gun show loophole rant

Quote: boymimbo

When my daughter borrows my car without telling me (and she will) I'm not going to charge her with grand theft auto.

Perhaps you should be forced to keep your car keys in a safe when it is not in use? I mean, your daughter could "borrow" the car without you knowing and cause an accident. Or someone could break into the house and steal it and do the same.

Quote: AZDuffman

Perhaps you should be forced to keep your car keys in a safe when it is not in use? I mean, your daughter could "borrow" the car without you knowing and cause an accident. Or someone could break into the house and steal it and do the same.

A thief doesn't even have to break in to your house if you park outside. It's really not that hard to steal a car without the keys, so I propose that along with locking up the keys no one should be allowed to have a car if they haven't secured it in a car safe. Enacting this restriction would likely cost hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars, but since cars kill more people a year than guns I think we really need to take this threat seriously.

After we've got this veritably more serious threat contained then we can move of to guns, where more than half the deaths are caused by suicide. I wonder if there were no guns at all if those people would find an alternate way to end their life. I'm guessing they would, which means the issue isn't guns, it's mental health.

Quote: MonkeyMonkey

A thief doesn't even have to break in to your house if you park outside. It's really not that hard to steal a car without the keys, so I propose that along with locking up the keys no one should be allowed to have a car if they haven't secured it in a car safe. Enacting this restriction would likely cost hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars, but since cars kill more people a year than guns I think we really need to take this threat seriously.

Actually, we do try to balance usability and safety of cars with laws and regulations. And there's never going to be a day when it's done or doesn't ever need modification. So you should approve of the same thing with guns if you think they're similar.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Quote: Beethoven9th

Blatant dishonesty. Sorry, but this is why your side will never attract people from my side. I don't how else one can respond to such nonsense other than saying, "Adam Lanza did not legally own any guns.

AHHHHH

boymimbo is NOT saying "Adam Lanza legally owned the guns he used." boymimbo is saying that the guns were legally owned period. I.e. they were purchased through legal channels, etc. Nomenclature, people.

well ALL guns are originally purchased legally...do you think guns are being stolen from the manufacturer?

Quote: rxwine

Actually, we do try to balance usability and safety of cars with laws and regulations.

And apparently it's not working out very well because cars still kill more people than guns. Don't you think the focus should be on the bigger killer first, or is it just more convenient to go after something that doesn't really effect you?

Quote: rxwine

And there's never going to be a day when it's done or doesn't ever need modification. So you should approve of the same thing with guns if you think they're similar.

I think you've misinterpreted my argument, I want your use of your car restricted. When we get you under control THEN we can start looking at less threatening killers. BTW, more than half of gun deaths every year are from suicide, so while thinking up draconian restrictions on your car use be sure to work out a way that people can't kill themselves with a car. So, there can be no way to run a hose from the exhaust to the interior. No way to collide with any object at a speed which can kill. No way for a catastrophic system failure to cause the car to crash. Etc. I'm pretty sure there are a lot more ways to kill yourself with a car than with a gun, so you're really going to have your work cut out for you.

Or we could abandon this nanny state malarkey and let people live the way they want to, making their own decisions about their safety.

Quote: MonkeyMonkey

I think you've misinterpreted my argument, I want your use of your car restricted. When we get you under control THEN we can start looking at less threatening killers. BTW, more than half of gun deaths every year are from suicide, so while thinking up draconian restrictions on your car use be sure to work out a way that people can't kill themselves with a car. So, there can be no way to run a hose from the exhaust to the interior. No way to collide with any object at a speed which can kill. No way for a catastrophic system failure to cause the car to crash. Etc. I'm pretty sure there are a lot more ways to kill yourself with a car than with a gun, so you're really going to have your work cut out for you.

Or we could abandon this nanny state malarkey and let people live the way they want to, making their own decisions about their safety.

But you still have to balance cars benefits against negatives before you declare the winner of car vs. gun. I don't think you can win that comparison.

