Poll: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. #16581
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    not if the gun is reported stolen or lost and yes guns do get lost just this last duck hunting season had a friend drop his shotgun in a lake so no it wont stop or even slow down straw purchses
    People who are irresponsible to the point that they lose their guns, deserve to be punished.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  2. #16582
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadvolcanoes View Post
    It would be very hard to implement, and have drawbacks for the poor, I agree.

    What about a fine of $5,000-$10,000 if your weapon is used in a crime? Would that not reduce straw purchases and increase proper storage?
    Though I'd be opposed to a "if your weapon is used in a crime" law as way too broad and subject to abuse, I'd say you need to focus on a fine that is small enough to be workable and not worth a lengthy fight, while being big enough to be a disincentive.

  3. #16583
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    If there was a gun registry, you would know it's stolen
    And how in the hell would a gun registry tell if a gun is stolen unless the police have the gun in thier possession and that usually doesn't happen till after a crime is committed
    Last edited by Vyxn; 2013-04-23 at 09:47 PM.

  4. #16584
    I'll probably regret posting this but here goes anyways: I can get a gun, right now, no questions asked, cheaply and in a more timely fashion then any one of you out there could legally. The guy I get it from, he won't give 2 craps what i do with it. And are not talking a 22 bolt action, pick your poison, he has it. I really don't see where any one of you guys posting advocating gun laws are addressing this. More laws and regs wont make a goddamm bit of difference to him. Actually it'll probably improve buisiness for him.

  5. #16585
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    People who are irresponsible to the point that they lose their guns, deserve to be punished.
    Accident do happen do you want to take cars away from people who get in accidents? and not all accidents are at fault of the people involved

    ---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 05:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Thephayul View Post
    I'll probably regret posting this but here goes anyways: I can get a gun, right now, no questions asked, cheaply and in a more timely fashion then any one of you out there could legally. The guy I get it from, he won't give 2 craps what i do with it. And are not talking a 22 bolt action, pick your poison, he has it. I really don't see where any one of you guys posting advocating gun laws are addressing this. More laws and regs wont make a goddamm bit of difference to him. Actually it'll probably improve buisiness for him.
    Its just like the war on drugs. we have spent billion to try to stop drugs and they are just as accessible today as it was when they started the war

  6. #16586
    The Lightbringer Deadvolcanoes's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    People go to a dealer when they think they won't get turned down, not because they know they have a felony and need a gun for a crimewave.

    So, you've created a system to police the law abiding.

    Given there is no penalty enforced when a criminal tries and fails, there's also no harm in them trying.
    I think you missed my point, or I wasn't clear. You made the claim that expanding background checks to private sellers wouldn't work, because there's no risk/reward. But FFL's also have no risk/reward, by your admission (since its not enforced), yet they still implement millions of checks.

    I'm believe that trend will continue with private sellers. There's really no reason to believe it wouldn't.

    Don't you agree that instituting a voluntary background check system (via phone or internet) separate from the NICS and accessible by individuals would allow law abiding citizens that want to do the right thing to run a background check when a stranger is the buyer, while not creating some system where I need to run a background check on my long time buddy?
    Sure, it's better than what we have now, but I'd still like to see it be mandatory. Running a background check on a buddy isn't a big deal nor burdensome, imo.

    As you've brought up the internet guys asking for extra because they think it's illegal before, wouldn't you agree that those are the ones most likely to NOT do the background check?
    Likely? Sure. Exclusively? No.
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

  7. #16587
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    Its just like the war on drugs. we have spent billion to try to stop drugs and they are just as accessible today as it was when they started the war
    Alright, let's make crack and heroin legal then.

    Let's all ride the Gish gallop.

