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

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

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



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-03 02:21:29 PM

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


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

Dancin_In_Anson: My new ride.


[i1123.photobucket.com image 850x634]


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

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

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


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

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

Well honestly, 1 in ten Americans are currently on antidepressants, 1 in four have been in the past - so if you say 'any mental health problems, no guns' you have some massive overreach.Okay, what if you were suicidal for a bit, but its been 10 years and you're fit as a fiddle - should you get your rights back? Who determines what and when there is 'too much' mental illness? Also, could it make people less likely to seek care if they think their rights will be abrogated?

It is a more complex issue than just guns, the entire mental health system and our attitudes to mental health need to change, drastically.
 3. Why is it that virtually every time they talk about their proposed "solutions" to gun violence, the step at which they want to start is a maniac already on the loose shooting at people? It's never "how can we keep dangerous people from obtaining guns", it's always "a dangerous person has a gun, how can we stop him?"


Really, the question should be 'how do we keep people from wanting to do harm?' Because if they don't have guns, they might start a fire, or crash an airplane or something. Revamping mental health care might be a good first step.

Gun proponents don't want to acknowledge the problem and they don't want to be part of the solution and that's all there is to it. That's the only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from their rhetoric.

Its clear that 'gun control' advocates don't want to acknowledge the problem of homicidal maniacs, and instead insist that guns generate some kind of murder-field that makes people more deadly and willing to kill.
 
2013-04-03 02:23:14 PM

GanjSmokr: Well that's just stupid.


His argument was stupid, which is why I pointed it out with this analogy.
 
2013-04-03 02:23:36 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: . I wasn't blaming the method.


Then you agree it's immaterial if a gun was used or a razor or a bridge.
 
2013-04-03 02:25:02 PM

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


Or, you know, alternatively, we could make sure that all roads have posted speed limits so people don't get confused.

/Sometimes the analogy gets away from you.
 
2013-04-03 02:25:57 PM

Lawyers With Nukes: And the inexorable expansion of State-sponsored violence marches on.

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

Don't be confused, gun control advocates LOVE guns, but only in the hands of the privileged.


FYI, "But I may need them to shoot cops" isn't as compelling an argument against gun control as you think it is.....
 
2013-04-03 02:26:00 PM
Some people kill themselves with guns, so you can't have a gun citizen.  While you're here, give me your car keys, your pocket knife, your belt, your shoe laces.....
 
2013-04-03 02:26:12 PM

doglover: Then you agree it's immaterial if a gun was used or a razor or a bridge.


Half of 30,000 people killing themselves with a gun isn't immaterial. It's a number we should try to reduce.
 
2013-04-03 02:26:15 PM

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

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

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

/Giltric-I agree they should be free

Here: This has an analysis and links to more.

I've made a lot of posts about it, I should have saved them.


He seems to be full of shiat, as ar the links he rests on.  They imply you must fill out a from within 24 hours of a gun being lost/stolen, whent he law says you must only "report it" within 24 hours of "knowing about it".  I make a phone call and I have reported on it.

They lie and say if you hand a gun to a friend to shoot it is crime, even though page 12 calls that out as an exemption from a "transfer".  Aslo as long as the gun stays in yoru house it isn't a "transfer".  YOu can gift to your kids, and wife and it is not a transfer.
 
2013-04-03 02:26:23 PM

doglover: Dusk-You-n-Me: . I wasn't blaming the method.

Then you agree it's immaterial if a gun was used or a razor or a bridge.


It is immaterial after it is done. It is not immaterial if we want to prevent suicides.
 
2013-04-03 02:28:08 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Half of 30,000 people killing themselves with a gun isn't immaterial.


Or realistic. 15,000 killed themselves with guns. 15,000 were killed by others.

Stop being disingenuous and maybe we can have a dialogue.
 
2013-04-03 02:30:10 PM

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


There IS a list. I found that out when a Pennsylvania State Police trooper told me every firearm I own. The list is composed of every firearm purchased with a background check. Remember, Pennsylvania doesn't have registration. Yet there it was, a comprehensive compilation of everything I have.

You know what? I don't have a problem with that. I am in favor of 100% background checks, for two reasons: First, it will help, if only in a small way, to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. My concern is what we will have to do about the firearms we already have, but it's a small concern. All of mine have checks and records of the checks to go with them. The idea of a list does not concern me, because to confiscate the weapons they also have to abrogate the 4th Amendment, and the ACLU and others will put the kibosh on that.

