Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[NineSpine]

The Columbine kids used his uncles guns, Was the uncle legally allowed to purchase a weapon? If so, then it does not matter where he bought them, he would have passed the background check anyway.

That's not true. The guns were bought for them by Klebold's girlfriend at a gun show, where they paid with cash.

The VA Tech shooter passed his background check, his Dr did not contact the proper authorities so that he would have been denied in his background check. That is a system failure, not a lack of laws.

It's a system failure caused by a complete lack of cohesion to the system. Nationalized standards would fix this issue.

I did not see that the Colorado shooter bought weapons online. I only read he purchased ammo on line. Do you have a source?

I think you may be right, but that's really a side note.

He was still able to pass the federal background check.

But had to clear no mental health screening, training, or licensing procedures.

- - - Updated - - -

That's the point. Correlations don't tie anything to anything. They merely suggest a link, which makes them irrelevant (invalid).

No, correlation does not imply causation, but that doesn't make them irrelevant or invalid.

[Rukentuts]

That's the point. Correlations don't tie anything to anything. They merely suggest a link, which makes them irrelevant (invalid).

Correlation doesn't define causation. It doesn't mean they aren't linked. Multiple studies have said they are.

So perhaps you can give us a controlled variable they missed in their computations; lest you continue handwaving.

[NineSpine]

I care what appellate courts will think, clearly more than you do.

Quick, change the subject! Let's go to... uh... courts... yeah! Courts!

[Rukentuts]

Quick, change the subject! Let's go to... uh... courts... yeah! Courts!

After SCOTUS actively redefined the scientific definition of abortion, I could give less than a shit of what they think on facts.

[cubby]

After SCOTUS actively redefined the scientific definition of abortion, I could give less than a shit of what they think on facts.

Not arguing (yet, lol ) but what do you mean? Post-Roe or Roe itself?

[Rukentuts]

Not arguing (yet, lol ) but what do you mean? Post-Roe or Roe itself?

The case last year on ACA and "abortion" (emergency BC) pills.

[cubby]

The case last year on ACA and "abortion" (emergency BC) pills.

I want to read up on what you're referring to, could you shoot me a link you like that explains it further?

[NineSpine]

I want to read up on what you're referring to, could you shoot me a link you like that explains it further?

He's talking about Plan B being considered an abortifacient.

[Tinykong]

Or maybe she shouldn't have been so extremely paranoid, that she needed to bring a firearm to Walmart.

Concealed carrying a firearm makes you paranoid?

Or maybe she was trying to follow in the footsteps of this man, that got himself killed in a Walmart attempting to stop a crime.

Anecdotal arguments, away!

[Mistame]

But had to clear no mental health screening, training, or licensing procedures.

If you want to include mental health history as part of the "background check", that's one thing. But being subjected to mental evaluation as a condition of ownership is absurd and, thankfully, would never see the light of day.

So perhaps you can give us a controlled variable they missed in their computations; lest you continue handwaving.

Or maybe you can stop with your retarded "gun ownership is a direct threat to public safety and should be banned" nonsense.

[petej0]

That's not true. The guns were bought for them by Klebold's girlfriend at a gun show, where they paid with cash.

How they were paid for is irrelevant. Was the purchaser legally allowed to purchase a weapon? If so, again it doesnt matter where they were bought from. Straw purchases are already illegal, though they could be made tougher.

It's a system failure caused by a complete lack of cohesion to the system. Nationalized standards would fix this issue.

I agree, you can always count on a system failure.

I think you may be right, but that's really a side note.

It isnt a side, note saying he bought weapons online and saying he only bought ammo online is a huge difference. Buying a weapon online means there may be a need for tougher regulations.

But had to clear no mental health screening, training, or licensing procedures.

I will give you that, if he would have failed a screening. In fact I think his DR had concerns about him and the system failed there as well. However this dude was beyond messed up. Not only was he able to gain access to weapons, but he was able to gather the supplies needed to build some serious weaponry in the form of bombs and booby traps.

Having said all this, these are mass shooting incidents which are horrible but constitute a fraction of the total deaths due to firearms every year. I am on board with these new regulations, but lets not kid ourselves and pretend gun deaths will drop drastically because of them. That is my issue.

[NineSpine]

How they were paid for is irrelevant. Was the purchaser legally allowed to purchase a weapon? If so, again it doesnt matter where they were bought from. Straw purchases are already illegal, though they could be made tougher.

The buyer was legally allowed to, and actually the shooters themselves would legally have been allowed to as well, so the straw purchase in this case was unnecessary and not illegal. If there was licensing, registration, and a ban on private sales, they could not have gotten their guns this way. What part do you not understand about this? Because it is getting really annoying at this point that you refuse to just move on and keep trying to play little games here.

I agree, you can always count on a system failure.

And that's why unified systems are better than 50 different ones trying to coordinate against each other.

It isnt a side, note saying he bought weapons online and saying he only bought ammo online is a huge difference. Buying a weapon online means there may be a need for tougher regulations.

You can buy weapons online. Just do a search in Google. Whether he did or not is a side note, because the point is that he didn't have to pass any kind of licensing process or mental health screening to get the weapons.

I will give you that, if he would have failed a screening. In fact I think his DR had concerns about him and the system failed there as well. However this dude was beyond messed up. Not only was he able to gain access to weapons, but he was able to gather the supplies needed to build some serious weaponry in the form of bombs and booby traps.

Colorado doesn't have any restrictions on people declared mentally defective getting guns anyway.

Having said all this, these are mass shooting incidents which are horrible but constitute a fraction of the total deaths due to firearms every year. I am on board with these new regulations, but lets not kid ourselves and pretend gun deaths will drop drastically because of them. That is my issue.

