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  
•       •       •

962 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Apr 2013 at 11:54 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 449 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report