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

(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
    More: Fail, Morning Joe, Americans, gun laws, assault weapons, Just Seventeen, United States Public Debt  
•       •       •

966 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Apr 2013 at 11:54 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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