Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[smelltheglove]

Sounds awfully familiar to "Let's deport all immigrants and not allow immigration because two immigrants bombed a marathon."

totally different. reason: because

[The Riddler]

Sounds awfully familiar to "Let's deport all immigrants and not allow immigration because two immigrants bombed a marathon."

We should all be glad the founders set up a system that throws the brakes on all bad ideas - wherever they come from. The left has no monopoly on terrible laws.

[Tinykong]

That's exactly right. Good call.

And I understand there are other Windows open (theft, straw purchases), but those are on the 2nd floor, and more difficult for the criminal to get to, while private purchases are garden level. Close that god damn window already.

How much money are we willing to spend to close all the windows and doors?

Gun crime is down, so I'm satisfied with what we're spending. If you want to spend more, to potentially have either more or less crime, that's a valid opinion.

[Cthulhu 2020]

We should all be glad the founders set up a system that throws the brakes on all bad ideas - wherever they come from. The left has no monopoly on terrible laws.

You're also still referring to the gun ban in your list, which was shot down long ago, and now we're talking about universal background checks which have a lot of support.

[Deadvolcanoes]

A bunch of angry gun-haters...

Question for you. I support firearm ownership for responsible individuals. I own a firearm and go shooting regularly. However, I also support the expansion of background checks to all gun purchases, as well as other measures aimed at reducing criminal access to firearms (insurance, etc).

Does that make me an "angry gun hater." If not, what does it make me? I've been called a "gun grabber," "anti-gun advocate," "liberal gun hater," and now an "angry gun hater."

So which title best describes me?

Brilliant logic. By that reasoning, there was no reason for France to pass gay marriage until the whole planet allows it. Derp.

Derp indeed. Since France follows different laws than the rest of the planet....actually I don't need to explain. You can see how terrible that analogy is.

As belf said, why would you invest in a stronger lock if you continue to leave your window open? Let's close the Windows, then spend the money on the lock.

[Eroginous]

I have to wonder, how do you get his point was "there were no air marshals" from "Why would an air marshal let everyone die rather than risk his life".

And I have to wonder if you're intentionally being dense just to derail a conversation. The entire 'US Air Marshals' discussion started when you said:

Heck, there were air marshals on the 9/11 flights WITH GUNS while the plane got taken over.

To which at least 4 of us not only disagreed with that statement (there were no air marshals present on the 9/11 flights) but we asked you for a source on that data. You then went on this crusade to defend the obviously incorrect statement you made, and Lockedout went on to use sarcasm as a way of pointing out how wrong you are.

The entire point we have been trying to make is that you're wrong about there being US Marshals on the 9/11 flights. HAD there actually been Marshals on those flights, 9/11 most likely wouldn't not have happened.

A lot of people seem to be screaming martial law without actually knowing what martial law even is.

And you keep arguing with copious amounts of misinformation, hyperbole, and straw men. Not sure why you even bother posting anymore.

Typical sneering Grauniad attitude but the points are completely solid. It's even more noticeable when you live in America how bad it is.

I was wondering when you were going to come show your face in this thread. I highly doubt most people outside of Boston 'lost their heads' over the whole terrorism thing. I also highly doubt that most Americans think that the general gun crime rates are 'no big deal' or even acceptable. If anything, the Boston bombings illustrate how completely unexpected violence can happen despite our laws and regulations.

It makes more sense to educate and protect yourself than it does to limit accessibility to firearms. That's just the world we live in.

The USA isn't trying to ban guns. They're trying to limit access to criminals.

There might not be gun ban legislation up for a vote, but the left certainly is trying to ban guns. They are approaching that idea inch by inch, as demonstrated numerous times by video interviews of Feinstein. Also, your posts make it sound like there is currently no gun control.

Please stop. No one intelligent believes that garbage for one second.

[The Riddler]

You're also still referring to the gun ban in your list, which was shot down long ago, and now we're talking about universal background checks which have a lot of support.