We had the incredibly successful "cash for clunkers" program. A brilliant idea hatched by the incredibily gifted "ivory tower" geniuses inside the Beltway. Why not "cash for clips". Turn in you clips for cash. Turn them in at fire stations, local sheriff or the place where you get the free cheese. Not just the 30 round clips but all clips. The goal would be ten million clips to be turned in at 100 dollars each. The feds would cut you a check on the spot or load up the food stamp card with more credit. A billions dollars is absolutely nothing. Cash for Clunkers was 15 billion and it's obvious to me the skies are clearer and the birds are singing more than ever. How can anybody be against this "cash for clips" concept if it can save just one life.

Quote: rxwine

But you still have to balance cars benefits against negatives before you declare the winner of car vs. gun. I don't think you can win that comparison.

I'm only comparing how many people die due to each one. If people dying is the concern, and if it isn't please let me know what we're actually talking about, then I think we should focus on the bigger killer first. If the bigger killer isn't the concern why aren't we discussing fatal gardening accidents, that's got to be a horrific way to go.

Quote: treetopbuddy

We had the incredibly successful "cash for clunkers" program. A brilliant idea hatched by the incredibily gifted "ivory tower" geniuses inside the Beltway. Why not "cash for clips". Turn in you clips for cash. Turn them in at fire stations, local sheriff or the place where you get the free cheese. Not just the 30 round clips but all clips. The goal would be ten million clips to be turned in at 100 dollars each. The feds would cut you a check on the spot or load up the food stamp card with more credit. A billions dollars is absolutely nothing. Cash for Clunkers was 15 billion and it's obvious to me the skies are clearer and the birds are singing more than ever. How can anybody be against this "cash for clips" concept if it can save just one life.

They've tried things like that. People bring out old rusty guns and other junk to collect the bounty.

Quote: MonkeyMonkey

They've tried things like that. People bring out old rusty guns and other junk to collect the bounty.

Who cares if it doesn't work. The BEAST cares about us and that is all that matters. Case closed. It's time to take a closer look a NASCAR.

The use of my car *is* restricted. We have to get a license and pass a both written tests and driving tests. We have to register our car. We have to renew our license plates every year or couple of years. Some states have smog testing for vehicles. There are speed limits, emission limits, safety features, airbags, and a pile of laws in every state as to the rules of the road and how we can drive. If we don't follow the rules, penalties range from a small fine to revoking of one's license.

Of course cars kill more people than guns. If people used their guns as often as they used their cars I am pretty positive that the statistics would look close to the same. But if guns were regulated as much as cars were (licensing for gun safety, registration papers for each gun including renewals every year or 2nd year, safety technology (like a sensor on the gun that gave you an error/warning message if you were going to shoot something with a heartbeat), magazine standards, etc), I am sure you would see gun crime go down. None of those measures mentioned take away from your 2nd amendment rights.

Continuing the comparison to cars, let's just remove the rules of the road, shall we? No speed limits. No safety specifications for cars. No traffic lights, stop signs, or warning signs. Just drive. See how we do. Let people live the life the way they want to after all. Let's do the same for drugs too. Legalize all of them. We don't need no stinking laws.
-----

Every gun purchase of course starts off as a legal gun purchase. However, the transfers that take place after that may be illegal. That includes family members of gang members buying guns on the gang member's behalf, sales at a gun show without proof that the buyer is capable of owning a gun, theft, and most of all, private sales to unsavoury individuals.

Most guns used illegally come from private sales. Studies of criminal populations show that 25% of those in prison for gun violence got their weapons via theft. (which includes Lanza, by the way). Half a million guns are stolen each year from homes and go straight into the hands of criminals.

You see, I get people screaming on the right that the 2nd amendment rights must be maintained and that we must live in a land free of laws as that is the meaning of true liberty. Bull. At some point, you need to balance maintaining one's rights while protecting society. That's why there are rules of the road, police forces, fire departments, consumer laws, and so on. You still have a right to drive, but these are the rules. Gun ownership should carry similar responsibilities as you are operating a piece of machinery that could easily and instantly kill you or someone else. Big Phama has the responsibility of providing you with warnings on every drug its sells. Doctors have the responsibility of side effects for treatments. And yes, by my logic, I guess there should be rules for knife ownership (do not stab people) and rope ownership (do not use to hang), and walking (do not jump off bridges), and subway usages (do not push people onto the tracks) and so on.