Second, it will get the gun-control people to shut the hell up about the so-called "gun show loophole", which was neither confined to gun shows nor was a loophole. if they had wanted private sales covered they would have written it that way. But let's let it go away. One less rallying cry for the gun-control people, and it's such a small thing that we can hand it to them.
 
2013-04-03 02:30:21 PM
Lets let the suicide experts weigh in here.

http://www.afsp.org/advocacy-public-policy/state-policy/access-to-fi re arms-for-persons-at-risk-for-suicide

Access to Firearms for Persons At Risk for Suicide

AFSP supports efforts to reduce access to firearms for persons who are at risk for suicide. These include gun safety policies, targeted education and outreach, and voluntary programs in partnership with gun owners.

Firearms are used in over half of all completed suicides in the United States, and firearm suicides outnumber firearm homicides almost 2 to 1.  AFSP therefore includes reducing access to firearms for persons at risk for suicide as part of our overall policy approach for reducing suicide.

Reducing access to firearms for persons at risk for suicide works by giving those individuals and the people who care for them something they desperately need - TIME - time to change their minds, time for someone to intervene, and time to seek help.

AFSP encourages the voluntary safe storage of firearms, works with the gun owning community to incorporate suicide prevention into existing gun safety efforts, and works to eliminate barriers to mental health care, among other efforts.
 
2013-04-03 02:30:48 PM

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

Well that's just stupid.  We obviously need MORE speed limits if people are still speeding.  We don't need to worry about enforcing the existing speed limits, we need to make additional laws that say speeding is illegal!


Well, speeding can be very dangerous.  If we as a society felt that the ratio of deaths to utilization and benefit was too high (meaning if the number of people who died from speeding compared to the number of people who speed and the benefit speeding provides), we could take steps to mitigate that, such as Speed limiters which would prevent the vehicle from exceeding a certain MPH.  We could also use GPS monitoring devices that could record or even transfer velocity information to authorities.

That said, speed doesn't seem to have a very strong correlation to highway death rates or they wouldn't be increasing speed limits in many areas, such as Ohio.
 
2013-04-03 02:31:06 PM

doglover: 15,000 killed themselves with guns.


Hey, progress!

doglover: 15,000 were killed by others.


With guns.

doglover: Stop being disingenuous and maybe we can have a dialogue.


I'm not so maybe we shouldn't bother.
 
2013-04-03 02:35:44 PM
The anti background check/registration argument is fundamentally rooted in conspiracy theory and slippery slope scaremongering.

But the liberals are making emotion based arguments. Sure.
 
2013-04-03 02:38:50 PM
liam76:Did you run a background check on your friend? No? That's irresponsible.

How, exactly, do you find it "irresponsible"?

Would you find it less "irresponsible" if I told you said friend had previously been vetted by DHS and FBI and allowed to carry firearms onboard airliners as a federal agent?

Would you find it more "irresponsible" if it was just some guy that drove a truck for a living?

And for the record, I'm not skeered of Bammer and his jack-booted homeland security thugs (note the dripping sarcasm) coming to grab my guns as a result of background checks: I own a Title II device, they already know who and where I am.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-04-03 02:41:42 PM

PDid: The anti background check/registration argument is fundamentally rooted in conspiracy theory and slippery slope scaremongering.

But the liberals are making emotion based arguments. Sure.


I fail to understand how something like, "I want stricter gun control so fewer people die each year," gets turned into "Gun Control advocates want to disarm the populace."  That is very black and white thinking.  I highly doubt that most gun control advocates want to completely disarm anyone, but if banning certain types of weapons, or requiring more background checks, or some form of registration could make a dent in those numbers, don't we owe it to our neighbors, our families, and ourselves to at least try?  If it sucks we can get rid of it.
 
2013-04-03 02:45:30 PM

Tomahawk513: PDid: The anti background check/registration argument is fundamentally rooted in conspiracy theory and slippery slope scaremongering.

But the liberals are making emotion based arguments. Sure.

I fail to understand how something like, "I want stricter gun control so fewer people die each year," gets turned into "Gun Control advocates want to disarm the populace."  That is very black and white thinking.  I highly doubt that most gun control advocates want to completely disarm anyone, but if banning certain types of weapons, or requiring more background checks, or some form of registration could make a dent in those numbers, don't we owe it to our neighbors, our families, and ourselves to at least try?  If it sucks we can get rid of it.


80,000 people a year die from alcohol.  What are you willing to give up to reduce that number?
 