Nah - I'm referring to OBAMA'S bill, which got killed in the Senate. Obama and the Democrats were desperately TRYING to get people to believe that it was "only a universal background check". But the devil is in the details, and it really WASN'T just a universal background check. It also contained provisions that would have forced the creation of a de-facto national gun registry (in practice if not in name) along with other stuff. Obama & Reid didn't want the GOP to mess with those other things via the amendment process - so they refused to bring the bill to a floor vote for the up/down treatment. That's why it died in the Senate, because the rules say a bill that doesn't go through the full process must have 3/4 majority. And they didn't have it because the bill contained crap that was NOT just a "universal background check".

Now if the Democrats hadn't been such a bunch of stubborn chowderheads, they'd have been open to tossing out all their poison pills and opening the bill to the floor. They didn't do that. So they lost. That's their fault. NOT the NRA's, and certainly NOT Fox News for talking about OBama's lousy gun law enforcement record.

[Deadvolcanoes]

How much money are we willing to spend to close all the windows and doors?

I'm willing to spend a fair amount. It's one of governments primary roles, keeping us safe.

Plus, crime costs the government a lot of money. If we are successful at reducing gun crime, the cost could likely be offset by reductions in legal fees, prisons, etc.

[The Riddler]

Does that make me an "angry gun hater." If not, what does it make me? I've been called a "gun grabber," "anti-gun advocate," "liberal gun hater," and now an "angry gun hater." So which title best describes me?

Wrong question. You should be asking, "Why am I hitching my wagon to a law written by a bunch of angry gun haters which will do NOTHING to reduce gun violence by its sponsor's own admission?"

Let's close the Windows, then spend the money on the lock.

Continuing the bad analogy... If you were only closing a window then fine. But you aren't. You're closing the windown, locking it, slapping bars on all the windows in the house, giving the sherriff and his posse the key, and a bunch of other stuff that restricts the freedom, rights, and safety of the home owner. You turn an innocent man into a prisoner is his own home when he's never the one who did anything wrong.

Now - come up with a law that does NOTHING but background checks and maybe you'll have something. Problem is, I don't think you could get the far-left extremists to be satisfied with that. To them, background checks is simply the propoganda they use to sell the "other" stuff they want...

And - of course - your whole argument is premised on the faulty notion that the criminal isn't just going to break the stupid window. Criminal get guns illegally. They don't care about your universal background checks. The only thing that will do is annoy and inconvenience the law-abiding.

[belfpala]

And - of course - your whole argument is premised on the faulty notion that the criminal isn't just going to break the stupid window. Criminal get guns illegally. They don't care about your universal background checks. The only thing that will do is annoy and inconvenience the law-abiding.

This was the basis of my door analogy.

Criminals will just kick it down if they want to, so I might as well not bother having a door, right?

[Deadvolcanoes]

There might not be gun ban legislation up for a vote, but the left certainly is trying to ban guns. They are approaching that idea inch by inch, as demonstrated numerous times by video interviews of Feinstein.

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.

Also, your posts make it sound like there is currently no gun control.

Which part of my post that you quotes makes it sound like there is currently no gun control? You love trying to put words into my mouth...

...you didn't say that there is gun control, so you must mean that there isn't gun control!!!

If your curious as to how I feel about something, just ask. Stop assuming.

[Vyxn]

Question for you. I support firearm ownership for responsible individuals. I own a firearm and go shooting regularly. However, I also support the expansion of background checks to all gun purchases, as well as other measures aimed at reducing criminal access to firearms (insurance, etc).

see if i have this right. You are against voter ID requirement because the cots of 5 to 10 dollars to get a state issue ID will disenfranchise the poor from excising there right to vote,
but you are all for gun insurance that probably cost a thousand or more a year that the poor can not afford. so that gun owned by the poor that got passed down and is used for protection (because we all know the poor do not live in the best neighborhoods) will have to give up there right to own a gun because they cant afford to do so?
So are you saying that only the rich should be afforded the right to own a gun?

[Deadvolcanoes]

Wrong question. You should be asking, "Why am I hitching my wagon to a law written by a bunch of angry gun haters which will do NOTHING to reduce gun violence by its sponsor's own admission?"

Making it more difficult for criminals to access firearms will do nothing to reduce gun violence? I don't buy that argument.

