Poll: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. #23541
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    But the traces are done nationwide. Don't believe me? Feel free to browse the ATF's trace statistics for all 50 states plus DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands.
    Link me the URI of the system where individuals register transfer of ownership. I'll wait.

  2. #23542
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    The bolded is why a gun is deadlier.
    in that sense yes i agree. but what law would have kept him from having that gun?

  3. #23543
    Quote Originally Posted by cuafpr View Post
    but what law would have kept him from having that gun?
    My point exactly. Our current laws are obviously insufficient. People his age can barely drive, much less wield weapons. In addition, don't movie theatres generally ban weapons?

  4. #23544
    sooo he was breaking a law already (assuming the theater banned weapons) so a law was in place that wasn't enforced. Again what law would stop him?

  5. #23545
    Quote Originally Posted by cuafpr View Post
    sooo he was breaking a law already (assuming the theater banned weapons) so a law was in place that wasn't enforced. Again what law would stop him?
    How is that law supposed to be enforced proactively? There's a reason you arrest people after they commit a crime.

  6. #23546
    Over 9000! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    9,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    If I'm reading this right California is open carry but only in towns with populations 200,000 or below. These laws are a real patchwork.
    California's gun laws are definitely byzantine.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    Looks like the homicide rate is about 6/100k in Cali, which is about 6 times what it is in Melbourne (and in most of Australia, Europe, the UK etc). I'm sure it's not like the Wild West or anything but still. I'd get a gun :P
    You'd be surprised, actually. The homicide rate in California is 4.94 (1879 homicides, 38.04m population) and the homicide rate in Victoria is 3.13 (178 homicides, 5.68m population). Not only is it not 6x as much, it's not even twice as much.

    In fact, 18 states boast a homicide rate lower than Victoria, Australia. While the proportion of gun homicides is definitely higher in the US, we tend to get an unfair reputation as being a nation of murderous thugs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    So, unable to do anything about the majority of murder weapons, the gun control movement turns its attention to the most egregious weapons that are used in the most shocking crimes.
    The process would probably have more traction if the "egregious" weapons in question were actually any more substantively dangerous than handguns, which they're not. But that's politics for you.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  7. #23547
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    How is that law supposed to be enforced proactively? There's a reason you arrest people after they commit a crime.
    simple wading of a metal detector would work. (movie theater near me does it randomly).... If people want access to guns they must understanding some inconveniences will come with it. Then you wouldn't have had to arrest him per say simply turn him away or take the gun until after the movie. But again this law would not have prevented him from owning one. the only law i could think of that would, would be one that required a gun owner to get a license like a drivers license and then every X years must get re-qualified on the weapon and back ground checked again.

  8. #23548
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    I challenge anybody reading this forum who agrees with Rukentuts on this topic to try and defend his claim.
    Since it came out a hundred pages (page 1082 for anyone looking) ago that Ruk is merely a hypocrite I've taken to regarding his posts like a yapping chihuahua, annoying but not something I'm overly concerned with.

    What I can't tell is if he's profoundly forgetful, being purposefully obtuse about the topic at hand, or merely lacks the ability to comprehend what is being discussed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Link me the URI of the system where individuals register transfer of ownership. I'll wait.
    You already know this doesn't exist, we've covered this in this thread. Currently the only way for an individual to register the transfer of ownership of a firearm is for both parties to journey to a Federal Firearms Licensed establishment, probably pay a fee, and have them call in the background check and draw up a bill of transfer. Whether or not this is required varies from state to state, some require it for all firearms, some for just handguns and in some not at all provided both parties are residents of the state and can legally possess a firearm. Granted even in the non-requiring states (like Minnesota) one can voluntarily make the trip and have it done.

    However you already know all this, so we're back to forgetful, obtuse or noncomprehending.

    Quote Originally Posted by cuafpr View Post
    sooo he was breaking a law already (assuming the theater banned weapons) so a law was in place that wasn't enforced. Again what law would stop him?
    “No Firearm” signs in Florida have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically
    mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry.(movie theatres aren't covered under state law)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mardhyn View Post
    Now this is just blatant trolling, at least before you had the credibility of maybe being stupid.
    Quote Originally Posted by SourceOfInfection View Post
    Sometimes you gotta stop sniffing used schoolgirl panties and start being a fucking samurai.

  9. #23549
    Quote Originally Posted by cuafpr View Post
    If people want access to guns they must understanding some inconveniences will come with it.
    Except you're inflicting that inconvenience on everyone.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Tasttey View Post
    You already know this doesn't exist, we've covered this in this thread.
    Of course I do. He doesn't. That's the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tasttey View Post
    Currently the only way for an individual to register the transfer of ownership of a firearm is for both parties to journey to a Federal Firearms Licensed establishment, probably pay a fee, and have them call in the background check and draw up a bill of transfer. Whether or not this is required varies from state to state, some require it for all firearms, some for just handguns and in some not at all provided both parties are residents of the state and can legally possess a firearm. Granted even in the non-requiring states (like Minnesota) one can voluntarily make the trip and have it done.
    Which I want required for all purchases. He says it already exists; it doesn't. Hence why I am asking him to link me something that doesn't exist.

