Gun Control - A Political Thread

[Calisu]

Ban guns. There is no reason you need to own a gun. They are not for defence or sport they are for murder.

Look at the links in my sig. B=Guns are often used for defense, many are specifically designed for such (few are actually designed for murder), and the vast majority of the 300 million or so in private hands in the States are never used in crime. Care to try again?

I have nothing to discuss with a gun-nut.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Look at the links in my sig. B=Guns are often used for defense, many are specifically designed for such (few are actually designed for murder), and the vast majority of the 300 million or so in private hands in the States are never used in crime. Care to try again?

I have nothing to discuss with a gun-nut.

That's an odd way of saying "you've destroyed my argument so I'm going to ignore you". This is a debate forum, counter his points.

[Big Jim P]

Look at the links in my sig. B=Guns are often used for defense, many are specifically designed for such (few are actually designed for murder), and the vast majority of the 300 million or so in private hands in the States are never used in crime. Care to try again?

I have nothing to discuss with a gun-nut.

That is your choice. I am at least willing to have a discussion with a gun-control freak.

[Calisu]

I have nothing to discuss with a gun-nut.

That's an odd way of saying "you've destroyed my argument so I'm going to ignore you". This is a debate forum, counter his points.

Nothing is going to sway him I could post anything systematically proving how wrong he is and he would still be pro-gun

[Spirit of Hope]

I know, that is the one problem with the proposal, it does really inconvenience those without a nearby gun retailer. The problem is I don't trust people enough to let them do it by themselves.

I would also sneak the guns into getting recorded on the Federal Transaction Record

Why not?

Mostly because I think an openly available system could to easily be abused. Sure you could try and track down every single time some one abused it, but they could easily say "oh I was trying to sell him a gun" and not be punished for it. People do have a right to privacy and I do think that right should receive some protection.

Secondly it would be to easy for people to say "I know he isn't a felon!" and not check. Sure you could later arrest them if they did sell/trade/give to some one not eligible but that is a little late.

Last is the part in tiny text I would want the transactions to be recorded on a Federal Transaction Record. I know evil of me but it would give a nice paper trail to gun ownership.

[Big Jim P]

I have nothing to discuss with a gun-nut.

That's an odd way of saying "you've destroyed my argument so I'm going to ignore you". This is a debate forum, counter his points.

That's just it: very few GCFs can actually argue the facts let alone counter the points.

[Washington Resistance Army]

That's an odd way of saying "you've destroyed my argument so I'm going to ignore you". This is a debate forum, counter his points.

Nothing is going to sway him I could post anything systematically proving how wrong he is and he would still be pro-gun

Then post things proving he's wrong, if you have the sources show them. Jim's a pretty reasonable Satanist, I'm sure he'll listen.

[Calisu]

Nothing is going to sway him I could post anything systematically proving how wrong he is and he would still be pro-gun

Then post things proving he's wrong, if you have the sources show them. Jim's a pretty reasonable Satanist, I'm sure he'll listen.

Because it's the satanist part that makes him crazy?

[Big Jim P]

Why not?

Mostly because I think an openly available system could to easily be abused. Sure you could try and track down every single time some one abused it, but they could easily say "oh I was trying to sell him a gun" and not be punished for it. People do have a right to privacy and I do think that right should receive some protection.

Secondly it would be to easy for people to say "I know he isn't a felon!" and not check. Sure you could later arrest them if they did sell/trade/give to some one not eligible but that is a little late.

Last is the part in tiny text I would want the transactions to be recorded on a Federal Transaction Record. I know evil of me but it would give a nice paper trail to gun ownership.

The whole background check debate could be solved by making it part of the drivers license/state ID process and marking the resulting cards of those not eligible for gun-ownership (like we mark the license of underage drivers. I suggest a bright red background to the cards myself. Very easy to spot). No unmarked ID, no sale.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Then post things proving he's wrong, if you have the sources show them. Jim's a pretty reasonable Satanist, I'm sure he'll listen.

Because it's the satanist part that makes him crazy?

I just thought it would be funny to add Jim isn't crazy at all, he just facts on his supporting the gun control debate.

[Big Jim P]

That's an odd way of saying "you've destroyed my argument so I'm going to ignore you". This is a debate forum, counter his points.

Nothing is going to sway him I could post anything systematically proving how wrong he is and he would still be pro-gun

No, if someone were to post something that unequivocally proved me wrong, I would change my stance. No one has, as yet, and no one can. The numbers don't lie, and the facts don't change.

