Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[obdigore]

Well yea, but no men = women are 'equal' so no feminism, ill join you in said world. And i think i could enjoy being harvested.

It would be like a cow being milked. I'm kind of lost on what you think Feminism is, but this isn't really topical at the moment.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Love everything you said up until then. "Criminals don't obey laws, so why make them?" is not an argument. Why have any law then? Might as well make murder legal, murderers don't follow the law.
Sorry if I ranted, that's my pet-peeve concerning gun-control.

This is the dumbest counter argument ever. Sorry, murder laws don't inhibit, burden, inconvenience any normal, law abiding citizens, thats the difference between banning guns that would effect everyone, bad or good. A law against murder would not hurt someone who never wants to murder in the first place.

[Cthulhu 2020]

This is the dumbest counter argument ever. Sorry, murder laws don't inhibit, burden, inconvenience any normal, law abiding citizens, thats the difference between banning guns that would effect everyone, bad or good. A law against murder would not hurt someone who never wants to murder in the first place.

That still doesn't make "Criminals won't follow laws so why make them" a sound argument. Doesn't mean a gun ban is necessarily a good idea, but we need some better gun control laws right now.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

That still doesn't make "Criminals won't follow laws so why make them" a sound argument. Doesn't mean a gun ban is necessarily a good idea, but we need some better gun control laws right now.

To be sure, I wasn't saying that argument is great, but the counter argument used is 100 times worse. The point is, criminals don't follow laws, so when you make laws that burden NON criminals, (Like the AWB) then you are causing more harm than good. Background checks are one thing, but banning guns, especially "assault weaponzlol" is a total seperate, horrible way or curtailing crime. (Especially since the last one did little)

[Eroginous]

Seat belts are not supposed to be effective if you don't wear them. That's not their purpose.

Background checks are not supposed to be effective if you don't apply them. That's not their purpose.

In order for us to justifiably require the use of either one, it has to be effective, whether or not it was used correctly. The difference is that seat belts exist in every vehicle manufactured post 1958, so they are available for people to use in any instance where someone is driving. On top of that, there are programs that enforce seat laws, such as police patrols on roads that watch for seat belt use and traffic cameras that capture pictures of drivers as they pass.

The entire program is both effective and useful at providing our government with legal recourse in situations where someone is operating a motor vehicle without wearing a seat belt. Background checks do not.

This is the problem. For some reason you believe that the purpose of background checks is to stop ALL criminals from obtaining a firearm. It's not.

No, I don't believe they are supposed to stop any criminals. They are supposed to provide legal recourse in situations where a person gets a gun who's not supposed to have one. Instead, they don't provide any recourse in most situations.

Background checks can't stop a criminal from getting a gun if they don't apply for a background check. Are you under the impression that they can?

Background checks can't even stop a guy from getting a gun even if they DO apply for a background check. That's the point.

There are literally zero negative effects of background checks that I'm failing to address, so yeah, not special pleading.

Guy fails a background check, gets a gun anyway. That's a negative side effect.

That still doesn't make "Criminals won't follow laws so why make them" a sound argument. Doesn't mean a gun ban is necessarily a good idea, but we need some better gun control laws right now.

We have laws so that our government (and society in general) have recourse in the event someone commits a crime. Laws that provide said recourse are good laws. Laws that don't provide said recourse, are not good laws. What we need right now is not better gun control laws. Instead, we need the laws we currently have on the books to be enforced. Like when a straw sale happens, it needs to be investigated and the responsible parties need to be apprehended and charged with a crime. Like when a gun theft happens, it needs to be investigated and the responsible parties need to be apprehended and charged with a crime.

Our government treats petty theft crimes as low priority in almost every case. They do not go after people who steal a gun like they would go after someone who steals a bunch of diamonds or cash.

[The Riddler]

Just gotta say that I'm loving the frothing, foam-flecked spittle flying from the collective mouths of the anti-freedom Gun Controllists this week after all their bogus laws, bills, and other junk went down in flames this week. The only success they've had is in Colorado, and even that is looking pretty much like its going to get dismissed by the courts. Huzzah!

Great quote summing up the whole idiotic mess...

"Ultimately, the Gun Control lobby showed its true colors by ignoring Media violence and issues of mental health to focus almost exclusively on legislation that obsessed over the statistically LEAST dangerous guns in America. The public never warmed to their efforts because it was obvious the laws and the agenda were never about saving lives or protecting children. It was clear that the motivation was no more than one more in an ongoing litany of divisive cultural battles launched against the personal freedoms of innocent Americans. The Gun Control groups too obviously ignored the realities that far more lives could be saved by promoting a more wholesome media culture, and with a little common-sense applied to extreme mental-health cases. And worst of all to the public was the sickening spectacle that the Gun Control groups were ghoulishly delightful that such an awful tragedy had given them such a wonderful opportunity to exploit for the purposes of advancing their personal politics."

[Malcor]

All of this because kids got shot...SMH

People get gunned down on a day by day basis? No gun control

People get shot in the mall? No gun control

Children get shot? OH MY FUCKING GOD GET GUN CONTROL LAWS OUT THE ASS GUNS ARE EVIL WE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THEM HOW DID WE EVER ALLOW GUNS TO EVEN EXIST OH GOD ANARCHY FEAR THE APOCALYPSE.

[Vyxn]

Universal background checks lead to a universal registry which leads to universal confiscation just ask the Germans, Russians, hell just ask a Canadian

[Grizzly Willy]

Universal background checks lead to a universal registry which leads to universal confiscation just ask the Germans, Russians, hell just ask a Canadian

Slippery slope arguments don't hold much water.