2013-04-03 02:45:34 PM

CoolHandLucas: liam76:Did you run a background check on your friend? No? That's irresponsible.


I didn't say that, I don't know why you quoted me.
 
2013-04-03 02:46:05 PM

Tomahawk513: I fail to understand how something like, "I want stricter gun control so fewer people die each year," gets turned into "Gun Control advocates want to disarm the populace."


Here's your answer:

PDid: The anti background check/registration argument is fundamentally rooted in conspiracy theory and slippery slope scaremongering.


It's happened several times in this very thread.
 
2013-04-03 02:48:45 PM
liam76:
He seems to be full of shiat, as ar the links he rests on.  They imply you must fill out a from within 24 hours of a gun being lost/stolen, whent he law says you must only "report it" within 24 hours of "knowing about it".  I make a phone call and I have reported on it.

Just make sure you call the attorney general!

It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses or owns a firearm that has been shipped or transported in, or has been possessed in or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce, to fail to report the theft or  loss of the firearm, within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to 19  the appropriate local authorities.


They lie and say if you hand a gun to a friend to shoot it is crime, even though page 12 calls that out as an exemption from a "transfer".

Actually:
For purposes of this subsection, the term 'transfer'- ''
(A) shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition; and
(B) shall not include temporary possession of 10 the firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee while in the presence 12 of the prospective transferee.

So a transfer is any form of possession: in your 'hand a gun to a friend to shoot it' scenario, you have just loaned it, a transfer.

Paragraph (1) [BG checks] shall not apply to -
''(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if -
''(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;  [In your house or the immediate area, such as the porch]
"(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
''(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and
''(D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title made in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs-
''(i) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation
purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range; [Better make sure the range has an incorporation statement that fits this.]
''(ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition; and [Shooting sports, take note]
''(iii) while hunting or trapping, if
"(I) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm; the temporary transfer of possession occurs during the designated hunting season; and
''(III) the unlicensed transferee holds any required license or permit.

Can you make sense of that? I don't see the exceptions for your friend to shoot your rifle unless you check incorporation statements, go to a competition, have a shooting range in your basement, etc.

And really, with all the and statements and structure, it seems like you can't do anything at all anyhow because you can't let a transfer happen outside your home in any case. This is supposed to be reasonable law?

  Also as long as the gun stays in your house it isn't a "transfer".

''(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and

You can gift to your kids, and wife and it is not a transfer.

They are a 'transfer', but the gifting process might allow them to avoid the background requirement.
If you want to play chicken with a Federal prosecutor over whether ten back-and-forth exchanges with the wife are "bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or be tween grandparents and their grandchildren;" with felonies and prison time hanging over your head, be my guest.

Of course, gay folks like me who can't get married are out of farking luck.
 
2013-04-03 02:49:12 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Tomahawk513: PDid: The anti background check/registration argument is fundamentally rooted in conspiracy theory and slippery slope scaremongering.

But the liberals are making emotion based arguments. Sure.

I fail to understand how something like, "I want stricter gun control so fewer people die each year," gets turned into "Gun Control advocates want to disarm the populace."  That is very black and white thinking.  I highly doubt that most gun control advocates want to completely disarm anyone, but if banning certain types of weapons, or requiring more background checks, or some form of registration could make a dent in those numbers, don't we owe it to our neighbors, our families, and ourselves to at least try?  If it sucks we can get rid of it.

80,000 people a year die from alcohol.  What are you willing to give up to reduce that number?


Well, I'd be willing to install vehicle interlock devices into every new car.  I'd be willing to give up Flaming Dr. Peppers and ban alcohol over a certain proof.  I'd be willing to limit the amount of alcohol one could purchase at one time.  Those are a few examples that I think I could live with.  What would you be willing to give up to make a dent in gun-related deaths?
 
2013-04-03 02:50:32 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Tomahawk513: PDid: The anti background check/registration argument is fundamentally rooted in conspiracy theory and slippery slope scaremongering.

But the liberals are making emotion based arguments. Sure.

I fail to understand how something like, "I want stricter gun control so fewer people die each year," gets turned into "Gun Control advocates want to disarm the populace."  That is very black and white thinking.  I highly doubt that most gun control advocates want to completely disarm anyone, but if banning certain types of weapons, or requiring more background checks, or some form of registration could make a dent in those numbers, don't we owe it to our neighbors, our families, and ourselves to at least try?  If it sucks we can get rid of it.