From a gun control perspective, of course, the president's reaction was kneejerk. But Reagan also helped passed an assault weapons ban in 1994 while relaxing restrictions on gun ownership overall (in 1986). The Brady Bill was a Republican sponsored bill. We jump on this because it's Obama, the socialist Kenyan, who is pushing this through.

True thought is required in resolving these issues, and while we may put our head in the sand and state that there are no issues, the recent mass gun violence speaks otherwise.

Quote: boymimbo

The use of my car *is* restricted. We have to get a license and pass a both written tests and driving tests. We have to register our car. We have to renew our license plates every year or couple of years. Some states have smog testing for vehicles. There are speed limits, emission limits, safety features, airbags, and a pile of laws in every state as to the rules of the road and how we can drive. If we don't follow the rules, penalties range from a small fine to revoking of one's license.

Of course cars kill more people than guns. If people used their guns as often as they used their cars I am pretty positive that the statistics would look close to the same. But if guns were regulated as much as cars were (licensing for gun safety, registration papers for each gun including renewals every year or 2nd year, safety technology (like a sensor on the gun that gave you an error/warning message if you were going to shoot something with a heartbeat), magazine standards, etc), I am sure you would see gun crime go down. None of those measures mentioned take away from your 2nd amendment rights.

Continuing the comparison to cars, let's just remove the rules of the road, shall we? No speed limits. No safety specifications for cars. No traffic lights, stop signs, or warning signs. Just drive. See how we do. Let people live the life the way they want to after all. Let's do the same for drugs too. Legalize all of them. We don't need no stinking laws.
-----

Every gun purchase of course starts off as a legal gun purchase. However, the transfers that take place after that may be illegal. That includes family members of gang members buying guns on the gang member's behalf, sales at a gun show without proof that the buyer is capable of owning a gun, theft, and most of all, private sales to unsavoury individuals.

Most guns used illegally come from private sales. Studies of criminal populations show that 25% of those in prison for gun violence got their weapons via theft. (which includes Lanza, by the way). Half a million guns are stolen each year from homes and go straight into the hands of criminals.

You see, I get people screaming on the right that the 2nd amendment rights must be maintained and that we must live in a land free of laws as that is the meaning of true liberty. Bull. At some point, you need to balance maintaining one's rights while protecting society. That's why there are rules of the road, police forces, fire departments, consumer laws, and so on. You still have a right to drive, but these are the rules. Gun ownership should carry similar responsibilities as you are operating a piece of machinery that could easily and instantly kill you or someone else. Big Phama has the responsibility of providing you with warnings on every drug its sells. Doctors have the responsibility of side effects for treatments. And yes, by my logic, I guess there should be rules for knife ownership (do not stab people) and rope ownership (do not use to hang), and walking (do not jump off bridges), and subway usages (do not push people onto the tracks) and so on.

From a gun control perspective, of course, the president's reaction was kneejerk. But Reagan also helped passed an assault weapons ban in 1994 while relaxing restrictions on gun ownership overall (in 1986). The Brady Bill was a Republican sponsored bill. We jump on this because it's Obama, the socialist Kenyan, who is pushing this through.

True thought is required in resolving these issues, and while we may put our head in the sand and state that there are no issues, the recent mass gun violence speaks otherwise.

I have know idea what your point is.....????

Quote: treetopbuddy

We had the incredibly successful "cash for clunkers" program. A brilliant idea hatched by the incredibily gifted "ivory tower" geniuses inside the Beltway. Why not "cash for clips". Turn in you clips for cash. Turn them in at fire stations, local sheriff or the place where you get the free cheese. Not just the 30 round clips but all clips. The goal would be ten million clips to be turned in at 100 dollars each. The feds would cut you a check on the spot or load up the food stamp card with more credit. A billions dollars is absolutely nothing. Cash for Clunkers was 15 billion and it's obvious to me the skies are clearer and the birds are singing more than ever. How can anybody be against this "cash for clips" concept if it can save just one life.

It's not important that this won't work. What's important is the BEAST cares.

Quote: MonkeyMonkey

They've tried things like that. People bring out old rusty guns and other junk to collect the bounty.

And a dirty little secret is that when they get a nice gun they often resell them!