  8. #16588
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    Alright, let's make crack and heroin legal then.
    I agree with this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  9. #16589
    The Lightbringer Deadvolcanoes's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Thephayul View Post
    I'll probably regret posting this but here goes anyways: I can get a gun, right now, no questions asked, cheaply and in a more timely fashion then any one of you out there could legally. The guy I get it from, he won't give 2 craps what i do with it. And are not talking a 22 bolt action, pick your poison, he has it. I really don't see where any one of you guys posting advocating gun laws are addressing this. More laws and regs wont make a goddamm bit of difference to him. Actually it'll probably improve buisiness for him.
    What do you propose we do to stop him? Gun trafficking penalties were increased in recent proposals. Never made it through though.
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

  10. #16590
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    Alright, let's make crack and heroin legal then.
    All drug that don't cause people to be uncontrollably violent like bath salts should be legal


    The government isn't meant to make society "good". People should make their own choices in a non-violent and consensual manner. The extent that a state interferes with people acting non violently should end at providing the most basic of public services (roads, school, parks, etc) , in addition to defense, commerce/currency handling, and law enforcement ( incl. property rights).

  11. #16591
    Quote Originally Posted by Raidenx View Post
    All drug that don't cause people to be uncontrollably violent like bath salts should be legal
    not good enough. drugs that cause addiction that causes people to commit crimes to obtain that drug should remain illegal
    Pot should be made legal because when have you ever herd of some one knocking over a store to get money to buy another bag

  12. #16592
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadvolcanoes View Post
    What do you propose we do to stop him? Gun trafficking penalties were increased in recent proposals. Never made it through though.

    I wish I had an answer to that. I guess our differences lie in the fact that I don't feel that legislation that goes further down the same road isn't the answer and that you do. What would you suggest for an answer here to help combat illegal gun buying and usage that doesn't hassle legitimate owners?

  13. #16593
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    You continue to push the same partisan rhetoric for pages while ignoring what is actually happening.

    Expand background checks so that every sale at a gun show or online must have one done. But since we're not enforcing the current law, there will be no enforcement, so we've done what?

    Universal Background Checks, same thing. There's no penalty for not doing it, no reward for doing it, so... it's a non-starter.

    And again you ignore the NIJ report that said requirements for private transfer background checks led to more guns reported stolen rather than less straw purchases.

    You still have failed to show the NRA cutting funding to the ATFE, I assume you read Wells non-argument about the NRA campaigning to have the director of the ATFE confirmed the same as every other director and think that's somehow to blame? Or maybe the lack of registration databases? I know, it's because Federal Prosecutors that are not apart of the ATFE don't give a care in the world about taking cases?
    You're ignoring the fact that current background checks stop 117 gun sales a day. But if those people who get denied go to a private seller, they can buy a gun anyway.

    This "The current laws aren't properly enforced" thing is BS since they obviously work, just not optimally because there are holes in them that need closing and that's the entire point.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  14. #16594
    Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Exactly.
    Your credibility just went down the toilet...

    Why do people keep arguing in absolutes? There's a difference between stopping and decreasing, the latter of which is the goal.
    Because in order to decrease the number of tragic events, we have to stop some of them. If the newton shooter had been stopped.... then there would have been one less mass shooting on record. The way you are arguing makes it seem like it's okay if Newton happened, but we should have only let him kill 15 people instead of 27.

    Feinstein does not represent the left. She's a clown that practically no one takes seriously.

    The left isn't trying to ban guns. Not now. Not ever. Stop the fear mongering.
    Feinstein is a liberal democratic senator, meaning she's not only representative of the liberal party, she's also responsible for a left leaning agenda which has become evermore anti gun. She's responsible for authoring the 1994 AWB and was also responsible for pushing for the recently failed AWB. If you think no one takes her seriously, you're pretty clueless.

    Not only has the president of the US been giving speeches strongly supporting the left's anti gun agenda, but he's harshly criticized the most recent failure of gun control legislation.

    I don't know what planet you live on, but here on earth, the left is very much trying to do everything they can to get rid of guns.

    It's not fear mongering when it's true and accurate.