80,000 people a year die from alcohol.  What are you willing to give up to reduce that number?


Your guns?
 
2013-04-03 02:51:02 PM

ha-ha-guy: As a gun owner, what I'm really torn in is how much federal regulation I want regarding guns.  On one hand the fact that various states have varying laws is a giant pain in my ass in terms of figuring out whether my carry permit is recongized or I need to go lock it in the trunk for transport, it's an annoying balkanization of rules and legs.  On the other hand the fact that the 2nd Amendment talks about states having the power to regulate the bearing of arms, as opposed to the Feds, can be a useful check.

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

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


You've more or less described gun control in Canada. There are a few points where we are less restrictive than what you have proposed (no need for license to buy parts or cleaning kits, just need it for firearms and loaded ammunition), and a couple of places where you have proposed things that would never be allowed (temporary permits).
 
2013-04-03 02:52:03 PM

CoolHandLucas: How, exactly, do you find it "irresponsible"?

Would you find it less "irresponsible" if I told you said friend had previously been vetted by DHS and FBI and allowed to carry firearms onboard airliners as a federal agent?

Would you find it more "irresponsible" if it was just some guy that drove a truck for a living?


How? Handing a bullet launcher over to somebody without knowing whether that person is a criminal or mentally ill and letting that person walk away with it is irresponsible.
 
2013-04-03 02:52:34 PM

Tomahawk513: PDid: The anti background check/registration argument is fundamentally rooted in conspiracy theory and slippery slope scaremongering.

But the liberals are making emotion based arguments. Sure.

I fail to understand how something like, "I want stricter gun control so fewer people die each year," gets turned into "Gun Control advocates want to disarm the populace."


Probably because they say stuff like "If I had the votes, I would tell them to turn in them all [guns]in." and such things.


That is very black and white thinking.  I highly doubt that most gun control advocates want to completely disarm anyone, but if banning certain types of weapons, or requiring more background checks, or some form of registration could make a dent in those numbers,
don't we owe it to our neighbors, our families, and ourselves to at least try?  If it sucks we can get rid of it.


You're advancing a really big 'could' there. I don't think its proper to shred rights for a 'maybe' or a 'could be'. If you want to do that, go all the way, put everyone in concrete cells and pipe in reality TV, medical care, and food. We'd be a lot safer without heart disease, traffic accidents and alcohol.
 
2013-04-03 02:55:37 PM

BayouOtter: I don't think its proper to shred rights for a 'maybe' or a 'could be'.


Background checks don't shred rights. And we're not talking about maybe or could be, we're talking about what is happening. 30K gun related deaths annually in this country.
 
2013-04-03 02:56:00 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Tomahawk513: PDid: The anti background check/registration argument is fundamentally rooted in conspiracy theory and slippery slope scaremongering.

But the liberals are making emotion based arguments. Sure.

I fail to understand how something like, "I want stricter gun control so fewer people die each year," gets turned into "Gun Control advocates want to disarm the populace."  That is very black and white thinking.  I highly doubt that most gun control advocates want to completely disarm anyone, but if banning certain types of weapons, or requiring more background checks, or some form of registration could make a dent in those numbers, don't we owe it to our neighbors, our families, and ourselves to at least try?  If it sucks we can get rid of it.

80,000 people a year die from alcohol.  What are you willing to give up to reduce that number?


I'll offer this quote in response:
"No, but we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties, charge bartenders for serving drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question, and we do all those things because it might just help bring drunk driving rates down - I don't know - by 2/3s in a few decades." - J. Stewart
 
2013-04-03 02:56:46 PM
BayouOtter:

You're advancing a really big 'could' there. I don't think its proper to shred rights for a 'maybe' or a 'could be'. If you want to do that, go all the way, put everyone in concrete cells and pipe in reality TV, medical care, and food. We'd be a lot safer without heart disease, traffic accidents and alcohol.

Black-and-white thinking, case in point.  You're equating being inconvenienced, or giving up a small portion of a right, with giving up all rights.  Thank you for illustrating my point.  And like I said, if it sucks, we can always get rid of it.
 
2013-04-03 02:59:19 PM

BayouOtter: liam76:
He seems to be full of shiat, as ar the links he rests on. They imply you must fill out a from within 24 hours of a gun being lost/stolen, whent he law says you must only "report it" within 24 hours of "knowing about it". I make a phone call and I have reported on it.

Just make sure you call the attorney general!


