Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

Yes he does. I've told him several times, w/e he brings up the subject of guns. Which admittedly he doesn't much anymore. Because I've made it clear he can pretty much take everything he believes in ( not just about guns) and shove it.

Then it is cool. Do what you want if he is ok with whatever you do with the guns. If I was him however, I would pass them on to some other family member or close friend who I felt would appreciate them. Which is what I will do with mine. As of now however, the one son wants them, so he gets them. If he wanted to sell them, then I would look for a alternative. But he is like me, enjoys shooting and feels strongly about the 2nd Amendment.

[Berengil]

Pathetic is the virtue-signalling stupidity of ridding yourself of completely legal items without at least some pretense of respecting either their sentimental value as heirlooms or their intrinsic/collector's value. It's irrationality trumped up as some grand virtue. I don't care if you are armed or not; I ask only the same of you in return.

They have no sentimental value to me because they belong to my father, a hillbilly P.O.S.

As for their monetary value, I refuse to profit from the sale of killing tools. I suppose I could sell them, though, and donate the money to an antigun organization.

You can call it irrational or virtue signalling if you like. My beliefs absolutely preclude the use of violence. So why would I keep a gun?

You may not care if I'm armed. But I will continue to vote for candidates that back as many gun restrictions as possible. And in the future, if it's ever even close to possible, I'll back any candidate who seeks the repeal of the 2nd amendment. It's my view that the 2nd amendment was a mistake made by the founders. I believe that only cops and soldiers should have guns.

[Ghostpanther]

They have no sentimental value to me because they belong to my father, a hillbilly P.O.S.

As for their monetary value, I refuse to profit from the sale of killing tools. I suppose I could sell them, though, and donate the money to an antigun organization.

You can call it irrational or virtue signalling if you like. My beliefs absolutely preclude the use of violence. So why would I keep a gun?

You may not care if I'm armed. But I will continue to vote for candidates that back as many gun restrictions as possible. And in the future, if it's ever even close to possible, I'll back any candidate who seeks the repeal of the 2nd amendment. It's my view that the 2nd amendment was a mistake made by the founders. I believe that only cops and soldiers should have guns.

Sad you feel that way about your father to the point you would call him a bad name. But shrugs, you know the reasons why, not I. But is still sad no matter what reason you have. But you certainly have the right to take a stand for repealing the 2nd Amendment and it would be more honorable knowing how you feel about firearms if you did not accept them at all. Selling them and even giving the money to a anti-gun organization would be hypocritical in my opinion.

[TITAN308]

Would rather you sell them and donate to anti-gun organization then give them away for free to be destroyed.

That is cutting off your nose just to spite your face.

[Stormdash]

They have no sentimental value to me because they belong to my father, a hillbilly P.O.S.

As for their monetary value, I refuse to profit from the sale of killing tools. I suppose I could sell them, though, and donate the money to an antigun organization.

You can call it irrational or virtue signalling if you like. My beliefs absolutely preclude the use of violence. So why would I keep a gun?

You may not care if I'm armed. But I will continue to vote for candidates that back as many gun restrictions as possible. And in the future, if it's ever even close to possible, I'll back any candidate who seeks the repeal of the 2nd amendment. It's my view that the 2nd amendment was a mistake made by the founders. I believe that only cops and soldiers should have guns.

So that's a big affirmative on self-congratulatory virtue-signaling.

As others have noted, anything you're turning in that has any actual value to gun enthusiasts, will not be slagged, destroyed, or turned into a planter, it will be grabbed up by people running the event or department at which you turn them in, in which case those dire, dire killing machines will be range toys forever. They are safer locked up next to the Black Soulstone in your basement with the other cursed objects.

[Gorehowl]

i saw a movie about where only the government had guns.


schindlers list.

[Mayhem]

i saw a movie about where only the government had guns.


schindlers list.

... I guess this thread needs a profoundly stupid post every few pages, thanks for providing.

[Gorehowl]

... I guess this thread needs a profoundly stupid post every few pages, thanks for providing.

every few pages? is that why you have been filling every page with profoundly stupid posts?

[kail]

i saw a movie about where only the government had guns.


schindlers list.

Saw a movie where everyone had guns.

Django Unchained.

[Gorehowl]

Saw a movie where everyone had guns.

Django Unchained.

the slaves didnt have guns.

[Mayhem]

every few pages? is that why you have been filling every page with profoundly stupid posts?

Trying to win pionts by posting a godwin argument that´s also factually wrong. What is it you wanted to say with that schindlers list post? That you don´t know what happened, that you don´t know what was going on or that you don´t know what you are talking about?

[Stuffs]

Saw a movie where everyone had guns.

Django Unchained.

Except for you know, the slaves. Keeping a population disarmed is pretty important if you want to oppress them.

[Macaquerie]

Except for you know, the slaves. Keeping a population disarmed is pretty important if you want to oppress them.

Some of them did. Didn't really help them out much though.

[Masark]

i saw a movie about where only the government had guns.

schindlers list.

And you'd be wrong. Germany's gun laws were decidedly liberalized during that time, for non-Jewish Germans.

[PhaelixWW]

How does it provide possibility of abuse?

The same way any computerized database of private information can potentially be abused.

So it doesn´t exist? Serously, at least try to be consistent with your answers. The very last post of yours you told me such a thing doesn´t exist.

Wow, you really, really suck at reading comprehension. A federal registry does not exist. There's a law that specifically prohibits a national registry. California, on the other hand, has a state registry, as do a few other states. And we have absolutely no evidence that these state registries have had any measurable impact on crime in those states.

