04 11:16:01 AM  

SCUBA_Archer: liam76: redmid17: I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon

Peopel are idiots, not really paying attention, etc.

the point is it is very tought to prove beyond a reasoanbel doubt they knew that should be a no.

And now that I think about it, what happens if you check yes?  Does the dealer say, no dice and stops there, ro submit it anyway?

The dealer will run the NCIS check regardless of the 4473 answer.  A non-violent felony doesn't necessarily prohibit a person from possessing a weapon, only certain classes of felonies  (violent, weapons, kidnapping, rape, etc.).  However if you lie on the 4473 and are caught, that is a felony, so you can automatically check YES from that point forward.



Not sure if it has been said in the thread in regards to lieing on a 4473 but....

When the person lies and is denied his purchase, would they seek out a firearm through other off the books methods? What happens when they kill someone or commit a crime with a firearm when they should be in jail for a mandatory minimum but their is nothing sexy about prosecuting a paper crime or at least no will to prosecute.....

Even if it saves one life....yeah right.
 
2013-04-04 11:16:16 AM  

redmid17: liam76: SCUBA_Archer: liam76: redmid17: I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon

Peopel are idiots, not really paying attention, etc.

the point is it is very tought to prove beyond a reasoanbel doubt they knew that should be a no.

And now that I think about it, what happens if you check yes?  Does the dealer say, no dice and stops there, ro submit it anyway?

The dealer will run the NCIS check regardless of the 4473 answer.  A non-violent felony doesn't necessarily prohibit a person from possessing a weapon, only certain classes of felonies  (violent, weapons, kidnapping, rape, etc.).  However if you lie on the 4473 and are caught, that is a felony, so you can automatically check YES from that point forward.

Then isn't the conclusion he drew fromthe article he linked wrong, that all 35k of the peopel with felonies are guilty of a crime?

The 35K quoted in the article would fall under the the "certain classes" of felonies he mentioned. If they weren't banned, they wouldn't have failed the NICS check

/circular i know


You were arguing that those 35k should be prosecuted.  The crime is lying on that form.  The missing piece here is proof that all 35k lied.  We don't have that, unless I am missing something.
 
2013-04-04 11:21:54 AM  
Chief Flynn in his argument with Senator Graham claimed that in his state 80k people lied or failed their background checks.

Prosecuting more than the 44 people that they did prosecute would probably put a large dent in the rate of gun related crime.
 
2013-04-04 11:22:02 AM  

liam76: redmid17: liam76: SCUBA_Archer: liam76: redmid17: I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon

Peopel are idiots, not really paying attention, etc.

the point is it is very tought to prove beyond a reasoanbel doubt they knew that should be a no.

And now that I think about it, what happens if you check yes?  Does the dealer say, no dice and stops there, ro submit it anyway?

The dealer will run the NCIS check regardless of the 4473 answer.  A non-violent felony doesn't necessarily prohibit a person from possessing a weapon, only certain classes of felonies  (violent, weapons, kidnapping, rape, etc.).  However if you lie on the 4473 and are caught, that is a felony, so you can automatically check YES from that point forward.

Then isn't the conclusion he drew fromthe article he linked wrong, that all 35k of the peopel with felonies are guilty of a crime?

The 35K quoted in the article would fall under the the "certain classes" of felonies he mentioned. If they weren't banned, they wouldn't have failed the NICS check

/circular i know

You were arguing that those 35k should be prosecuted.  The crime is lying on that form.  The missing piece here is proof that all 35k lied.  We don't have that, unless I am missing something.


Those people did not check "yes" for the 'I am a felon' option on the form.
 
2013-04-04 11:30:35 AM  

SCUBA_Archer: demaL-demaL-yeH: Now the paranoid farks who are already armed to the tooth are an oppressed minority because some congresscritters are proposing to regulate the Militia for once?
That's farking hilarious - in a throw up until dry heaves start and then throw up some more kind of way.

/What of the right of the 100,000+ Americans who suffer from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) to remain unshot?

Something quite ironic about a person who fears everyone who owns a gun claiming that gun owners are the paranoid ones.

Maybe we just need to make the Gun Free Zone signs at schools bigger.  Clearly Lanza just didn't see them and didn't realize he should leave his guns at home that day.  Never mind that the only thing that stopped his rampage was a bullet.


Some enlightenment:
I am specifically in favor of Congress reinstating the Militia as mandatory service the way the Founders intended - for every citizen over the age of 16. That includes registering all weapons (Militia Acts of 1792 -  Section X), mandatory drilling, weapons training and qualification, inspection of all arms and ammunition, mental and physical screening and standards applied, members subject to military regulations (Congress  used the ones they approved in 1779 for that), and service in whatever capacity one is capable.
If you're a criminal, you are barred from bearing arms. If you are mentally incompetent, you are barred until you are well. You will secure all weapons properly in your home or at your local militia armory (rotating guard duty, too, bub). Concealed carry? Nope. If you're under arms, you will be visibly under arms. Carrying in forbidden zones - schools and the like - has militia felony consequences. Brandishing, assault, firing inside city limits - felony militia consequences. You are a member of the militia, and your arms are subject to militia regulation. And if you are a conscientious objector, you are exempt from bearing arms, but you must serve in another capacity.
 
2013-04-04 11:35:22 AM  

redmid17: Those people did not check "yes" for the 'I am a felon' option on the form


Can you find anywhere in the articel where it says that.

My reading of it just shows the 35k is the number who failed for being felons.
 
2013-04-04 11:47:41 AM  

liam76: redmid17: Those people did not check "yes" for the 'I am a felon' option on the form

Can you find anywhere in the articel where it says that.

My reading of it just shows the 35k is the number who failed for being felons.


Admittedly I do not see that either (nor in the report) but I don't really see people checking "yes" for the felony question when they fill it out, intentionally or not.
 
2013-04-04 11:55:29 AM  

redmid17: liam76: redmid17: Those people did not check "yes" for the 'I am a felon' option on the form

Can you find anywhere in the articel where it says that.

My reading of it just shows the 35k is the number who failed for being felons.

Admittedly I do not see that either (nor in the report) but I don't really see people checking "yes" for the felony question when they fill it out, intentionally or not.


I have never actually filled it out.

the guns I "owned" were my family's that I have had at my house.

I assumed the dealer asked you and said no dice if you answered yes.  I think if the article had solid numbers abotu peopel who lied that woudl be a big deal.
 
Displayed 449 of 449 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report