Quote: boymimbo

Of course cars kill more people than guns. If people used their guns as often as they used their cars I am pretty positive that the statistics would look close to the same.

Yeah, both the number of people using cars and the amount of time involved would probably add up to quite a bit. I don't know the high end of gun use, but I doubt if it's even close for most people (maybe some, like gun range instructor). But that's gotta be a drop, compared to a bucket, or a bathtub.

As someone who took care of three separate gunshot victims through the night, I am still for people's rights to keep them. I was bemoaning my bad fortune at being up most of the night to an ex lady friend, a quite petite woman. She told me she keeps a gun in her home for personal protection, and even though she understands the likelihood of her being able to get to it and use it in the event of a break in is slim, she still feels better about having it.
As far as the car comparison, I have used that to show that society DOES put a value on people's lives. If we lowered the speed limit from 65 to 50 we would clearly save thousands if not tens of thousands of lives per year. If we raised the driving age to 21 the same would occur. If we lowered the blood alcohol level which results in an arrest the same would occur. We as a society opt to take those risks, KNOWING deaths could be prevented. I am comfortable taking the risk of a lunatic going on a shooting spree to protect the rights of others as outlined in our second ammendment.

If I have a bigger problem with guns, it's with the laws about "stand your ground" Curious for comment.

Example: Premise - I want to kill my neighbor because (list of reasons why you might want to kill a neighbor). Of course, I want to get away with it.

I know that once every two weeks or so he is in the back yard with a pair of large garden shears . I'm careful as I can be to try to catch him alone, perhaps hidden by fence, and sure my nearest neighbor can't see or will be gone.

I get him to turn around facing me, by saying something. Then I bring my handgun out and blast him a couple times. He dies with the garden shears in hand.

I claim self defense. No witness.


Okay, you can substitute this with other possibilites:

He is in his car about to back up. I move behind his car and shoot him through the rear window claiming he was angry and was trying to run me over. Or, I knock on his door, and leave a sledge hammer against his door and when he opens it I am hiding. He naturally picks up the hammer wondering where it came from, and then I shoot him. His fingerprints on hammer and in hand.

I personally think this law just gives one a license to kill. "Stand your ground" suggests that you might retreat, but don't have to consider it. While I can understand such a law for in your own house, or on your own property, once you move it out to everywhere, the person with the motivation has ways to plan a killing that's easier to get away with.

Quote: rxwine

If I have a bigger problem with guns, it's with the laws about "stand your ground" Curious for comment.

Example: Premise - I want to kill my neighbor because (list of reasons why you might want to kill a neighbor). Of course, I want to get away with it.

I know that once every two weeks or so he is in the back yard with a pair of large garden shears . I'm careful as I can be to try to catch him alone, perhaps hidden by fence, and sure my nearest neighbor can't see or will be gone.

I get him to turn around facing me, by saying something. Then I bring my handgun out and blast him a couple times. He dies with the garden shears in hand.

I claim self defense. No witness.


Okay, you can substitute this with other possibilites:

He is in his car about to back up. I move behind his car and shoot him through the rear window claiming he was angry and was trying to run me over. Or, I knock on his door, and leave a sledge hammer against his door and when he opens it I am hiding. He naturally picks up the hammer wondering where it came from, and then I shoot him. His fingerprints on hammer and in hand.

I personally think this law just gives one a license to kill. "Stand your ground" suggests that you might retreat, but don't have to consider it. While I can understand such a law for in your own house, or on your own property, once you move it out to everywhere, the person with the motivation has ways to plan a killing that's easier to get away with.

I highly doubt any of these cases would stand up. As we can see in FL right now, even when it is undisputed that you were attacked you may still be charged. Same goes wig the castle doctrine. You can't just shoot someone and say it was an intruder. "Spirit of the law" can and will get taken into account.

Quote: AZDuffman

I highly doubt any of these cases would stand up. As we can see in FL right now, even when it is undisputed that you were attacked you may still be charged. Same goes wig the castle doctrine. You can't just shoot someone and say it was an intruder. "Spirit of the law" can and will get taken into account.

No you probably can't gun down someone holding no implement of harm, walking around your house at night who isn't in physcial proximty to you or perhaps even aware of you. But that's not the same as what I'm describing.