They have to rely solely on luck right now if such an investigation is warranted. While with a registry they´d have information at hand about them. Information helps when you try to solve a crime, link persons to a network of illegal gun deals and so on.

I don't know what you're failing to understand here. A registry cannot provide evidence of an illegal transfer. It can potentially make law enforcement suspect an illegal transfer, but that's about it. With or without a registry, the police would still have to do in-depth investigation to find enough evidence to prove it in court. Anything less than that would be useless. And even with a registry, they would still have to rely on "luck" to find the evidence they needed.

God damn it, take a pencil and write this down so i don´t have to rewrite it every second post. THEY CAN BE FINED because they didn´t safely store their guns.

I'll keep rebutting it because you don't seem to understand: how do you prove that they didn't safely store their guns? Just because a thing is stolen doesn't automatically prove that it was stored unsafely. And once again, the presumption of innocence puts the burden on the police to prove otherwise.

And the police doesn´t need to provide anything more, because thanks to a registry they KNOW how many firearms that person should have. Do you understand that it becomes pretty unprofitable for straw purchasers when they get fined for every "lost" firearm?

Like I'm trying to point out, they wouldn't get fined. Not unless they were stupid about it. And we should all pray for stupid criminals, but I wouldn't count on it.

See above. Seriously.

Ditto.

Since a good amount of guns already exists, the time-to-crime rate is greater than 10 years in all but a few states and criminals can simply buy guns in other states thanks to private sales, a gun registry in only a few states is almost pointless.

You do understand that criminals can travel and cross state lines, right? And you also know that there are no border controls between states?

Jesus, we're back to guns crossing state borders now? 70% of crime guns found in California are traced back to... California. And that makes the registry pointless? So if the registry "works" 70% of the time, but you still acknowledge that it's useless, then shouldn't 100% be useless, too?

By the way, I'll remind you again that Nevada imports a higher percentage of their crime guns from out-of-state than California (36.7% vs. 30.2%), despite the fact that you'd have us believe that California is this haven of gun-running.

[Oktoberfest]

"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt."
— Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner and author of The Gulag Archipelago, who spent 11 years in Soviet concentration camps

[Mayhem]

The same way any computerized database of private information can potentially be abused.

So your answer to my question is "because it can"? Yeah, you have to provide more than that.

Wow, you really, really suck at reading comprehension. A federal registry does not exist. There's a law that specifically prohibits a national registry. California, on the other hand, has a state registry, as do a few other states. And we have absolutely no evidence that these state registries have had any measurable impact on crime in those states.

So back to my original question that started your jumping around. How can you say a federal registry would not have any impact if a federal registry doesn´t exist?

I don't know what you're failing to understand here. A registry cannot provide evidence of an illegal transfer. It can potentially make law enforcement suspect an illegal transfer, but that's about it. With or without a registry, the police would still have to do in-depth investigation to find enough evidence to prove it in court. Anything less than that would be useless. And even with a registry, they would still have to rely on "luck" to find the evidence they needed.

Evidence as in hint, not as in proof, like you used it here. A registry can provide evidence.

I'll keep rebutting it because you don't seem to understand: how do you prove that they didn't safely store their guns? Just because a thing is stolen doesn't automatically prove that it was stored unsafely. And once again, the presumption of innocence puts the burden on the police to prove otherwise.

Are you kidding me? How do you prove a gun wasn´t safely stored? Well first of all see if there´s a gun safe, see if the gun safe was broken in, if it´s claimed that the gun safe was stolen see for traces. You know stuff that the police does when a crime was comitted.

Like I'm trying to point out, they wouldn't get fined. Not unless they were stupid about it. And we should all pray for stupid criminals, but I wouldn't count on it.

Do you understand that when a criminal who is in the business of straw purchasing needs to report every stolen gun, because that´s the only "legal" means he can keep his business running he needs to be very careful all the time? If they don´t show that they safely stored the guns, they´d get fined. If they forget to report the guns stolen, they´d get fined. Do you know what is pretty bad for a business? Getting fined all the time.

Jesus, we're back to guns crossing state borders now? 70% of crime guns found in California are traced back to... California. And that makes the registry pointless? So if the registry "works" 70% of the time, but you still acknowledge that it's useless, then shouldn't 100% be useless, too?

By the way, I'll remind you again that Nevada imports a higher percentage of their crime guns from out-of-state than California (36.7% vs. 30.2%), despite the fact that you'd have us believe that California is this haven of gun-running.

Want to have a look at D.C. crime guns?

[Svifnymr]

Do you understand that when a criminal who is in the business of straw purchasing needs to report every stolen gun, because that´s the only "legal" means he can keep his business running he needs to be very careful all the time? If they don´t show that they safely stored the guns, they´d get fined. If they forget to report the guns stolen, they´d get fined. Do you know what is pretty bad for a business? Getting fined all the time.

Current straw purchase laws are rarely enforced, so I'm not sure why this new law would suddenly result in lots of prosecutions. There's also this study: http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1429.html

[Mayhem]

Current straw purchase laws are rarely enforced, so I'm not sure why this new law would suddenly result in lots of prosecutions. There's also this study: http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1429.html

Am i wrong but isn´t this confirming my point? The mere mentioning of records changed the behaviour, now imagine what actual fines would do. If this study is to be trusted than it´s quite obvious how easy guns can get into the hands of criminals by "legal" means.

[TZucchini]

In 2015, individuals on the terrorist watch list attempted to purchase firearms 244 times. 91% of the purchases were approved and allowed to proceed.

Just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing how much freedom we have when it comes to purchasing firearms.