I didn't bring up mass shootings. You did.

All of the available evidence, and just some basic logic, indicates that it will have a profound impact on gun deaths to put these restrictions in place. If restrictions didn't do much, then we would expect to see countries with strict gun control having similar gun death rates as the US, and that is the opposite of the truth.

[Stormdash]

Quick, change the subject! Let's go to... uh... courts... yeah! Courts!

Change subjects? The constitutional inadequacies of all your state paternalism is a different subject?

[Tinykong]

If restrictions didn't do much, then we would expect to see countries with strict gun control having similar gun death rates as the US, and that is the opposite of the truth.

This is an unproven assertion. There are a myriad of other potential factors that are being completely discounted by claiming gun control alone is responsible for our rates.

[NineSpine]

Concealed carrying a firearm makes you paranoid?



Anecdotal arguments, away!

Yes, concealed carrying a weapon makes you incredibly paranoid.

- - - Updated - - -

This is an unproven assertion. There are a myriad of other potential factors that are being completely discounted by claiming gun control alone is responsible for our rates.

It's unproven to people for whom no standard of evidence is high enough to disprove their religious, fanatical obsession with guns.

- - - Updated - - -

Change subjects? The constitutional inadequacies of all your state paternalism is a different subject?

Yes, it is a very different subject.

[Rukentuts]

Or maybe you can stop with your retarded "gun ownership is a direct threat to public safety and should be banned" nonsense.

I said gun ownership has a direct correlation to homicide which it does. Are you saying homicide is not part of public safety? You still haven't said how. You're chronically stating things without detail to handwave.

[petej0]

The buyer was legally allowed to, and actually the shooters themselves would legally have been allowed to as well, so the straw purchase in this case was unnecessary and not illegal. If there was licensing, registration, and a ban on private sales, they could not have gotten their guns this way. What part do you not understand about this? Because it is getting really annoying at this point that you refuse to just move on and keep trying to play little games here.

Here is my point. If they were legally allowed to purchase the weapon even with the new regulations, then the law would not have stopped this or future incidents like this from happening.

I didn't bring up mass shootings. You did.

That is because gun control only makes head lines when a mass shooting or high profile case is involved.

All of the available evidence, and just some basic logic, indicates that it will have a profound impact on gun deaths to put these restrictions in place. If restrictions didn't do much, then we would expect to see countries with strict gun control having similar gun death rates as the US, and that is the opposite of the truth.

My point is that placing these restrictions do not disarm the criminals who already have guns. You will still see people dying in drug and gang related deaths. You will still have the jilted lovers shoot their spouses. You will still have family members pull murder suicides. The legislation does not stop gun crime. It only ensures those who commit those crimes were at one point legally able to purchase a gun. It will still leave guns in the hands of criminals (although that number could decrease as guns are harder to come by, unless a black market for guns, like drugs exist)

[Tinykong]

Yes, concealed carrying a weapon makes you incredibly paranoid.

If this is true, then being fearful of firearms is also paranoid, because the chance of being victimized is the same.

It's unproven to people for whom no standard of evidence is high enough to disprove their religious, fanatical obsession with guns.

I'd settle for controlling for poverty, population density, organized crime and median quality of life. Why don't you start there?

I doubt you will, since you're just another anti-gun hypocrite who bellyaches about people being fanatical while spewing your own fanatical obsessions.

[NineSpine]

Here is my point. If they were legally allowed to purchase the weapon even with the new regulations, then the law would not have stopped this or future incidents like this from happening.

But they wouldn't have been legally about to purchase the weapons with new regulations.

That is because gun control only makes head lines when a mass shooting or high profile case is involved.

My point is that placing these restrictions do not disarm the criminals who already have guns. You will still see people dying in drug and gang related deaths. You will still have the jilted lovers shoot their spouses. You will still have family members pull murder suicides. The legislation does not stop gun crime. It only ensures those who commit those crimes were at one point legally able to purchase a gun. It will still leave guns in the hands of criminals (although that number could decrease as guns are harder to come by, unless a black market for guns, like drugs exist)

You can't draw comparisons to drugs, which are trivial to produce, ship, and distribute, and are insanely valuable in incredibly small quantities. A pound of cocaine, which can be easily hidden, can be worth six figures in some cases. It's not comparable.

These restrictions will help dry up the illegal market and prevent people who shouldn't have guns from getting them. The types of murders you are talking about are often cases of people who shouldn't have guns being able to get them easily. If those people had to pass significant hurdles to get the gun, it would help weed out those who shouldn't have them.

- - - Updated - - -

If this is true, then being fearful of firearms is also paranoid, because the chance of being victimized is the same.

That doesn't follow.

I'd settle for controlling for poverty, population density, organized crime and median quality of life. Why don't you start there?

I doubt you will, since you're just another anti-gun hypocrite who bellyaches about people being fanatical while spewing your own fanatical obsessions.

Licensing and registration are not fanatical. Only a fanatic finds such mundane things fanatical.

There is copious research that controls for the things you are whining about, and it's been shown to you before:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

[Tinykong]

That doesn't follow.

If: you're fearful of being victimized by violence and carry a firearm to protect yourself means you are paranoid

Then: being fearful of being victimized by firearm violence is paranoid

Licensing and registration are not fanatical. Only a fanatic finds such mundane things fanatical.

There is copious research that controls for the things you are whining about, and it's been shown to you before:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fi...uns-and-death/

How long did this Google link take, 5 seconds? Did you even read it? It addresses nothing I posted about. Typical anti-gun googletalk.