With the car comparison, different places have different BAC limits. In Ontario, new drivers have a zero tolerance (not that the patroling is there to catch them). I think the driving age is pretty close to the working age.

My point is that regulations around guns are not necessarily a bad thing. It's a second amendment right under the constitution and certainly the SCOUS has taken its own view, striking down gun control laws in certain cities. You have to balance one's rights to own arms with safety within society. Laws are generally in place to protect children and the stupid.

We can debate the stupidity of the laws. This got revived because of the arrest of the Watertown man for having ammo clips. My point was that the laws for the illegal possession of these clips have been on the books in New York since 2000, so why is this a big deal?

Obviously my view is of an outsider Canadian and my views are certainly of the liberal. That said, I don't feel that more guns are the answer, and I also don't think you can just enact additional controls without an very large effort to take guns away from criminals, as you get the backlash that taking weapons away from responsible citizens makes you more unsafe.

Quote: rxwine

No you probably can't gun down someone holding no implement of harm, walking around your house at night who isn't in physcial proximty to you or perhaps even aware of you. But that's not the same as what I'm describing.

What you have described are pretty far-fetched examples that would never stand up as a defense.

In the first place if you know the person and have issues you would have to explain why you approached him. The fact that he has shears while doing gardening will make your claim of them as a weapon dubious. And the cops will wonder why there was a sledgehammer where no work was bring done.

All the examples you cited seem more what would happen in the movies than real life. In real life while someone could set someone up I DDR stand your ground the reality is that if it is too perfect the da will look even closer.

Quote: rxwine

If I have a bigger problem with guns, it's with the laws about "stand your ground" Curious for comment.

Example: Premise - I want to kill my neighbor because (list of reasons why you might want to kill a neighbor). Of course, I want to get away with it.

I know that once every two weeks or so he is in the back yard with a pair of large garden shears . I'm careful as I can be to try to catch him alone, perhaps hidden by fence, and sure my nearest neighbor can't see or will be gone.

I get him to turn around facing me, by saying something. Then I bring my handgun out and blast him a couple times. He dies with the garden shears in hand.

I claim self defense. No witness.


Okay, you can substitute this with other possibilites:

He is in his car about to back up. I move behind his car and shoot him through the rear window claiming he was angry and was trying to run me over. Or, I knock on his door, and leave a sledge hammer against his door and when he opens it I am hiding. He naturally picks up the hammer wondering where it came from, and then I shoot him. His fingerprints on hammer and in hand.

I personally think this law just gives one a license to kill. "Stand your ground" suggests that you might retreat, but don't have to consider it. While I can understand such a law for in your own house, or on your own property, once you move it out to everywhere, the person with the motivation has ways to plan a killing that's easier to get away with.

I'm no lawyer, nor do I play one on internet message boards, but I do not believe that what you say is part of any "stand your ground" law.

"Stand your ground" is actually a misnomer in that you only have the right to stand your ground when you are eminent danger of physical harm or death. In each of your examples you would have to get the neighbor to come toward you in some way before you could feel eminent danger. If your examples are simply "what ifs" then fine, but in reality, your examples would need more work to be successful, at least in my opinion.

Quote: Maverick17

In each of your examples you would have to get the neighbor to come toward you in some way before you could feel eminent danger.

Well, as this is a murder, there's only one witness who says that he/she was threatened. The rest is up to detective work. The standard is high for conviction. Reasonable doubt that two people (who may already had a history of disputes) that one was shot when the other tried to attack him.

So, no one has ever witnessed arguments that turned into a fight from two people?

Quote: AZDuffman

What you have described are pretty far-fetched examples that would never stand up as a defense.

Nothing is that far fetched except James Bond stuff.

If you kill a dog by beating him, you'll probably will get an abuse charge if caught. If you strap him to the roof of your car in a cage and he flies off at highway speed "by accident" you probably won't. Maybe you want to get rid of him either way???

If you drown someone, you go to jail. If you can't swim and are wood (Natilie) that doesn't float, no one may go to jail if she falls in the water.

Look up garden shears, rakes, shovels, pruning shears and attacks. People use what's around to fight.

Neighbors get into physcal altercations. There's nothing far fetched about that at all, it's there in police reports. One person may attack the other at some point in the argument. If it's a straight beatdown, the person, even on their own property may go to jail for the assault. People have died from a single punch in some cases.

What's farfetched?

What's farfetched is an unprovoked murder. If I wanted to kill my neighbour, first off, and I am within the bounds of normality, I would likely have had many many altercations with him before, and the neighbor likely would have told his friends and family about these provocations. You also likely would make declarations of provocations with your friends and family, and everyone would understand the history. Of course there would be a detailed investigation, including forensics, that may or may not prove that you were provoked.

The problems with most murders is that the murderers themselves are too stupid to cover their own tracks.

And if you do happen to keep everything secret and out of the blue, well, you're likely a psychopath which the police could easily figure out.

I think the best case scenario is manslaughter. And would you take the chance anyway?

Quote: boymimbo

What's farfetched is an unprovoked murder. If I wanted to kill my neighbour, first off, and I am within the bounds of normality, I would likely have had many many altercations with him before, and the neighbor likely would have told his friends and family about these provocations. You also likely would make declarations of provocations with your friends and family, and everyone would understand the history. Of course there would be a detailed investigation, including forensics, that may or may not prove that you were provoked.

The problems with most murders is that the murderers themselves are too stupid to cover their own tracks.

And if you do happen to keep everything secret and out of the blue, well, you're likely a psychopath which the police could easily figure out.

I think the best case scenario is manslaughter. And would you take the chance anyway?

So there is such thing as common sense in the liberal mind!!!!!!!!!

Now just apply some of that logic to "gun control" and we will have a conversion of Biblical proportions!!!!

Oh just relax! You won't ever convert me on gun control.

Quote: boymimbo

Oh just relax! You won't ever convert me on gun control.

Thats because Liberals have a twisted way of looking
at the world. Its not a baby until I can see it, so its
all right to murder it in the womb. SUV's are dangerous,
not the people driving them. People don't kill people,
gun's kill people.

Quote: EvenBob

Thats because Liberals have a twisted way of looking
at the world. Its not a baby until I can see it, so its
all right to murder it in the womb. SUV's are dangerous,
not the people driving them. People don't kill people,
gun's kill people.

Taking money away from people via higher taxes means they have more money to invest and the economy will grow.....

Quote: EvenBob

Thats because Liberals have a twisted way of looking
at the world. Its not a baby until I can see it, so its
all right to murder it in the womb. SUV's are dangerous,
not the people driving them. People don't kill people,
gun's kill people.

Yeah, Bob, *I'm* the twisted one here.

Quote: boymimbo

Yeah, Bob, *I'm* the twisted one here.

You are. You think you can change human nature
by getting rid of the weapons.

Quote: AZDuffman

Taking money away from people via higher taxes means they have more money to invest and the economy will grow.....

The virtue of a collective type taxation is when you first move to a small town, if the public road in front of your house needs repair they won't come check for your share of the taxes that are fixing the road before continuing fixing it. You're TAKING other people's money.

You claim it is to be a thief to do so. So be it.

Hey, Bob, stop putting words in my mouth.

I never said get rid of the weapons. I support measures that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who mentally cannot handle weapons. I think there are loopholes that can be closed to prevent sales of weapons to unsavory individuals and other measures to reduce the occurrences of thefts. This would still allow you to keep your weapons but would gradually get guns out of the hands of criminals. And I would support heavy penalties to those who are carrying weapons without the proper permits.

And it's not human nature that I'm trying to change, it's US Culture. There's a reason why the levels of intentional homocide is higher than any other 1st world country in the world (except for Estonia). What is it? Do people just hate each other more? Can a reasonable level of gun control curb the homocide rate?

It would be natural to try and lower the homocide rate by reducing the number of weapons out there or by putting restrictions on who can own weapons. It would be natural to try to lower the homocide rate through cultural change.

Blanket statements like yours really get us nowhere. It just increases the divide.

Gun control laws typically don't deter criminals from getting guns, they deter law abiding citizens such as me and you from getting guns to protect ourselves.

Quote: Gabes22

Gun control laws typically don't deter criminals from getting guns, they deter law abiding citizens such as me and you from getting guns to protect ourselves.

Who said I'm law-abiding?