    Which part of my post that you quotes makes it sound like there is currently no gun control?
    The part where you said:

    The USA isn't trying to ban guns. They're trying to limit access to criminals.
    We already limit access to criminals. What do you suggest we do differently? If you have a suggestion, can you show how it will be effective and worthwhile?

    Or is it just more conjecture like 'hey if we do enough background checks, we can stop all criminals from getting guns?'

    You just keep digging yourself into a hole.

    You're ignoring the fact that current background checks stop 117 gun sales a day. But if those people who get denied go to a private seller, they can buy a gun anyway.
    And you're ignoring the fact that 117 gun sales a day is less than .01% of all gun sales. Let's keep pissing in the ocean, shall we?

    This "The current laws aren't properly enforced" thing is BS since they obviously work, just not optimally because there are holes in them that need closing and that's the entire point.
    Okay, so you can be in charge of monitoring everyone and making sure every single private sale is subjected to a background check.

    Cuz that's what enforcement is. Someone making sure the rules are being followed, and either fining or charging people who don't follow them.

    But we don't have the ability to know who does or does not follow the rules and does a background check. So we can't possibly hope to enforce it.

    Damn, passing all these feel good laws makes me feel good.

    What do you propose we do to stop him? Gun trafficking penalties were increased in recent proposals. Never made it through though.
    That's the point: YOU CAN'T STOP HIM. You can't make him perform background checks on buyers. Requiring him to do so does fuckola.

  15. #16595
    The Lightbringer Deadvolcanoes's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    Your credibility just went down the toilet...
    You thought I was being serious with that statement? lol...

    I guess obvious sarcasm isn't obvious to everyone.

    If the newton shooter had been stopped...
    You keep saying "Newton." It's "Newtown."

    Feinstein is a liberal democratic senator, meaning she's not only representative of the liberal party, she's also responsible for a left leaning agenda which has become evermore anti gun.
    You mean the evermore anti gun agenda that decided to not extend the AWB? Or maybe how Obama increased gun ownership rights during his first term, instead of decreasing them? Gosh guys stop being so anti gun!

    The only anti gun legislation proposed was rejected by both parties.

    Not only has the president of the US been giving speeches strongly supporting the left's anti gun agenda, but he's harshly criticized the most recent failure of gun control legislation.
    Since background checks have zero effect on legal gun ownership, they aren't anti gun. They promote responsible and legal gun ownership.

    I don't know what planet you live on, but here on earth, the left is very much trying to do everything they can to get rid of guns.
    "Everything they can" is a bit of hyperbole. Some Democrats wanted to ban modifications, many others didn't. That's hardly "everything they can." It was actually one of the most pathetic attempts to pass a bill that I've seen in a while.

    The part where you said:
    The fact that I pointed out that we're trying to limit access to criminals does not mean we currently don't. Like I said, stop putting words in my mouth. If you have a question, just ask.

    Or is it just more conjecture like 'hey if we do enough background checks, we can stop all criminals from getting guns?'
    I love how you slipped the word "all" in there. It's basically an admission that you've been wrong this entire time.

    You just keep digging yourself into a hole.
    What does that even mean? Just a useless "gotcha" phrase that doesn't mean anything.

    And you're ignoring the fact that 117 gun sales a day is less than .01% of all gun sales. Let's keep pissing in the ocean, shall we?
    I wonder how many criminals attempt to purchase a weapon through an FFL every day. It probably averages out to 117...Wow, that ocean just got a lot smaller! Kinda looks like a puddle now. So I guess were stopping 99.9% of criminals through FFLs then.

    Damn, passing all these feel good laws makes me feel good.
    Do you believe background checks are a good thing?
    Last edited by Deadvolcanoes; 2013-04-23 at 11:55 PM.
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

  16. #16596
    Brewmaster jahasafrat's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,333
    I had to vote no on the poll because of the wording. I don't believe automatic assault rifles should be available to the general public. Assault weapons, on the other hand, is a very ambiguous and potentially far-reaching phrase. For example, here in Oregon legislators recently endorsed a bill that would ban all "assault weapons" and provided definitions for the term. They essentially lumped any semiautomatic pistol, shotgun, or rifle into the same category as full-auto ARs and AKs.

