Gun Control: Shiny Toy Guns

[Gig em Aggies]

Oh

1. From 1995. Not relevant to the modern debate.
2. One politician, hardly a majority.

Really

1. From 1995 AGAIN. Not relevant to the modern debate AGAIN.
2. One politician AGAIN. Hardly a majority AGAIN.

[qoute]Now......

1. When is that from? At least four years ago, according to the comments.
2. One politician AGAIN. Hardly a majority AGAIN

We LITERALLY have the people spearheading the Anti campaign here in America advocating for and/or hinting at total confiscation, firearm bans, or both.

These videos don't showe a majority as you keep insisting they do, just three politicians saying something like that. Own up to your bullshit now.[/quote]

Pot meet kettle.

I find it funny that your bitching about him using actual sources from the year 1995 and from YouTube videos funny because you stated you use wiki which.....guess what can be fucking altered on a dime and anyone can write anything in them even professors from accredited 4 year universities won't let you use wiki as a reliable source in a college paper.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No it doesn't. It was a bipartisan compromise that both parties were happy with. That isn't a loophole.

Just because it's a bipartisan compromise doesn't make it not a loophole.

A compromise can open a loophole, either accidentally or intentionally, the two things are not mutually exclusive.

A loophole implies an ambiguity in the law that is exploited. There's no ambiguity here. Both parties explicitly wanted private sales to not go through NICS and wrote the law as such.

[Saiwania]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm4kgu6vVok

Pat Robertson is now in favor of some gun control.

[Gig em Aggies]

No it doesn't. It was a bipartisan compromise that both parties were happy with. That isn't a loophole.

Just because it's a bipartisan compromise doesn't make it not a loophole.

A compromise can open a loophole, either accidentally or intentionally, the two things are not mutually exclusive.

And just because it is a compromise doesn't mean it is a loophole shall we go round the merry go round again?

[Zyr and Pony]

1. From 1995. Not relevant to the modern debate.
2. One politician, hardly a majority.



1. From 1995 AGAIN. Not relevant to the modern debate AGAIN.
2. One politician AGAIN. Hardly a majority AGAIN.

[qoute]Now......

1. When is that from? At least four years ago, according to the comments.
2. One politician AGAIN. Hardly a majority AGAIN

We LITERALLY have the people spearheading the Anti campaign here in America advocating for and/or hinting at total confiscation, firearm bans, or both.

These videos don't showe a majority as you keep insisting they do, just three politicians saying something like that. Own up to your bullshit now.

You clearly don't have a fucking clue who these people are or the positions they are in, or else you wouldn't have written the asinine post that you just did.

[/quote]

I do, thank you.

However, you clearly don't have a fucking clue what am majority is, or else you wouldn't have written that asinine response you just did.



That's what I've been saying. Let me bold it for you, so you understand, since you seem slow on the uptake: The majority of gun control advocates are not for banning guns! Three politicians whether in positions of power or not (and BTW, Holder currently holds no office, so why you brought him up I have no idea).

[Paddy O Fernature]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm4kgu6vVok

Pat Robertson is now in favor of some gun control.

And?

[The Two Jerseys]

So now were from any to all, any other arguments you want to change before someone proves you wrong?

Where did I say banning any guns? I do not recall saying any such things, and I never would, because that's not what I advocate. But nice strawman.

1. Currently, everyday folks by law do not have access to the NICS, the other issue is, it is completely unenforceable.

So0 grant them access to it, and make it so law enforcement must be notified about private gun sales, like how you have to inform the DMV that you sold your car,, so they can enforce it. Easy, no?

No, not easy at all, because we've now gone from "give private sellers NICS access" to "create a gun registry".

This is why gun owners don't want to "compromise" on gun control, when they give an inch the gun grabbers take a mile.

There is NO gun show loophole.

Bullshit.

It's not a loophole.

Joe Public selling his old car via the classified ads doesn't make him a car dealer, so he doesn't have to jump through all the legal hoops that a car dealership does.

The same applies for Joe Public selling his old 1911 at a gun show.

Private sales between parties is legal and protected by law, negating your claims of a loophole.

So, why should they be exempt from background checks? Give me one good reason. I'm not against private sales, I just think they should be regulated to keep guns out of dangerous criminals and mentally ill individuals from getting guns.

If you'd actually listen, you'd know that a lot of us are in favor of allowing private sellers to access NICS.

But we don't want to have to fill out a mountain of paperwork and pay fees out the wazoo in order to do so. So until the feds give us free access, no background checks for private sales.