They also mentionthe authorities.  You call the cops, you are good.  If you are really concerned that they would get you on not contacting the AG, you can shoot him an email.


BayouOtter: Paragraph (1) [BG checks] shall not apply to -
''(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if -
''(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor; [In your house or the immediate area, such as the porch]
"(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
''(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and The following "D" denotes a new section the previous (iii) dosn't apply.
''(D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title made in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs-
''(i) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation
purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range; [Better make sure the range has an incorporation statement that fits this.]
''(ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition; and [Shooting sports, take note] -no "and" for the next section
''(iii) while hunting or trapping, if
"(I) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm; the temporary transfer of possession occurs during the designated hunting season; and
''(III) the unlicensed transferee holds any required license or permit.


BayouOtter: Can you make sense of that? I don't see the exceptions for your friend to shoot your rifle unless you check incorporation statements, go to a competition, have a shooting range in your basement, etc.

And really, with all the and statements and structure, it seems like you can't do anything at all anyhow because you can't let a transfer happen outside your home in any case. This is supposed to be reasonable law?


The exemption is if you they are out hunting.

A reasonable law?  No.  They need a few more exemptions, but it is a reasonable starting point.
 
2013-04-03 02:59:39 PM

Tomahawk513: Well, I'd be willing to install vehicle interlock devices into every new car.  I'd be willing to give up Flaming Dr. Peppers and ban alcohol over a certain proof.  I'd be willing to limit the amount of alcohol one could purchase at one time.  Those are a few examples that I think I could live with.  What would you be willing to give up to make a dent in gun-related deaths?


Vehicle locks can be disabled.  Even if the rest of your solutions did work, they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.  Aren't you willing to do just a little more to put in even more of a dent to that number?
 
2013-04-03 02:59:57 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: I'll offer this quote in response:
"No, but we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties, charge bartenders for serving drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question, and we do all those things because it might just help bring drunk driving rates down - I don't know - by 2/3s in a few decades." - J. Stewart


Boom. We've managed to reduce both DUIs and the rates of smoking in this country through legislation, policy, and public awareness. But somehow the greatest most wealthiest country in the world is uniquely helpless to even attempt to reduce gun violence. A-mazing.
 
2013-04-03 03:00:50 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.


That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.
 
2013-04-03 03:01:49 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: BayouOtter: I don't think its proper to shred rights for a 'maybe' or a 'could be'.

Background checks don't shred rights.


We were talking about 'gun control' in general, but the currently proposed Universal Background system is right-shredding, as discussed. Book and religion control are just as bad.

And we're not talking about maybe or could be, we're talking about what is happening. 30K gun related deaths annually in this country.


Mind sourcing your numbers? I have some FBI numbers from 2011 showing firearm homicides at about 8.5K, so that means there were 22,000 suicides and accidental deaths. Where did you get those numbers (30k) from?

Oh, and maybe the fact that suicide racked up almost 3 times the homicide rate (with your numbers), maybe its really suicide prevention we should focus on first? I'm pretty sure we don;t have to attack the Bill of Rights for that.
 
2013-04-03 03:01:59 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: I'll offer this quote in response:
"No, but we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties, charge bartenders for serving drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question, and we do all those things because it might just help bring drunk driving rates down - I don't know - by 2/3s in a few decades." - J. Stewart


But clearly if alcohol is still about 5x as deadly as a firearm is, this isn't enough, right?  Why does anyone NEED alcohol in the first place?  Let me guess, you have a small penis and you need alcohol to get girls to sleep with you...
 
2013-04-03 03:02:39 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: demaL-demaL-yeH: I'll offer this quote in response:
"No, but we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties, charge bartenders for serving drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question, and we do all those things because it might just help bring drunk driving rates down - I don't know - by 2/3s in a few decades." - J. Stewart

Boom. We've managed to reduce both DUIs and the rates of smoking in this country through legislation, policy, and public awareness. But somehow the greatest most wealthiest country in the world is uniquely helpless to even attempt to reduce gun violence. A-mazing.


Or manage to provide universal health insurance coverage, even though we spend almost twice as much per capita as the next country.
 
2013-04-03 03:05:01 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.


But current laws for guns have already curbed fatalities.  Sure we haven't reached 100%, but there appears to be no set goal in mind for the gun control advocates.  You're less likely to be in a mass shooting than you are to be killed by drowning, so why are you pushing for more limits?  What is the magic number of deaths per year that is acceptable to you?
 
