US Gun Control (Yes, again).

[Holy Trek]

Link please? You're citing it.

But as I said above, because its been done poorly in the past means it'll always be bad in the future?



You're right, guns are designed for harm, cars aren't.

And private transactions are damn well the governments business if its in the interest of protecting the public. That's the government's job. You're saying its good to sell to the insane or criminal?

1. Not all guns are designed for the purpose of killing. Funny how cars aren't either yet they cause more deaths than gun deaths yearly.

2. So you refuse to look up info? Or are just incapable of searching? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

3. No it is not the government's job to violate the privacy of others, read the bill of rights.

4. No I am not saying we should let people sell guns to criminals, don't put words in my mouth.

As for number 2, so much for "nobody's gonna take your guns". Yet that's exactly what happened.

You remind me of a certain paranoid gun-nut I know from facebook....actually, now that I think about it, I'm surprised he hasn't appeared in this thread yet, with his conspiracy theories and "OH NOES, THE FEDZ WILL TAKE MY GUNZ AWAY" crap...

..anyways, you use the same stupid car argument he does..."cars kill more people than guns so why don't we ban them". My reply, following his 'stupid-train' is.....wrestlers receive injuries and sometimes even die, either directly as a result of injuries or indirectly through steroid overuse (Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero), so why not just ban wrestling? Or..people died on those airplanes when the terrorists used them to strike the World Trade Center. Since there's a danger of hijacking, let's close airports, shut down airplane manufacturing, and ban the use of ALL aircraft, including helicopters. Or here's a good one....there are cases where children are abused by one or both parents, to the point where once in a while, they're killed or commit suicide....let's just go completely abstinent and make it illegal to have sex for procreative purposes.

I don't advocate for the abolition of the Second Amendment, as this is a fundamental right recorded in the Constitution (ironically as a result of the American Revolution, when the Redcoats were rounding up suspected rebels without warrants). But it needs to be redefined. And seriously, if you need an AR-15 to pump 100+ bullets into an intruder, then you really really need to practice with pistols and conventional rifles and shotguns, because if you use an AR-15 for home defense, you might as well steal a tank and park it in your backyard....or build a homemade nuke. It's called overkill..and you're just as likely to wound or kill an innocent as you are the intruder.

[Chernoslavia]

Gun deaths is decreasing.

A fact that is ignored by the gun control crowd, along with the fact that the majority of guns will never be used in a crime. In fact, just about anything that does not fit their preconceived notions are ignored.

What facts aren't?

[Big Jim P]

You do realize, that BJP has on several occasions put forth ideas for reasonable control, right?

Again, I apologize, it seems then he is simply contentious with me.

Again, its why I asked above, if the issue is that criminals can get guns too easily, law abiding citizens cannot, what can be done to address both?

The simplest way would be a negative endorsement on a persons state-issued ID or Drivers License. A bright red background say. Red ID means no sale.

[Seperates]

This will end the argument

(Image)

This picture describes why gun control can back fire.

...

You do realize that all you did was point out that, hey, maybe the reasons why the democrats want higher gun control is because the areas where they live there is higher amounts of gun violence? Who da thunk it?

Or maybe, since it was centralized at major population centers, the reason why there are higher instances of gun crimes is maybe, oh I don't know, because there are more people there?

Jesus, stop using statistics if you don't even know what it means.

[Enadail]

Similarly, you are arguing that a gun might, someday, be used in self-defense. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of them never will be.

Again, both sides are arguing theoretical, so pointing it out does nothing to help you.

You did state:

But to cut off an entire avenue of discourse because it could theoretically happen is both silly and childish.

So it is silly and childish to cut of an entire avenue of discourse, unless doing so supports your position? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Actually, I said that, not him. But as far as I can see, he's not cutting off an avenue of discourse, but rather pointing out that using the argument that gun control advocates are working on theory is pointless as it goes both ways.

[Enadail]

Again, I apologize, it seems then he is simply contentious with me.

Again, its why I asked above, if the issue is that criminals can get guns too easily, law abiding citizens cannot, what can be done to address both?

The simplest way would be a negative endorsement on a persons state-issued ID or Drivers License. A bright red background say. Red ID means no sale.

Ok, that's an idea I can get behind. However, how does that help in situations such as, and I provided multiple links to this above, private sales, where background checks and such are not required? And what if someone does not have state issued ID?

And please let me know how this is different from general licensing, which is something I proposed above?

[Aznazia]

This will end the argument

(Image)

This picture describes why gun control can back fire.

Where on earth did you find this?

The Internet. And I have seen it in many news articles.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The simplest way would be a negative endorsement on a persons state-issued ID or Drivers License. A bright red background say. Red ID means no sale.

Ok, that's an idea I can get behind. However, how does that help in situations such as, and I provided multiple links to this above, private sales, where background checks and such are not required? And what if someone does not have state issued ID?

