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
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.
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 ----------
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
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.
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.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?
Likely? Sure. Exclusively? No.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?
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
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).
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?
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?!"
Your credibility just went down the toilet...Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Exactly.
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.Why do people keep arguing in absolutes? There's a difference between stopping and decreasing, the latter of which is the goal.
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.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.
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.
The part where you said:Which part of my post that you quotes makes it sound like there is currently no gun control?
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?The USA isn't trying to ban guns. They're trying to limit access to criminals.
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.
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?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.
Okay, so you can be in charge of monitoring everyone and making sure every single private sale is subjected to a background check.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.
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.
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.What do you propose we do to stop him? Gun trafficking penalties were increased in recent proposals. Never made it through though.
Last edited by Eroginous; 2013-04-23 at 11:26 PM.
My Gaming Rig: Intel Core 2 quad q9650|ASUS P5G41-T M|2x4GB Supertalent DDR3 1333Mhz|Samsung 840 Evo 250GB|Fractal Design Integra R2 500w Bronze|ASUS Strix GTX 960 4GB|2x AOC e2770s 27" (one portrait, one landscape)|Bitfeenix Phenom Micro ATX
Don't hate my rig, there's nothing quite like the classics.
You thought I was being serious with that statement? lol...
I guess obvious sarcasm isn't obvious to everyone.
You keep saying "Newton." It's "Newtown."If the newton shooter had been stopped...
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!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.
The only anti gun legislation proposed was rejected by both parties.
Since background checks have zero effect on legal gun ownership, they aren't anti gun. They promote responsible and legal gun ownership.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.
"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.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.
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.The part where you said:
I love how you slipped the word "all" in there. It's basically an admission that you've been wrong this entire time.Or is it just more conjecture like 'hey if we do enough background checks, we can stop all criminals from getting guns?'
What does that even mean? Just a useless "gotcha" phrase that doesn't mean anything.You just keep digging yourself into a hole.
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.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?
Do you believe background checks are a good thing?Damn, passing all these feel good laws makes me feel good.
Last edited by Deadvolcanoes; 2013-04-23 at 11:55 PM.
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
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.
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?!"
Because serious people who only ever make serious points are known for being sarcastic...You thought I was being serious with that statement? lol...
I guess obvious sarcasm isn't obvious to everyone.
This is also a text based forum. Sarcasm doesn't carry well.
Nowai, it's Pig Newtons.You keep saying "Newton." It's "Newtown."
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.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.
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.
Background checks aren't the only recent legislation that has been defeated. Please be more dishonest.Since background checks have zero effect on legal gun ownership, they aren't anti gun. They promote responsible and legal gun ownership.
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."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.
So yeah, they've certainly been trying to do everything they can.
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.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.
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.
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.I love how you slipped the word "all" in there. It's basically an admission that you've been wrong this entire time.
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.What does that even mean? Just a useless "gotcha" phrase that doesn't mean anything.
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.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.
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.
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.Do you believe background checks are a good thing?
It's like making a law against spitting on the sidewalk. Complete waste of time and resources.
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?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.
Last edited by Eroginous; 2013-04-24 at 12:35 AM.
My Gaming Rig: Intel Core 2 quad q9650|ASUS P5G41-T M|2x4GB Supertalent DDR3 1333Mhz|Samsung 840 Evo 250GB|Fractal Design Integra R2 500w Bronze|ASUS Strix GTX 960 4GB|2x AOC e2770s 27" (one portrait, one landscape)|Bitfeenix Phenom Micro ATX
Don't hate my rig, there's nothing quite like the classics.
Senate rejects assault weapon ban on 40-60 vote
40-60 isn't a majority vote, my friend.it had a majority vote
How embarrassing...Perhaps you should read up on current affairs.
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.Background checks aren't the only recent legislation that has been defeated. Please be more dishonest.
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!Like I pointed out before, you keep using very vague language to argue your points.
We don't force FFL's to do them, right? And yet they do them anyway. Interesting.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.
Losing his license/business? I thought we didn't enforce background check laws.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.
Last edited by Deadvolcanoes; 2013-04-24 at 01:06 AM.
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.