[Spirit of Hope]

Mostly because I think an openly available system could to easily be abused. Sure you could try and track down every single time some one abused it, but they could easily say "oh I was trying to sell him a gun" and not be punished for it. People do have a right to privacy and I do think that right should receive some protection.

Secondly it would be to easy for people to say "I know he isn't a felon!" and not check. Sure you could later arrest them if they did sell/trade/give to some one not eligible but that is a little late.

Last is the part in tiny text I would want the transactions to be recorded on a Federal Transaction Record. I know evil of me but it would give a nice paper trail to gun ownership.

The whole background check debate could be solved by making it part of the drivers license/state ID process and marking the resulting cards of those not eligible for gun-ownership (like we mark the license of underage drivers. I suggest a bright red background to the cards myself. Very easy to spot). No unmarked ID, no sale.

My problem with that is then anyone can ask to see your ID and start discriminating based on what they see. It is an elegant solution, it is just an elegant solution that I find overreaches a little and oversteps my right to privacy. Additionally such a system could be gotten around with the use of fake IDs, sure a retailer might not be fooled, but your average citizen just trying to sell of granddaddies old revolver? He will be fooled.

[Spirit of Hope]

Then post things proving he's wrong, if you have the sources show them. Jim's a pretty reasonable Satanist, I'm sure he'll listen.

Because it's the satanist part that makes him crazy?

So someones religion makes them crazy. Nice to no that you hold that opinion. Now would you please produce any proof you have that guns should be banned? I would like to see it as a reasonable fence sitter.

[Big Jim P]

The whole background check debate could be solved by making it part of the drivers license/state ID process and marking the resulting cards of those not eligible for gun-ownership (like we mark the license of underage drivers. I suggest a bright red background to the cards myself. Very easy to spot). No unmarked ID, no sale.

My problem with that is then anyone can ask to see your ID and start discriminating based on what they see. It is an elegant solution, it is just an elegant solution that I find overreaches a little and oversteps my right to privacy. Additionally such a system could be gotten around with the use of fake IDs, sure a retailer might not be fooled, but your average citizen just trying to sell of granddaddies old revolver? He will be fooled.

Then make it less conspicuous. Just a note on the back of the card where they put the drivers restrictions. As for the fake ID, that might be a problem, but no moreso than fake IDs being used to buy alcohol/cigarettes, and even with that, this would be better than the current system.

[Big Jim P]

Then post things proving he's wrong, if you have the sources show them. Jim's a pretty reasonable Satanist, I'm sure he'll listen.

Because it's the satanist part that makes him crazy?

If you wish to discuss my religion, start another thread. This is not the place.

[Askerike]

Mostly because I think an openly available system could to easily be abused. Sure you could try and track down every single time some one abused it, but they could easily say "oh I was trying to sell him a gun" and not be punished for it. People do have a right to privacy and I do think that right should receive some protection.

Secondly it would be to easy for people to say "I know he isn't a felon!" and not check. Sure you could later arrest them if they did sell/trade/give to some one not eligible but that is a little late.

Last is the part in tiny text I would want the transactions to be recorded on a Federal Transaction Record. I know evil of me but it would give a nice paper trail to gun ownership.

The whole background check debate could be solved by making it part of the drivers license/state ID process and marking the resulting cards of those not eligible for gun-ownership (like we mark the license of underage drivers. I suggest a bright red background to the cards myself. Very easy to spot). No unmarked ID, no sale.

Uh, Licenses are different here for underage people... under 21 is a portrait printed license 21+ is a landscape printed license... Guess Mississippi isn't so hick and backwards after all? Also state firearm carry permits are no longer a means to skip filling out the NCIS background check paperwork... and for a good reason.

I have a State Carry Permit and an FFL. FFLs are the only exemption to the NCIS backround check on firearms purchased from a a licensed ffl dealer.

[Big Jim P]

Because it's the satanist part that makes him crazy?

I just thought it would be funny to add Jim isn't crazy at all, he just facts on his supporting the gun control debate.

Not that that matters. Many (if not most) of the gun-control crowd have a nasty tendency to ignore the fact presented unless they support their position, and distort those that can be made to do so.

[Big Jim P]

The whole background check debate could be solved by making it part of the drivers license/state ID process and marking the resulting cards of those not eligible for gun-ownership (like we mark the license of underage drivers. I suggest a bright red background to the cards myself. Very easy to spot). No unmarked ID, no sale.

Uh, Licenses are different here for underage people... under 21 is a portrait printed license 21+ is a landscape printed license... Guess Mississippi isn't so hick and backwards after all? Also state firearm carry permits are no longer a means to skip filling out the NCIS background check paperwork... and for a good reason.

I have a State Carry Permit and an FFL. FFLs are the only exemption to the NCIS backround check on firearms purchased from a a licensed ffl dealer.

Why would a firearms carry permit NOT be a means to skip the background check?

[Washington Resistance Army]

I just thought it would be funny to add Jim isn't crazy at all, he just facts on his supporting the gun control debate.

Not that that matters. Many (if not most) of the gun-control crowd have a nasty tendency to ignore the fact presented unless they support their position, and distort those that can be made to do so.

Sad but true, most gun control proponents I've seen just ignore facts and constantly use appeals to emotion.

[Spirit of Hope]

My problem with that is then anyone can ask to see your ID and start discriminating based on what they see. It is an elegant solution, it is just an elegant solution that I find overreaches a little and oversteps my right to privacy. Additionally such a system could be gotten around with the use of fake IDs, sure a retailer might not be fooled, but your average citizen just trying to sell of granddaddies old revolver? He will be fooled.

Then make it less conspicuous. Just a note on the back of the card where they put the drivers restrictions. As for the fake ID, that might be a problem, but no moreso than fake IDs being used to buy alcohol/cigarettes, and even with that, this would be better than the current system.

Better than the current system doesn't make it the best.
There is still the problem of an employer making copies of IDs and checking the back, reasonable people demanding to see it before they interact with you, etc.
Yes you can use a fake ID to buy alcohol and cigarettes, however those mostly just hurt you not other people. I would like the bar to getting a gun to be a little higher than visiting the local frat house to figure out who makes fake IDs.
I think this is one area where we won't agree though it is fun to debate.

[Askerike]

Uh, Licenses are different here for underage people... under 21 is a portrait printed license 21+ is a landscape printed license... Guess Mississippi isn't so hick and backwards after all? Also state firearm carry permits are no longer a means to skip filling out the NCIS background check paperwork... and for a good reason.

I have a State Carry Permit and an FFL. FFLs are the only exemption to the NCIS backround check on firearms purchased from a a licensed ffl dealer.

Why would a firearms carry permit NOT be a means to skip the background check?

Because sometimes you commit a felony and get out before your permit expires. If they took it at face value, Uh-Oh.

[Spoder]

I have a theory about the GCFs here.

This thread only has activity in quick bursts.

That leads me to assume that they dare each other to try and convince PGs that guns are bad.

[Big Jim P]

Then make it less conspicuous. Just a note on the back of the card where they put the drivers restrictions. As for the fake ID, that might be a problem, but no moreso than fake IDs being used to buy alcohol/cigarettes, and even with that, this would be better than the current system.

Better than the current system doesn't make it the best.
There is still the problem of an employer making copies of IDs and checking the back, reasonable people demanding to see it before they interact with you, etc.
Yes you can use a fake ID to buy alcohol and cigarettes, however those mostly just hurt you not other people. I would like the bar to getting a gun to be a little higher than visiting the local frat house to figure out who makes fake IDs.
I think this is one area where we won't agree though it is fun to debate.

There is no "best" system that would appeal to everyone.
Explain how this "employer making copies of IDs and checking the back" would be a problem. There are many things an employer is not allowed to discriminate on. This would/could be one of them.
When have people started demanding to see a person ID before interacting with them, and just how could they be called "reasonable" if they do?
Finally: the fact that there is already a black market in guns make the fake ID issue irrelevant, as does the fact that any private seller that might be fooled, acting in good faith, would not be in any way liable should they sell a gun to someone with a fake ID. Not to mention that ID get harder and harder (though never impossible) to fake all the time.

Yes, we may never agree here, but that is kind of the point to debate.

[Big Jim P]

I have a theory about the GCFs here.

This thread only has activity in quick bursts.

That leads me to assume that they dare each other to try and convince PGs that guns are bad.

Well, the PGs occasionally get it going again talking about guns. I am guilty of that myself.

You are probably right though.

[Big Jim P]

Why would a firearms carry permit NOT be a means to skip the background check?

Because sometimes you commit a felony and get out before your permit expires. If they took it at face value, Uh-Oh.

Ummm...the felony itself revokes the carry permit, does it not?