And please let me know how this is different from general licensing, which is something I proposed above?

Legislate that private sales must also be dealt via an FFL.
Prviate sales not done through an FFL would then be a felony with firearms ownership and ban you from future ownership of firearms.

[Enadail]

Ok, that's an idea I can get behind. However, how does that help in situations such as, and I provided multiple links to this above, private sales, where background checks and such are not required? And what if someone does not have state issued ID?

And please let me know how this is different from general licensing, which is something I proposed above?

Legislate that private sales must also be dealt via an FFL.
Prviate sales not done through an FFL would then be a felony with firearms ownership and ban you from future ownership of firearms.

See? This is discourse, and again, an idea I can support and back. Unlike above when I was told that no private sale is ever the business of the government, which is, imo, blatant bullshit.

[Chernoslavia]

1. Not all guns are designed for the purpose of killing. Funny how cars aren't either yet they cause more deaths than gun deaths yearly.

2. So you refuse to look up info? Or are just incapable of searching? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

3. No it is not the government's job to violate the privacy of others, read the bill of rights.

4. No I am not saying we should let people sell guns to criminals, don't put words in my mouth.

As for number 2, so much for "nobody's gonna take your guns". Yet that's exactly what happened.

You remind me of a certain paranoid gun-nut I know from facebook....actually, now that I think about it, I'm surprised he hasn't appeared in this thread yet, with his conspiracy theories and "OH NOES, THE FEDZ WILL TAKE MY GUNZ AWAY" crap...

..anyways, you use the same stupid car argument he does..."cars kill more people than guns so why don't we ban them". My reply, following his 'stupid-train' is.....wrestlers receive injuries and sometimes even die, either directly as a result of injuries or indirectly through steroid overuse (Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero), so why not just ban wrestling? Or..people died on those airplanes when the terrorists used them to strike the World Trade Center. Since there's a danger of hijacking, let's close airports, shut down airplane manufacturing, and ban the use of ALL aircraft, including helicopters. Or here's a good one....there are cases where children are abused by one or both parents, to the point where once in a while, they're killed or commit suicide....let's just go completely abstinent and make it illegal to have sex for procreative purposes.

I don't advocate for the abolition of the Second Amendment, as this is a fundamental right recorded in the Constitution (ironically as a result of the American Revolution, when the Redcoats were rounding up suspected rebels without warrants). But it needs to be redefined. And seriously, if you need an AR-15 to pump 100+ bullets into an intruder, then you really really need to practice with pistols and conventional rifles and shotguns, because if you use an AR-15 for home defense, you might as well steal a tank and park it in your backyard....or build a homemade nuke. It's called overkill..and you're just as likely to wound or kill an innocent as you are the intruder.

My Remington 700 can do more damage than my ar-15, and they both use 5.56x45mm NATO ammo.

And as for tanks, they are legal. Some privately owned tanks still retain a working cannon. But yet you don't hear anybody ramming over people's cars or being blown to shit with one.

As for the rest of your arguement, you make your Facebook friend sound very sane. Which I bet he is.

[Grave_n_idle]

Such as?

The whole reason behind gun-control is based on the fact that a gun might, someday, be used in a crime. Nevermind the fact that the VAST majority of them never will be.

Arguably, this is true - it's kind of an argument by virtue of purpose.

The problem for the pro-gun argument, is that the second amendment is also an argument by virtue of purpose - i.e. that guns are necessary to the security of a free state, "nevermind the fact that the VAST majority of them never will be".

[Aznazia]

This will end the argument

(Image)

This picture describes why gun control can back fire.

...

You do realize that all you did was point out that, hey, maybe the reasons why the democrats want higher gun control is because the areas where they live there is higher amounts of gun violence? Who da thunk it?

Or maybe, since it was centralized at major population centers, the reason why there are higher instances of gun crimes is maybe, oh I don't know, because there are more people there?

Jesus, stop using statistics if you don't even know what it means.

Ok I can see your point. But it doesn't matter if you pass more gun laws. Criminals will get their guns.

Let me give you this stat.

So why don't we outlaw cars and alcohol in urban areas?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Legislate that private sales must also be dealt via an FFL.
Prviate sales not done through an FFL would then be a felony with firearms ownership and ban you from future ownership of firearms.

See? This is discourse, and again, an idea I can support and back. Unlike above when I was told that no private sale is ever the business of the government, which is, imo, blatant bullshit.

Well, that's a by-product of early American sentiments, not wanting big government.
It's the argument that rages today.

[Big Jim P]

Jim supports background checks.

Then I apologize. In the past, when I've made proposals about expanding background checks, Jim has opposed my propositions, so I assumed his position I suppose.