2. already law
3. already law.

Well, criminals not getting guns is law, but Trump, lo and behold, rescindind a key regulation preventing the mentally ill from getting guns (source), so no, not quite enforced law.

(I'll respond to more now. I'm having RAM issues with my chromebook, making it hard to respond)

Mentally ill =/= automatically unfit to own guns.

[Washington Resistance Army]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm4kgu6vVok

Pat Robertson is now in favor of some gun control.

Good thing nobody here cares about Pat Robertson.

[Gig em Aggies]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm4kgu6vVok

Pat Robertson is now in favor of some gun control.

And Am I supposed just dig hole and lay in it and die because he's in favor now?

[Paddy O Fernature]

I do, thank you.

However, you clearly don't have a fucking clue what am majority is, or else you wouldn't have written that asinine response you just did.



That's what I've been saying. Let me bold it for you, so you understand, since you seem slow on the uptake: The majority of gun control advocates are not for banning guns! Three politicians whether in positions of power or not (and BTW, Holder currently holds no office, so why you brought him up I have no idea).

Let me ask you this..

Should Republicans and or Trump supporters not be blamed or held accountable for any actions that Trump makes on their behalf?

[Telconi]

1. When is that from? At least four years ago, according to the comments.
2. One politician AGAIN. Hardly a majority AGAIN



These videos don't showe a majority as you keep insisting they do, just three politicians saying something like that. Own up to your bullshit now.

You clearly don't have a fucking clue who these people are or the positions they are in, or else you wouldn't have written the asinine post that you just did.

I do, thank you.

However, you clearly don't have a fucking clue what am majority is, or else you wouldn't have written that asinine response you just did.



That's what I've been saying. Let me bold it for you, so you understand, since you seem slow on the uptake: The majority of gun control advocates are not for banning guns! Three politicians whether in positions of power or not (and BTW, Holder currently holds no office, so why you brought him up I have no idea).[/quote]

The majority of gun control advocates are not for banning guns!

But a major party is...

[Grand Britannia]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm4kgu6vVok

Pat Robertson is now in favor of some gun control.

Literally who?

[Zyr and Pony]

Just because it's a bipartisan compromise doesn't make it not a loophole.

A compromise can open a loophole, either accidentally or intentionally, the two things are not mutually exclusive.

And just because it is a compromise doesn't mean it is a loophole shall we go round the merry go round again?

What's your point? All I was saying there is that a compromise and a loophole are not mutually exclusive. I have no disagreement with what you wrote here, so I have no idea why you posted it.

[Grinning Dragon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm4kgu6vVok

Pat Robertson is now in favor of some gun control.

Well, that's it then, shut it down and embrace it, a preacher is in favor of infringements, after all a man of the cloth has spoken and is the ultimate authority on all that is just and should be.
Honestly, who gives a fuck, fuck that guy.

[Telconi]

And just because it is a compromise doesn't mean it is a loophole shall we go round the merry go round again?

What's your point? All I was saying there is that a compromise and a loophole are not mutually exclusive. I have no disagreement with what you wrote here, so I have no idea why you posted it.

Yes, they are. A compromise is intentional, a loophole is not.

[Zyr and Pony]

You clearly don't have a fucking clue who these people are or the positions they are in, or else you wouldn't have written the asinine post that you just did.

I do, thank you.

However, you clearly don't have a fucking clue what am majority is, or else you wouldn't have written that asinine response you just did.



That's what I've been saying. Let me bold it for you, so you understand, since you seem slow on the uptake: The majority of gun control advocates are not for banning guns! Three politicians whether in positions of power or not (and BTW, Holder currently holds no office, so why you brought him up I have no idea).

The majority of gun control advocates are not for banning guns!

But a major party is...[/quote]

Prove it. You have yet to, so far, so show me the democratic plank that says that they want to ban guns, with a link to the democratic platform, as if that was part of the party's platform, it would certainly be in the party'ds platform. That you haven't suggests you're lying

[Manokan Republic]

So I finally found the source I was looking for. I tracked it back from Gary Kleck's source, which took a while. The source is from the 1960's, which make's it's results somewhat debatable, but I have yet to find a better source. According to the figures, the lethality by various weapons type was:

Shotgun - 20.4%
Pistol - 16.8%
Ice pick - 14.3%
Butcher knife - 13.3%
Rifle - 7.7%
Switch-blade knife - 5.9%
Pocket knife - 0%