2013-04-03 03:05:25 PM

Rapmaster2000: Paschal: So what's the difference between a magazine and a clip?

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


Umm, http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7l0HfFxRPl4AUiNXNyoA?p=303%20 e nfield%20detachable%20magazine&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-900
 
2013-04-03 03:05:33 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Tomahawk513: Well, I'd be willing to install vehicle interlock devices into every new car.  I'd be willing to give up Flaming Dr. Peppers and ban alcohol over a certain proof.  I'd be willing to limit the amount of alcohol one could purchase at one time.  Those are a few examples that I think I could live with.  What would you be willing to give up to make a dent in gun-related deaths?

Vehicle locks can be disabled.  Even if the rest of your solutions did work, they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.  Aren't you willing to do just a little more to put in even more of a dent to that number?


You have not answered the question.  I answered your question, it's now your turn to answer mine.  What would you be willing to give up to make a dent in gun-related deaths?

/It's absolutely brainless to demand that a solution be effective 100% of the time, or solve 100% of the problem.
 
2013-04-03 03:06:22 PM

liam76: I didn't say that, I don't know why you quoted me.


Because I FAIL at the new Fark commenter thingie.

My bad...
 
2013-04-03 03:07:05 PM

BayouOtter: Mind sourcing your numbers?


2011: 32,1635
2010: 31,6726
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874

Link

In the last twenty-four years, an average of 32,300 Americans died each year from firearm injuries. Link, .pdf
 
2013-04-03 03:07:18 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.


Well, what exactly is the goal?

With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".  At what point will people decide that we're finally safe enough?
 
2013-04-03 03:07:29 PM
Easy for them to say
Their hearts have never been broken
Their pride has never been stolen
Not yet
Not yet
Not yet
 
2013-04-03 03:09:07 PM

GanjSmokr: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.

Well, what exactly is the goal?

With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".  At what point will people decide that we're finally safe enough?


I'm gonna say its somewhere between 0 and 30,000
 
2013-04-03 03:09:57 PM

liam76: BayouOtter: liam76:
He seems to be full of shiat, as ar the links he rests on. They imply you must fill out a from within 24 hours of a gun being lost/stolen, whent he law says you must only "report it" within 24 hours of "knowing about it". I make a phone call and I have reported on it.

Just make sure you call the attorney general!

They also mention the authorities.  You call the cops, you are good.  If you are really concerned that they would get you on not contacting the AG, you can shoot him an email.


Page 14, line 17
within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.''

You can't just 'call the cops'. I really hope you don't go on a week-long trip and lose your gun - you've got 24 hours to get back to civilization or you get slapped with a felony. (You also can't just report things over the phone, there are papers to sign and statements to make that require being face to face with officers.)

The exemption is if you they are out hunting.

No, its legal if it is the season and the other fellow has all his licenses with him. No mention of hunting game that has no fixed season, which is nice. Also, if the and portions from Section C applies (You claim it doesn't, but then I ask why 'and' is there. Do you have a legal background or citation? Without it, it is unclear) you better be on your home and curtilage.


Tomahawk513: Black-and-white thinking, case in point.  You're equating being inconvenienced, or giving up a small portion of a right, with giving up all rights.  Thank you for illustrating my point.  And like I said, if it sucks, we can always get rid of it.


If you steal a penny, you're as much a thief as if you steal a hundred bucks. 'Giving up a little bit' of a right is no different than all of it. And if we can legislate away one amendment, whats to stop the rest from being legislated away?
 
2013-04-03 03:10:15 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: But current laws for guns have already curbed fatalities.  Sure we haven't reached 100%, but there appears to be no set goal in mind for the gun control advocates.  You're less likely to be in a mass shooting than you are to be killed by drowning, so why are you pushing for more limits?  What is the magic number of deaths per year that is acceptable to you?


Now that we agree gun control policies can reduce gun related deaths, we're just haggling over price. I understand that the number of gun-related deaths in the country will never be zero per year. That's an unrealistic goal. I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.
 
2013-04-03 03:10:24 PM

CoolHandLucas: liam76: I didn't say that, I don't know why you quoted me.

Because I FAIL at the new Fark commenter thingie.

My bad...


Now orries.

There is a button to make it switch back to the old version, I wish you could set it to default...
 
2013-04-03 03:10:59 PM

GanjSmokr: With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".


Less than 30,000 a year. As I stated before, I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.
 
Displayed 50 of 449 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report