Actually, I am of two minds about background checks. On one had, they pre-suppose that anyone attempting to purchase a gun is a criminal. On the other hand, some who attempt to purchase a gun are criminals. I would like to see the negative endorsement used to prevent sales to unqualified persons, and an option to take training to be issued a license to carry, open or concealed.

It should not be the duty of the law abiding to prove that they should be allowed to own a gun, but on the State to prove that they shouldn't.

[Zachganistan]

Where on earth did you find this?

The Internet. And I have seen it in many news articles.

This has occured for the same reason Democrats won the election. The Democratic point of view realted to those in high population areas. And since more people=more violence, it would make sense that Democrats would live in areas with high gun violence. I live in one of those areas, most people who cause violence aren't concerned with the government.

[Seperates]

...

You do realize that all you did was point out that, hey, maybe the reasons why the democrats want higher gun control is because the areas where they live there is higher amounts of gun violence? Who da thunk it?

Or maybe, since it was centralized at major population centers, the reason why there are higher instances of gun crimes is maybe, oh I don't know, because there are more people there?

Jesus, stop using statistics if you don't even know what it means.

Ok I can see your point. But it doesn't matter if you pass more gun laws. Criminals will get their guns.

Let me give you this stat.

So why don't we outlaw cars and alcohol in urban areas?

Again, meaningless without context. What is the per capita ownership of guns to gun deaths as opposed to cars to auto accidents?

[Big Jim P]

You did state:



So it is silly and childish to cut of an entire avenue of discourse, unless doing so supports your position? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Actually, I said that, not him. But as far as I can see, he's not cutting off an avenue of discourse, but rather pointing out that using the argument that gun control advocates are working on theory is pointless as it goes both ways.

I apologize for screwing up the quotes.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Ok I can see your point. But it doesn't matter if you pass more gun laws. Criminals will get their guns.

Let me give you this stat.

So why don't we outlaw cars and alcohol in urban areas?

Again, meaningless without context. What is the per capita ownership of guns to gun deaths as opposed to cars to auto accidents?

There are significantly fewer cars than guns in the US, and significantly more road deaths than gun deaths.

[Grave_n_idle]

Again, meaningless without context. What is the per capita ownership of guns to gun deaths as opposed to cars to auto accidents?

Perhaps even more importantly, is why the deaths occurred.

A gun that is working right might kill someone, but a car killing someone is more likely to be caused by the car working incorrectly.

[Zachganistan]

...

You do realize that all you did was point out that, hey, maybe the reasons why the democrats want higher gun control is because the areas where they live there is higher amounts of gun violence? Who da thunk it?

Or maybe, since it was centralized at major population centers, the reason why there are higher instances of gun crimes is maybe, oh I don't know, because there are more people there?

Jesus, stop using statistics if you don't even know what it means.

How often are fists, knives, and hunting rifles used in massacres? That is what I want stopped- massacres caused by semi-automatic rifles. You can't stop gun violence, but you can hinder it.

Ok I can see your point. But it doesn't matter if you pass more gun laws. Criminals will get their guns.

Let me give you this stat.

So why don't we outlaw cars and alcohol in urban areas?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Again, meaningless without context. What is the per capita ownership of guns to gun deaths as opposed to cars to auto accidents?

Perhaps even more importantly, is why the deaths occurred.

A gun that is working right might kill someone, but a car killing someone is more likely to be caused by the car working incorrectly.

The driver is not a component of the vehicle.

[Grave_n_idle]

Perhaps even more importantly, is why the deaths occurred.

A gun that is working right might kill someone, but a car killing someone is more likely to be caused by the car working incorrectly.

The driver is not a component of the vehicle.

Which matters only if you've shown that all auto-deaths are caused by driver error. Which you haven't.

[Zachganistan]

...

You do realize that all you did was point out that, hey, maybe the reasons why the democrats want higher gun control is because the areas where they live there is higher amounts of gun violence? Who da thunk it?

Or maybe, since it was centralized at major population centers, the reason why there are higher instances of gun crimes is maybe, oh I don't know, because there are more people there?

Jesus, stop using statistics if you don't even know what it means.

"Military-style" rifles are used to kill people. So they aren't like other rifles. And they shoot a more powerful cartridge than pistols.

Ok I can see your point. But it doesn't matter if you pass more gun laws. Criminals will get their guns.

Let me give you this stat.

So why don't we outlaw cars and alcohol in urban areas?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The driver is not a component of the vehicle.

Which matters only if you've shown that all auto-deaths are caused by driver error. Which you haven't.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and state that all 10,839 drunk driving deaths are caused by driver error.

[Seperates]

Again, meaningless without context. What is the per capita ownership of guns to gun deaths as opposed to cars to auto accidents?

There are significantly fewer cars than guns in the US, and significantly more road deaths than gun deaths.

No. Owners. Not the actual individual items. Because there are people with 25 or 36 guns that may never commit a crime, but someone with only one gun that does.