Quote: Gabes22

Gun control laws typically don't deter criminals from getting guns, they deter law abiding citizens such as me and you from getting guns to protect ourselves.

Which ones would you get rid of?

Actually, I'd be for throwing all of them out and start over with just one. Commit a crime, or be caught with an illegal gun, you have to swallow it on the spot.

(that should keep illegal guns down to about the capability of Deringers)

If only the shoplifter had a gun with which to defend himself! The answer clearly is more guns!!

Quote: EvenBob

Then you're deluding yourself. More people are killed
by .22 handguns than any other weapon in the US.
Its not the weapon, its the person using the weapon.

Libs never seem to understand that little detail. Like
Bloomberg banning sugary drinks to combat obesity.
Its not the FOOD, its the person. Change the person,
you change his obesity problem.

Anything which doesn't kill you today or this year is food in this country. Your argument wouldn't be a fallacy if food was something we could all agree to be food, but some people don't consider unsafe, unproven ingredients to be food. I believe they will sell feces, saw dust, or lawn clippings with artificial flavorings as coffee if they could get away with it by calling it natural flavorings. Everyone assumes someone wouldn't sell you something dangerous to eat they wouldn't eat themselves, but it's not true. The number of 400 pound people and obese nurses is stark evidence against the personal choices of people being the cause. To me it sounds like your problem is you're assuming facts to be true which are not. Otherwise, your logic would be sound.

Quote: boymimbo

In addition, prosecution offered a plea deal: 5 Class A Misdeamenors. And, according to the Washington Times, the magazines were marked "Restricted: For Military Use Only". According to the article, he was trying to sell these magazines.

The defendant claims that he lived in New York since 2010 and didn't know that the law existed. Fair enough. It's unlikely that he will be jailed. Of course, if he was a celebrity, he'd likely be hailed as a hero.

Edit: The more I think about this, the more I don't have a problem with this. Yeah, he's a decorated war hero. But he was trying to sell these illegal magazines to someone who also would have been illegally buying (and possessing) the magazines. He lives in northern new york state. I can only guess what the buyer of these magazines had intended. Given that the great majority of our handguns come from the United States, I shudder to think that it is these sorts of innocent transactions that lead to gun rampages on the streets of Montreal or Toronto.

Of course, Timothy McVeigh was also a war hero (receving the Bronze Star during Gulf War I) and also hails, Face, from Western New York.

I apologize for causing a stir and apparently bailing from the thread, but I've been in Vegas all week and can't stand posting from a phone =/

To be honest, I was kind of being an asshole with my original post. I guess I was in a mood...no, I definitely was in a mood. In reality, I don't care at all that he was a "decorated war hero". I wouldn't care if he was a Nobel Prize winner, an average joe, or some degenerate loser. The fact of the matter is he was a non criminal American citizen that has been turned into a criminal for no reason whatsoever.

Even more than that, and a large part of my sour mood that resulted in my little spin segment, is my increased frustration with people's lack of critical thinking. People are being bombarded with views, with opinions, with stories, and they take them at such face value that a man, an apparently honorable one, at that, is being charged with violations more severe than rape, arson, and possesing child porn, because he had in his possession a few small, metal containers with springs in them. It's absurd, and it's obscene. It's to the point I was to smash my own face through the wall just to take my mind off it, if only for a few minutes.

I had a good talk with FrG in my firearms thread, after which he said that this gun debate "reminded him a lot of the War on Drugs", an opinion I thought was spot on. Just like the WoD, all the focus is at the "end of the line", so to speak. It's on things that have no conscience, can do neither harm nor good in and of themselves. And, just like the WoD, the continued focus on the "end of the line" in the gun debate is going to do absolutely nothing positive for what ails us, while at the same time putting us in a much worse position, whether it be taking rights away, jailing innocent people, or costing a shit-ton of cash for no perceivable benefit.

I just wish people would think. Just look at tobacco use. It's a pox that kills way more than guns and/or drugs ever will, yet is completely legal. How did the powers that be try to correct this vice? By education. As more and more info gets spread, more and more programs are available to educate, smoking rates just keep continuing to drop. The US Surgeon General publish its first study in the mid 60's, and the warnings and education has only grown since then. So let's take a look at the results.