    I believe background checks, waiting periods, and education should be required for gun purchases, but I also believe our lawmakers should know what the fuck they're talking about. I don't want the jackasses that comprise the population to have access to machine guns, but I don't want to be criminalized for owning a Winchester model 100.

  17. #16597
    Quote Originally Posted by Decklan View Post
    You're ignoring the fact that current background checks stop 117 gun sales a day. But if those people who get denied go to a private seller, they can buy a gun anyway.

    This "The current laws aren't properly enforced" thing is BS since they obviously work, just not optimally because there are holes in them that need closing and that's the entire point.
    All of that is addressed in my other post, but I've posted all that information previously as well.

    Complying with the law is not a loophole, a loophole is an unintended consequence.

    That guy that "goes to a private seller" is the guy that is NOT BEING INVESTIGATED. That's one of the laws not properly enforced.

  18. #16598
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    All of that is addressed in my other post, but I've posted all that information previously as well.

    Complying with the law is not a loophole, a loophole is an unintended consequence.

    That guy that "goes to a private seller" is the guy that is NOT BEING INVESTIGATED. That's one of the laws not properly enforced.
    Those private sellers cannot be investigated or charged if they do not perform background checks on their "clients". They are under no obligation to. That is the law as it is. Thus it is a loophole. Under new legislation background checks would be required for sale and transfer of all firearms, and prosecution could be pursued for private sellers that did not attain a background check clearance.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  19. #16599
    You thought I was being serious with that statement? lol...

    I guess obvious sarcasm isn't obvious to everyone.
    Because serious people who only ever make serious points are known for being sarcastic...

    This is also a text based forum. Sarcasm doesn't carry well.

    You keep saying "Newton." It's "Newtown."
    Nowai, it's Pig Newtons.

    You mean the evermore anti gun agenda that decided to not extend the AWB? Or maybe how Obama increased gun ownership rights during his first term, instead of decreasing them? Gosh guys stop being so anti gun!

    The only anti gun legislation proposed was rejected by both parties.
    Except it wasn't rejected, it had a majority vote, but barely didn't make the minimum needed to actually pass. Perhaps you should read up on current affairs.

    Also, we have the NRA and the republican party to thank for making sure most of the gun legislation hasn't passed. If the liberals haven't passed things, it's not for lack of trying.

    Since background checks have zero effect on legal gun ownership, they aren't anti gun. They promote responsible and legal gun ownership.
    Background checks aren't the only recent legislation that has been defeated. Please be more dishonest.

    "Everything they can" is a bit of hyperbole. Some Democrats wanted to ban modifications, many others didn't. That's hardly "everything they can." It was actually one of the most pathetic attempts to pass a bill that I've seen in a while.
    They've paraded out children and parents from Newton as ammo to push through legislation. They've proposed bills that attempt to define and ban 'assault weapons.' They've proposed legislation to ban modifications to weapons, and they've even tried to ban a huge list of different firearms, most of which are commonly owned and used. The only thing they haven't done is proposed banning pistols and sporting/home defense rifles.

    So yeah, they've certainly been trying to do everything they can.

    The fact that I pointed out that we're trying to limit access to criminals does not mean we currently don't. Like I said, stop putting words in my mouth. If you have a question, just ask.
    Like I pointed out before, you keep using very vague language to argue your points. Every single one of them makes it seem like we just hand guns to everyone regardless of who they are or what they've done. When you say things like 'we are trying to limit criminal access to guns' it comes across (very deliberately, I'm sure) as if we don't currently do anything.