Now - come up with a law that does NOTHING but background checks and maybe you'll have something.

I'll agree with you here. I'd like to see a law that has nothing but universal background checks, without the little additions. Maybe some line item vetoes would help.

---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 04:50 PM ----------

see if i have this right. You are against voter ID requirement because the cots of 5 to 10 dollars to get a state issue ID will disenfranchise the poor from excising there right to vote

Wait what? We're talking about voter ID now? Where did that come from?

Actually I support voter ID, as long as we make sure every single person obtains an ID, and they are paid for and delivered by the state to the poor.

but you are all for gun insurance that probably cost a thousand or more a year that the poor can not afford. so that gun owned by the poor that got passed down and is used for protection (because we all know the poor do not live in the best neighborhoods) will have to give up there right to own a gun because they cant afford to do so?

I'm for gun insurance because it would very likely reduce straw purchases. There are problems with insurance, like the one you mentioned, and I'd like to see solutions. The fact remains: if we make individuals liable for their weapons, they will be more likely to store it correctly, and less likely to give it to a known criminal.

So are you saying that only the rich should be afforded the right to own a gun?

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Exactly.

[Cthulhu 2020]

see if i have this right. You are against voter ID requirement because the cots of 5 to 10 dollars to get a state issue ID will disenfranchise the poor from excising there right to vote,
but you are all for gun insurance that probably cost a thousand or more a year that the poor can not afford. so that gun owned by the poor that got passed down and is used for protection (because we all know the poor do not live in the best neighborhoods) will have to give up there right to own a gun because they cant afford to do so?
So are you saying that only the rich should be afforded the right to own a gun?

The second amendment guarantees your right to own a gun (as long as you are not a felon, etc). It doesn't say ANYTHING about owning a gun at no cost. There is an amendment that specifically says you have the right to vote and cannot be charged for it in an way whatsoever.

[Åmbulance]

Silly me, was watching the news, and they had one of the father's on from Newtown Conn. on, and he is saying, if guns had a tighter restrction on them, the Boston Marathon bombing never would have happened.

How does tighter restrictions stop people from using a pressure cooker, and turning it into a bomb? One of the most idiotic arguments i have ever heard.

[Vyxn]

I'm for gun insurance because it would very likely reduce straw purchases. There are problems with insurance, like the one you mentioned, and I'd like to see solutions. The fact remains: if we make individuals liable for their weapons, they will be more likely to store it correctly, and less likely to give it to a known criminal.
.

so what is your suggestion? give gun insurance to the poor for free? doesn't that defeat the purpose that you described to make gun owners more reasonable with their guns?

[Cthulhu 2020]

Silly me, was watching the news, and they had one of the father's on from Newtown Conn. on, and he is saying, if guns had a tighter restrction on them, the Boston Marathon bombing never would have happened.

How does tighter restrictions stop people from using a pressure cooker, and turning it into a bomb? One of the most idiotic arguments i have ever heard.

Why do people keep arguing in absolutes? There's a difference between stopping and decreasing, the latter of which is the goal.

[Tinykong]

The second amendment guarantees your right to own a gun (as long as you are not a felon, etc). It doesn't say ANYTHING about owning a gun at no cost. There is an amendment that specifically says you have the right to vote and cannot be charged for it in an way whatsoever.

Requiring a gun owner to buy liability insurance could be considered an undue burden.

[Åmbulance]

Why do people keep arguing in absolutes? There's a difference between stopping and decreasing, the latter of which is the goal.

Again, how would it have " stopped", these two individuals from making a bomb with a pressure cooker? How? Please xplain it to me, and quit side stepping this outrageous accusation, just made by this idiot.

Edit: And by idiot, i mean the man on TV, not you. Just incase mods decide to start infracting and not reading.

[Deadvolcanoes]

so what is your suggestion? give gun insurance to the poor for free? doesn't that defeat the purpose that you described to make gun owners more reasonable with their guns?

Maybe the solution is to penalize negligence. Like slapping a $5,000 fine on an individual whose gun is used in a crime. This way they don't pay a monthly fee, and only pay if a crime occurs with their firearm.

Something like that could work.