Holy shit, would you look at that...

This worked because, unlike all this other crap, they started at the source, the people. They educated, they changed the person, and it resulted in an undeniable, positive change in behavior.

It just drives me mad. As a man who's highly knowledgeable about guns and their operation, I can tell you flat out that capacity will solve nothing. Restrictions will solve nothing. All it will do is keep these things out of the legal owners hands. And even if you could wave the magic wand and make the crims hand in all their mags, I'm telling you, I could waste a building full of soft targets with an O/U shotgun as easy as I could my 30 round Del-Ton.

Something should be done, on this I agree. Some of the things in these bill I can support, most notably pumping cash into mental health and education. But if you can't see how restrictions on types and capacity isn't going to work, I don't know what else to do. If I, as an honorable, just, law abiding, nicest-guy-you'd-ever-wanna-meet type person has several 30 rounders for a few different guns, all obtained easily and cheaply without stepping one foot into the undergroud and under no circumstances will surrender them is still going to have high cap mags, how can one possibly think a law is going to stop a crim from doing the same?

I just don't get it. In any case, sorry for my original post. I'll try to take a breath before posting in the future =)

Quote: Face

I just wish people would think. Just look at tobacco use. It's a pox that kills way more than guns and/or drugs ever will, yet is completely legal. How did the powers that be try to correct this vice? By education. As more and more info gets spread, more and more programs are available to educate, smoking rates just keep continuing to drop. The US Surgeon General publish its first study in the mid 60's, and the warnings and education has only grown since then. So let's take a look at the results.

Would you like to see weapons regulated in the same way that "completely legal" cigarettes are regulated?

Quote: s2dbaker

Would you like to see weapons regulated in the same way that "completely legal" cigarettes are regulated?

Guns already are at least as regulated as cigarettes. Hard to compare two such different products, but plenty of regulations exist as to purchase, transport, carry, and use of guns.

Quote: boymimbo

I support measures that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who mentally cannot handle weapons.

I don't know what else we can say to get you to understand that the measures you support will not "keep guns out of the hands of criminals". The US already has umpteen gun laws on the books, so are we to believe that the umpteenth+1 law will work?

Quote: boymimbo

This would still allow you to keep your weapons but would gradually get guns out of the hands of criminals.

Guess what? Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law.

No, but there is a direct link between gun crime and gun ownership. So, the less availability of guns generally, the less availability to guns to criminals.

That's not true. The direct link is between gun crime and gun criminals.

Quote: boymimbo

So, the less availability of guns generally, the less availability to guns to criminals.

The city of Chicago disproves this statement.

Quote: boymimbo

No, but there is a direct link between gun crime and gun ownership. So, the less availability of guns generally, the less availability to guns to criminals.

So correct. You cannot get cocaine, heroin, and meth legally and hence they have disappeared and there is no drug crime, right?

And Washington DC proves it, as does the data of 98% of countries that show gun crimes is directly related to gun ownership.

Quote: boymimbo

And Washington DC proves it,

Geez, you're proving my point without even realizing it. If two cities have similar laws with different results, then that pretty much proves that there is no "direct" relation.

Quote: boymimbo

as does the data of 98% of countries that show gun crimes is directly related to gun ownership.

Guess what? This may be hard for you to believe, but the overwhelming majority of gun owners do not commit crimes. OTOH, ALL gun criminals do commit crimes.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Geez, you're proving my point without even realizing it. If two cities have similar laws with different results, then that pretty much proves that there is no "direct" relation.


Guess what? This may be hard for you to believe, but the overwhelming majority of gun owners do not commit crimes. OTOH, ALL gun criminals do commit crimes.

The problem is gun control types think you are a potential criminal just for having a gun.

Quote: boymimbo

And Washington DC proves it, as does the data of 98% of countries that show gun crimes is directly related to gun ownership.

I would love to see the study that shows gun registration at 98% of guns used in crimes in DC.

I think it's time to make murder legal. Since murderers are going to kill people no matter what the law is, we might as well.

Quote: 1arrowheaddr

I think it's time to make murder legal. Since murderers are going to kill people no matter what the law is, we might as well.

I don't quite get this. You want murder to be legal? Why?