  10. #23550
    Quote Originally Posted by Tasttey View Post
    Since it came out a hundred pages (page 1082 for anyone looking) ago that Ruk is merely a hypocrite I've taken to regarding his posts like a yapping chihuahua, annoying but not something I'm overly concerned with.

    What I can't tell is if he's profoundly forgetful, being purposefully obtuse about the topic at hand, or merely lacks the ability to comprehend what is being discussed.



    You already know this doesn't exist, we've covered this in this thread. Currently the only way for an individual to register the transfer of ownership of a firearm is for both parties to journey to a Federal Firearms Licensed establishment, probably pay a fee, and have them call in the background check and draw up a bill of transfer. Whether or not this is required varies from state to state, some require it for all firearms, some for just handguns and in some not at all provided both parties are residents of the state and can legally possess a firearm. Granted even in the non-requiring states (like Minnesota) one can voluntarily make the trip and have it done.

    However you already know all this, so we're back to forgetful, obtuse or noncomprehending.
    I just feel the sheer level of irony here requires this post be quoted.

  11. #23551
    Over 9000! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    9,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Link me the URI of the system where individuals register transfer of ownership. I'll wait.
    Oh, look. Yet another thing that I never claimed existed. In fact, another thing that I stressed at every point would potentially allow the system to expand the trace. In fact, something that I also repeatedly said did not rely on a registry to accomplish.

    I've made that very clear time and time again. You're just obfuscating, because you have no real point. I've explained the way the system works, and you said I was wrong.

    Link me the quote of me saying that the current system can trace a firearm all the way to the end user, every time, without fail. I'll wait.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  12. #23552
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Except you're inflicting that inconvenience on everyone.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Of course I do. He doesn't. That's the point.

    Which I want required for all purchases. He says it already exists; it doesn't. Hence why I am asking him to link me something that doesn't exist.
    so a little in convenience for freedom of rights isn't worth it to you? Sad.... :/

  13. #23553
    Over 9000! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    9,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Tasttey View Post
    Since it came out a hundred pages (page 1082 for anyone looking) ago that Ruk is merely a hypocrite I've taken to regarding his posts like a yapping chihuahua, annoying but not something I'm overly concerned with.

    What I can't tell is if he's profoundly forgetful, being purposefully obtuse about the topic at hand, or merely lacks the ability to comprehend what is being discussed.
    Why not all three? But seriously, I feel like he's the equivalent of a schoolyard bully, trying to "win" a debate through intimidation, name calling, and pathetically childish "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I"-style comebacks, without any real logic or data to back it up.

    It's perhaps my flaw that I fail to let him get away with his false claims.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Which I want required for all purchases. He says it already exists; it doesn't. Hence why I am asking him to link me something that doesn't exist.
    Once again, reading comprehension. Please post a quote of mine that supports the bolded statement.

    On second thought, how about I not wait for you to obfuscate again, allow me to post some snippets showing that that's not what I said:
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    The ATF already has the capability to back-trace serial numbers. A UBC would potentially increase the scope of this by providing a decentralized record of the transfer from one private party to another (at least for all transfers done legally).

    Centralizing the records into a registry, however, does not confer some kind of automatic enhancement to the accuracy of the result of a trace.
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    And the ATF is already able to track or trace serial numbers as far along the legal retail spectrum as they go to the first private buyer. Adding a UBC law would increase the potential for extending that trace further along the private spectrum, but only insomuch as those transactions are dutifully reported by said private parties.

    But centralizing the data doesn't do much to enhance accuracy, since the data already exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    What part of "this information is already there" is hard for you to understand? A gun trace is a trace. It yields information on every single hand the gun has passed through, from manufacturer to warehouser to retailer to private individual. With a UBC it might keep records past that into subsequent private transactions. But it's already there, without needing to centralize it into a registry. You don't add information to the database when you centralize it, you just... centralize it.
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Yes, actually, the data is there, nationwide, from the time of manufacture to the time it enters the hands of a private consumer. Adding a UBC law would potentially stretch this as far as it can go, but none of this relies on a centralized database. A registry adds nothing to the accuracy or completeness of the data.

    If it feels like I'm repeating myself, it's because I am. Just how exactly are you trying to say that the data isn't there?
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    In fact, at every stage of this back-and-forth, I've repeated that a UBC law might increase the scope of the tracing data. But that doesn't require a registry to do. Nor would a registry magically do what you're saying without some kind of UBC law. Nor does a UBC law, with or without a registry, mean that a firearm can be traced once it leaves the legal spectrum, which it often does long before it's ever used in a crime.
    The bolded parts clearly show that I repeatedly stated that a UBC law would potentially expand the resulting trace data. Never once did I say that those transactions were already recorded or a part of the trace data. The part highlighted red is ironic, considering how many times I said the same thing, and yet you still managed to ignore that I said it.