    Language matters, and if you weren't trying to be vague, you would be saying things like 'we are trying to do MORE to limit criminal access to guns.' That's specific language, and I would have no response to that. Hell, I could even agree with it. But you don't want to be specific, cuz that would mean being honest and admitting you don't really have an argument.

    I love how you slipped the word "all" in there. It's basically an admission that you've been wrong this entire time.
    And I love how your vague responses keep implying an all encompassing effect, when the reality is that we are talking about a statistically insignificant difference at best. Less than 0.01% of all background checks have resulted in a denial. You want to increase the number of background checks done (as if we can force non licensed dealers to do them) without admitting that we are already doing them as much as possible.

    What does that even mean? Just a useless "gotcha" phrase that doesn't mean anything.
    You figuratively keep digging yourself into a hole with every post you make on background check numbers and policy ideas you've conjured up to 'thwart' criminal gun sales. You've said nothing new in the last 200 pages and we've kicked your arguments to death, yet here you are. Digging like you're trying to find China.

    I wonder how many criminals attempt to purchase a weapon through an FFL every day. It probably averages out to 117...Wow, that ocean just got a lot smaller! Kinda looks like a puddle now. So I guess were stopping 99.9% of criminals through FFLs then.
    What are you talking about? The vast majority of people who purchase guns through FFLs pass background checks. That either means that only a very small percentage of people don't qualify to buy a handgun, -OR- those people are not attempting to buy them through FFLs because it's a waste of time.

    117 isn't a big enough number to warrant doing background checks, especially when we don't prosecute the vast majority of felons and fugitives who are attempting to buy guns.

    Do you believe background checks are a good thing?
    I believe background checks only give the licensed dealer peace of mind that he's not selling to someone who's not eligible to buy a handgun, in turn helping him avoid losing his license/business. Outside of that, I don't think it matters one bit if we do them. As I've said before, the rate of failures is abysmally low, suggesting that most criminals don't even attempt to get a gun through a means which requires a background check. The prosecution rate of people who DO fail is even more abysmal, suggesting that even having a law against felons/fugitives attempting to buy a firearm, is a complete waste of time.

    It's like making a law against spitting on the sidewalk. Complete waste of time and resources.

    Those private sellers cannot be investigated or charged if they do not perform background checks on their "clients". They are under no obligation to. That is the law as it is. Thus it is a loophole. Under new legislation background checks would be required for sale and transfer of all firearms, and prosecution could be pursued for private sellers that did not attain a background check clearance.
    So how do you determine who sells a gun without a background check? How do you know who to investigate? How do you even begin to go about charging someone with a crime if you can't even determine who's committing one?

  20. #16600
    The Lightbringer Deadvolcanoes's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    Except it wasn't rejected
    Senate rejects assault weapon ban on 40-60 vote

    it had a majority vote
    40-60 isn't a majority vote, my friend.

    Perhaps you should read up on current affairs.
    How embarrassing...

    Background checks aren't the only recent legislation that has been defeated. Please be more dishonest.
    I was responding to "he's harshly criticized the most recent failure of gun control legislation," which would be background checks. Please keep up with the conversation.

    Like I pointed out before, you keep using very vague language to argue your points.
    I don't have time to type out long paragraphs so people can understand exactly what I'm saying. Most people have no trouble understanding the points I'm making. You're really the only person I've heard complain, so like I said, if you have a question, all you have to do is ask! I'm more than happy to answer your questions!


    You want to increase the number of background checks done(as if we can force non licensed dealers to do them) without admitting that we are already doing them as much as possible.
    We don't force FFL's to do them, right? And yet they do them anyway. Interesting.

    I believe background checks only give the licensed dealer peace of mind that he's not selling to someone who's not eligible to buy a handgun, in turn helping him avoid losing his license/business.
    Losing his license/business? I thought we didn't enforce background check laws.
    Last edited by Deadvolcanoes; 2013-04-24 at 01:06 AM.
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

Posting Permissions

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