To me, these results make intuitive sense, as shotguns tend to be more powerful than rifles with a 28+ gram projectile, and lots of smaller injuries causing high bleed out is hard for a surgeon to operate on. One really large wound from a handgun is going to be more deadly than a smaller wound from a rifle, and it's tendency to over penetrate is likely to be more lethal as well. Large knives's, like butcher's knife or ice picks, would be more likely to kill than small knives like switch blade's or pocket knives, with short stubby pocket knive's perhaps unlikely to kill at all. This seems to make sense, as lots of little injuries and rounds that don't over penetrate is probably more lethal than one big injury and harder for a surgeon to operate on. By these figures, rifles would be half as deadly as handguns or shotguns, which tends to make sense.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Prove it. You have yet to, so far, so show me the democratic plank that says that they want to ban guns, with a link to the democratic platform, as if that was part of the party's platform, it would certainly be in the party'ds platform. That you haven't suggests you're lying

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#gun-violence

"and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets"

[Telconi]

I do, thank you.

However, you clearly don't have a fucking clue what am majority is, or else you wouldn't have written that asinine response you just did.



That's what I've been saying. Let me bold it for you, so you understand, since you seem slow on the uptake: The majority of gun control advocates are not for banning guns! Three politicians whether in positions of power or not (and BTW, Holder currently holds no office, so why you brought him up I have no idea).

The majority of gun control advocates are not for banning guns!

But a major party is...

Prove it. You have yet to, so far, so show me the democratic plank that says that they want to ban guns, with a link to the democratic platform, as if that was part of the party's platform, it would certainly be in the party'ds platform. That you haven't suggests you're lying[/quote]

I have provided the salient portion of their platform, taken from their website. The fact you insist I haven't suggests you're not in touch with reality.

[Zyr and Pony]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm4kgu6vVok

Pat Robertson is now in favor of some gun control.

Well, that's it then, shut it down and embrace it, a preacher is in favor of infringements, after all a man of the cloth has spoken and is the ultimate authority on all that is just and should be.
Honestly, who gives a fuck, fuck that guy.

It's not an infringement, if it's legal and constitutional.

From DC v Heller (in a section that the Mass case didn't overrule in any way)

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Prove it. You have yet to, so far, so show me the democratic plank that says that they want to ban guns, with a link to the democratic platform, as if that was part of the party's platform, it would certainly be in the party'ds platform. That you haven't suggests you're lying

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#gun-violence

"and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets"

Okay, certain arms, I concede that much. Notably not all guns, however, especially since that would never pass constitutional muster, and the Dems know that, so they're not going to try to go that far, unless there's a radical change in opinion towards banning all guns (and I expect hell to hit absolute zero first).

[Dylar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm4kgu6vVok

Pat Robertson is now in favor of some gun control.

What the fuck is a Pat Robertson?

[Telconi]

Well, that's it then, shut it down and embrace it, a preacher is in favor of infringements, after all a man of the cloth has spoken and is the ultimate authority on all that is just and should be.
Honestly, who gives a fuck, fuck that guy.

It's not an infringement, if it's legal and constitutional.

From DC v Heller (in a section that the Mass case didn't overrule in any way)

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#gun-violence

"and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets"

Okay, certain arms, I concede that much. Notably not all guns, however, especially since that would never pass constitutional muster, and the Dems know that, so they're not going to try to go that far, unless there's a radical change in opinion towards banning all guns (and I expect hell to hit absolute zero first).

Ok, so you concede that the operating legal body pushing gun control wants to ban guns. I don't want guns banned, hence, they can screw off.

[Telconi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm4kgu6vVok

Pat Robertson is now in favor of some gun control.

What the fuck is a Pat Robertson?

Apparently somebody were supposed to care about, iunno...

[Grinning Dragon]

No it doesn't. It was a bipartisan compromise that both parties were happy with. That isn't a loophole.

Just because it's a bipartisan compromise doesn't make it not a loophole.

A compromise can open a loophole, either accidentally or intentionally, the two things are not mutually exclusive.

A compromise that became law is NOT a loophole, it was debated, agreed upon, voted to be passed then sent to be signed into law.
Sellers who are not in the business are not required to do a background check and is completely voluntary.

[Paddy O Fernature]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm4kgu6vVok

Pat Robertson is now in favor of some gun control.

What the fuck is a Pat Robertson?

Someone who nobody cares about, has ever heard of, yet somehow is being used as an end all point in an online debate.