    The sad part is that I intentionally repeated that portion of it, specifically to stall some more small-minded bullies from trying to claim that I was ignoring the possible benefit of a UBC law.

    But I guess small-minded bullies can always surprise you with their willful obtuseness.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  14. #23554
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Earlier ITT I showed you that the annual medical costs for firearms was much smaller than many other causes. My point is that if you were to add those same intangibles to the other categories, then you'd most likely also reach staggeringly inflated "societal costs".
    Whether or not those numbers are inflated, and whether or not Tobacco use and alcohol use have higher societal costs, the fact remains that firearm violence costs this country $179 billion each year. That's a perfectly legitimate reason to increase regulation and restrict access.

    When a crime is involved, I'd basically always blame the agent instead of the tool, that's the distinction.
    Just because I want to restrict firearm access doesn't mean that I'm blaming them for specific crimes. It's obviously the fault of the individual.

    However, if we make it so ridiculously easy for these individuals to access firearms, then it's we who are to blame. Criminals will always exist. Ease of access to firearms doesn't have to exist.
    Eat yo vegetables

  15. #23555
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    The second amendment has let many people save their lives too. But those are usually overlooked and never mentioned by the anti-gun folks. What I feel in the US is.....freedom. If you think it is so bad here, then stay out. It is already overcrowded.
    I bet that dude texting his daughter was totally thrilled about your freedom.

  16. #23556
    How is that law supposed to be enforced proactively? There's a reason you arrest people after they commit a crime.
    I love it how you admit that a new law cannot stop someone from committing a crime.

    Now tell us, which law currently on the books DOESN'T work to put people in prison for committing gun related crimes?

    Except you're inflicting that inconvenience on everyone.
    So it's okay to inflict inconvenience on gun owners, but not everyone else?

    Please explain the difference.

  17. #23557
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    How about the billions of dollars that gun violence costs the taxpayer each year? Is that just baseless fear?
    There are costs associated with everything. Cost is NEVER a valid excuse for abridging rights.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    There's no reason to own a gun for "defense" other than baseless fear.

    See I can do this too.
    Except your logic falls flat on its face in light of the fact that the Second Amendment is not conditional.

  18. #23558
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    The second amendment has let many people save their lives too. But those are usually overlooked and never mentioned by the anti-gun folks. What I feel in the US is.....freedom. If you think it is so bad here, then stay out. It is already overcrowded.
    That 'freedom' took more lives then it saved, it takes childrens lives on a regular basis, but whatever, lets ignore that. We wouldn't want to feel 'unsafe' now wouldn't we?

    Freedom, haha, you apparently don't understand the concept of 'freedom', the only freedom a US-citizen has more then a European is the right to own a metal penis extention. For the rest the US is inhabited by wage-slaves, not what I call freedom. At least we have decent workers unions that ensure the freedom of the working man.

    You also don't understand the concept of overcrowded, Europe has more then twice as much inhabitants on a smaller surface-area.

  19. #23559
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    There are costs associated with everything.
    Sure. But we're talking about firearms. Let's stick to the subject at hand.

    Cost is NEVER a valid excuse for abridging rights.
    Is that written in the Constitution somewhere? I mean really, that's just one mans opinion. I happen to disagree. Especially when that right is the right to own a piece of metal.
    Eat yo vegetables

  20. #23560
    Quote Originally Posted by JfmC View Post
    That 'freedom' took more lives then it saved, it takes childrens lives on a regular basis, but whatever, lets ignore that. We wouldn't want to feel 'unsafe' now wouldn't we?

    Freedom, haha, you apparently don't understand the concept of 'freedom', the only freedom a US-citizen has more then a European is the right to own a metal penis extention. For the rest the US is inhabited by wage-slaves, not what I call freedom. At least we have decent workers unions that ensure the freedom of the working man.

    You also don't understand the concept of overcrowded, Europe has more then twice as much inhabitants on a smaller surface-area.
    Americans also enjoy the right to freedom of speech... TRUE freedom of speech where we can't be cited or even stopped from saying whatever we damn well please so long as it doesn't incite panic or crimes. Pretty sure things like Holocaust Denial are illegal in Germany... and various forms of hate speech will get you in trouble in various parts of Europe.

    And how many times must it be said that gun violence is on the decline? Has been for a LONG time.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Is that written in the Constitution somewhere? I mean really, that's just one mans opinion. I happen to disagree. Especially when that right is the right to own a piece of metal.
    Then you must concede that there are other rights for which cost is a valid reason to abridge them, no?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •