Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[starlord]

I didn't look at the second link specifically because it looked similar to the other link you had used before, linking to an article by 'some cop guy' and his opinion on where illegal guns come from. Which is why I said 'both articles' and not 'the article and the study.' Both of the articles you linked did not actually provide sources or citations for the sources of their data. Anyone could have easily made up the figures used and presented them as fact.

Even so, the study you linked is formatted in a way which is incredibly hard to extract any meaningful data from. It certainly doesn't support your theory that most illegal guns are stolen from gun stores.

You're quite literally at the point where you will say anything just to continue the discussion, regardless of how relevant or meaningful it is to said discussion. It has nothing to do with whether or not I understand what you're saying.

no that would be you. you even quoted what i said and continue to argue a strawman. i said gun dealers are the main target of gun theft, and that got you mad for some reason. a crime of opportunity is not the same thing as targeting a place slecifically for its guns.

Did you even read the examples I gave? The first two were situations where I wouldn't have a reason to report my car missing (my friend was borrowing it), and the third example was one that could have taken place before I even had a chance to report it missing, say while I'm asleep or in the middle of something and not actually aware of what's happening to my car.

you never said that, but ok. you would be questioned, thats how investigations work. it'd be the same if someone stole your <any other object that can be traced to you> and used it in a crime.
police doing their work sooo scary!

Just because something isn't made readily available to the general public as part of a policy, doesn't mean that the general public won't have access to it. I only need to point out the news website that published the names and addresses of all people in New York who currently have permits to carry a weapons.

so your objection is "hackers might get it!!"? please.

You either don't read so well, or you're deliberately ignoring what I said.

A national registry won't track people who have obtained their guns illegally. IE, no legal records exist for someone who's not obtaining a weapon legally, and thus a national registry would not have any information to track.

It's impossible to determine what the implication of having a national gun registry would be, regarding the investigation of gun crimes. If a criminal commits a crime with a gun he doesn't legally own, a gun registry will not offer up any information on such a person regarding the possession of that firearm.

Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8fS9Y1-SSw

here i'll say it again: it would provide an easy way to track the purchases of guns, thus addressing straw purchases, which are the major source of guns for criminals, and provide an easy way for police to check if a gun has been stolen or not.
it would have to be nationwide because of all the interstate gun trafficking going on.

[downnola]

I like how someone just advocated that we treat gun owners like sex offenders by having a national registry. I'm glad that my right to privacy ends where your feelings begin.

[Tinykong]

I like how someone just advocated that we treat gun owners like sex offenders by having a national registry. I'm glad that my right to privacy ends where your feelings begin.

That's how they are going to get the gun ban through, by convincing people that gun owners are evil and that owning a gun makes you an inherently dangerous individual.

I love the previous poster saying he has a right to know his neighbor owns a gun. Does his neighbor have a right to know if he owns a hammer or alcohol? Just as likely to be killed by those things.

[GreatOak]

That's how they are going to get the gun ban through, by convincing people that gun owners are evil and that owning a gun makes you an inherently dangerous individual.

I love the previous poster saying he has a right to know his neighbor owns a gun. Does his neighbor have a right to know if he owns a hammer or alcohol? Just as likely to be killed by those things.

I want to know if my neighbor owns a chainsaw or double sided dildo.

[alturic]

Are you saying that the founders of our country weren't civilized? Or, for that matter, that civilized men cannot fight against tyranny?

Please, please, PLEASE don't try to say you don't want a ban on guns because we need them to fight back against a tyrannical government. It honestly hurts the argument more than helps.

The simple reason for not wanting to ban guns is "What will it accomplish?" as if (as it's been said a thousand times in the thread) criminals (you know, the ones who use the "scary" guns to kill people) will suddenly not kill people because of a ban.

Some more reasons are because the gun isn't the actual "reason" these killings happen. An "assault weapon" (you know the same type of weapon that's just as deadly as any other random semi-automatic, the ones that have some added plastic to them) doesn't somehow allow people to kill a bunch of people any easier than any other semi-automatic weapon.

[Deleted]

Some more reasons are because the gun isn't the actual "reason" these killings happen. An "assault weapon" (you know the same type of weapon that's just as deadly as any other random semi-automatic, the ones that have some added plastic to them) doesn't somehow allow people to kill a bunch of people any easier than any other semi-automatic weapon.

No it doesn't. But adding measures to make that harder as in ban on certaint high-end grade weapons, or at least tight regulations to make the owner justify why he needs it. Also gun magazine size limit makes it harder to go on a killing spree since you will be reoloading 24/7 and other such measures that are in place in other civilized democratic countries (UK, Germany, etc..) can limit the damages inflicted by legal guns used bad or stolen and missused.

And any of set measures won't infringe on the law abiding citizen's right, it will just limit his firepower to what he actually needs, since last time I checked US was not a warzone to justify almost army grade guns for self-protection, hunting or recreational shooting.

[Kalyyn]

Please, please, PLEASE don't try to say you don't want a ban on guns because we need them to fight back against a tyrannical government. It honestly hurts the argument more than helps.

You misunderstand me. Banning guns is the tyranny.

---------- Post added 2013-03-01 at 04:11 PM ----------

And any of set measures won't infringe on the law abiding citizen's right, it will just limit his firepower to what he actually needs, since last time I checked US was not a warzone to justify almost army grade guns for self-protection, hunting or recreational shooting.

I don't know what an "army grade gun" is, but I assume you mean automatics. Which we already cannot own.

[Grizzly Willy]

You misunderstand me. Banning guns is the tyranny.

Man, all of those tyrannical governments in Europe sure are evil.

[ugotownd]

I love how you got one person saying criminals are targeting gun stores. I don't know what shops your looking at but some you have a better chance at robbing a bank and being successful. Then you have another that wants a website so people can see if there neighbor has an assault weapon or whatever. Yes let's make it even easier for a criminal to target specific houses to steal weapons or even knowing who doesn't have a weapon in the house. Great thinking there.

[Kalyyn]

Man, all of those tyrannical governments in Europe sure are evil.

Don't get me started on that...

Either way, if I wanted to live in Europe, I'd live in Europe. America doesn't need to be Europe. There are tens of dozens of countries were you can live if you want to go your entire life without seeing a gun. Let us have just this one, eh?

[Eroginous]

no that would be you. you even quoted what i said and continue to argue a strawman.

What strawman? I specifically said:

I think you're desperately grasping at straws in your argument, at this point.

in response to you saying:

the difference is those are crimes of opportunity; criminals specifically looking for guns dont go to a random house and hope ones there. gun stores and shipments however are primarily targeted to obtain guns.

Care to explain how I am straw manning here?

i said gun dealers are the main target of gun theft, and that got you mad for some reason.

You're assuming I am mad. I only asked you to provide evidence to support the bolded claim. You linked two articles that could have been written by anyone containing completely made up information. The study you linked does not support your theory that most gun thefts involve stealing from gun shops.

you never said that, but ok.

Here's exactly what I said:

You've apparently never owned a car before. If my friend borrows my car and then get's a parking ticket in it, I am held accountable for that. Just like if he hit someone in my car and sped off, I am held accountable for that. If a thief steals my car, commits a crime with it, and then my car is found abandoned, who do you think is going to get arrested?

Notice how I brought up two examples concerning friends borrowing cars, and a third example of a thief stealing one?

you would be questioned, thats how investigations work. it'd be the same if someone stole your <any other object that can be traced to you> and used it in a crime.
police doing their work sooo scary!

I would only ever expect the police to do their job. But in the case of my car being ticketed or involved in an accident, I am the responsible party, regardless of whether or not I am the one driving it. If no evidence can be obtained proving that my car was indeed stolen and I don't have an alibi, then I am going to be charged with whatever crime was committed in my car.

so your objection is "hackers might get it!!"? please.

Here's the link to the story:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new...gun-permit-map

At no point does it mention hackers being the source of information. Instead, it was a newspaper who legally obtained the information using the Freedom of Information Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...ited_States%29

The newspaper was informed by the county clerks' offices that "the public does not have the right to see specific permits an individual has been issued, the types of handguns a person possesses or the number of guns he or she owns," and the paper published sensitive data anyway, infringing on the privacy rights of 1700 Americans. The paper also said that if it had been able to get even more information, such as which types of guns are owned and by who, they would have published that information too.

here i'll say it again: it would provide an easy way to track the purchases of guns, thus addressing straw purchases, which are the major source of guns for criminals, and provide an easy way for police to check if a gun has been stolen or not.
it would have to be nationwide because of all the interstate gun trafficking going on.

And I'll say it again: It is impossible to determine with any certainty just how effective a national gun registry would be in regards to solving or preventing gun crimes.

[Grizzly Willy]

Don't get me started on that...

Either way, if I wanted to live in Europe, I'd live in Europe. America doesn't need to be Europe. There are tens of dozens of countries were you can live if you want to go your entire life without seeing a gun. Let us have just this one, eh?

My point is that your blanket statement is false.

[Kalyyn]

My point is that your blanket statement is false.

What statement was that?

[ugotownd]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new...gun-permit-map

At no point does it mention hackers being the source of information. Instead, it was a newspaper who legally obtained the information using the Freedom of Information Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...ited_States%29

The newspaper was informed by the county clerks' offices that "the public does not have the right to see specific permits an individual has been issued, the types of handguns a person possesses or the number of guns he or she owns," and the paper published sensitive data anyway, infringing on the privacy rights of 1700 Americans. The paper also said that if it had been able to get even more information, such as which types of guns are owned and by who, they would have published that information too.



And I'll say it again: It is impossible to determine with any certainty just how effective a national gun registry would be in regards to solving or preventing gun crimes.

No less some of the addresses they released were Police, under cover police, judges and other political figures. After someone got pissed off and released all there info what do they do hire armed guards carrying assault weapons. Kinda ironic isn't it.

[Grizzly Willy]

What statement was that?

If you're going to play dumb I'm not going to bother.

[Kalyyn]

If you're going to play dumb I'm not going to bother.

Everything I've posted in the last hour or so has been 100% subjective. I think I know what you're talking about, but I want to hear you say it before I present a false assumption.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you don't like me very much...

[Svifnymr]

idk, i think you are misunderstanding something.
this is how it worked before:

I know how the old AWB worked, but just because they "compromised" before and grandfathered that time doesn't mean they will every time. the AWB2013 originally had a requirement to register all assault weapons as NFA devices and make them un-transferable. That requirement was dropped when she introduced it, presumably because it made the law too harsh for any chance of passing.

That has nothing to do with ex-post-facto restrictions.

Again, I'm not saying that they are going to seize guns with AWB2013, I'm just saying that it wouldn't be impossible for them to do it.

[Grizzly Willy]

Everything I've posted in the last hour or so has been 100% subjective. I think I know what you're talking about, but I want to hear you say it before I present a false assumption.

I'm starting to get the feeling that you don't like me very much...

This is just opinion?

You misunderstand me. Banning guns is the tyranny.

[Kalyyn]

This is just opinion?

Well it sure as hell can't be scientifically proven.

[FusedMass]

Well it sure as hell can't be scientifically proven.

Are you sure about that?