[Deleted]

http://fox8.com/2013/03/22/mom-says-...lled-her-baby/

[Jaxi]

http://fox8.com/2013/03/22/mom-says-...lled-her-baby/

While that is awful, I don't see how it contributes much to the conversation.

[tombstoner139]

where did the gun come from?
if the gun was properly stored would this situation have happened?
I'd say it is relevant.

[smelltheglove]

where did the gun come from?
if the gun was properly stored would this situation have happened?
I'd say it is relevant.

also if the gun was stored properly would it be one of the six digits worth of guns stolen every year? but oh noes, a gun safe is way too much of a burden to ownership

[Bytch]

Notice the EOTECH is mounted backwards. This weapon has never been fired.
Officer baddass here brought a unfired weapon with a optic mounted backwards on his rifle to a gunfight. He is endangering his entire team and is a walking deadman in a gunfight. Do not fear this wannabe. Should I even mention that obviously none of the other members of his tactical team corrected him? Well, that's one less SWAT team to fear. Oh yeah...and the Hmmwv is a softskin. Justsayin.

They give her a weapon????
Do I really need to comment on this one?

http://i48.tinypic.com/2jsl0h.jpg
Officer baddass of the NYPD obviously cannot mount an Aimpoint. This weapon has also never been fired.

http://i46.tinypic.com/fnzujk.jpg
What? the FBI has low weapon standards too? No wonder they had to call the National Guard out at Waco, as agent 89 here is clearly not up to the task.


STOP FEARING THESE MORONS. Grow a set of balls, the tyrants are not the unstoppable hoards you all fear. Stop wetting your pants and train.

---------- Post added 2013-03-22 at 02:08 PM ----------

In order for us to justifiably require the use of either one, it has to be effective, whether or not it was used correctly. The difference is that seat belts exist in every vehicle manufactured post 1958, so they are available for people to use in any instance where someone is driving. On top of that, there are programs that enforce seat laws, such as police patrols on roads that watch for seat belt use and traffic cameras that capture pictures of drivers as they pass.

The entire program is both effective and useful at providing our government with legal recourse in situations where someone is operating a motor vehicle without wearing a seat belt. Background checks do not.



No, I don't believe they are supposed to stop any criminals. They are supposed to provide legal recourse in situations where a person gets a gun who's not supposed to have one. Instead, they don't provide any recourse in most situations.



Background checks can't even stop a guy from getting a gun even if they DO apply for a background check. That's the point.



Guy fails a background check, gets a gun anyway. That's a negative side effect.



We have laws so that our government (and society in general) have recourse in the event someone commits a crime. Laws that provide said recourse are good laws. Laws that don't provide said recourse, are not good laws. What we need right now is not better gun control laws. Instead, we need the laws we currently have on the books to be enforced. Like when a straw sale happens, it needs to be investigated and the responsible parties need to be apprehended and charged with a crime. Like when a gun theft happens, it needs to be investigated and the responsible parties need to be apprehended and charged with a crime.

Our government treats petty theft crimes as low priority in almost every case. They do not go after people who steal a gun like they would go after someone who steals a bunch of diamonds or cash.

Or someone that doesn't pay their taxes.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

also if the gun was stored properly would it be one of the six digits worth of guns stolen every year? but oh noes, a gun safe is way too much of a burden to ownership

Sure, require gun safes, but make them come from your tax dollars then.

[Deadvolcanoes]

No, I don't believe they are supposed to stop any criminals. They are supposed to provide legal recourse in situations where a person gets a gun who's not supposed to have one. Instead, they don't provide any recourse in most situations.

Background checks are supposed to provide legal recourse? How the fuck does an administrative process provide legal recourse? What you're talking about are background check laws.

And it just so happens that background check laws do provide legal recourse. If a FFL doesn't administer background checks on buyers, they get arrested and their license to sell is revoked. There's you're legal recourse. And that's why they need to be applied universally. This way, the administrative process of a background checks stops more criminals from obtaining firearms, and the legal process of a background check law can punish those who fail to administer them. The ATFE revokes FFL's all the time, so it's safe to assume that law is working.

No, I don't believe they are supposed to stop any criminals. They are supposed to provide legal recourse in situations where a person gets a gun who's not supposed to have one. Instead, they don't provide any recourse in most situations.

Let me explain this again. Background checks are an administrative process, and when they are applied, they do stop criminals. That is their stated intent.

Background check laws are what provides legal recourse, by punishing FFL's that fail to administer them.

And in the future, when we have Universal Background Checks laws, they will be used as legal recourse to punish private sellers as well.

Guy fails a background check, gets a gun anyway. That's a negative side effect.

Yeah. That's not a negative side effect of a background check. That's like saying "Guys fails a background check, gets hit by a car." Those two things are completely unrelated. The fact that he got a gun away doesn't mean that the background check didn't stop him initially, because it did.

You're just flat out wrong here.

[Beazy]

Yeah. That's not a negative side effect of a background check. That's like saying "Guys fails a background check, gets hit by a car." Those two things are completely unrelated. The fact that he got a gun away doesn't mean that the background check didn't stop him initially, because it did.

You're just flat out wrong here.

So your saying that background checks are totally effective because they prevented you from being shot on Tuesday, even though the guy was able to get a gun and kill you on Friday?

Are you high on marijuana?

[Deadvolcanoes]

So your saying that background checks are totally effective because they prevented you from being shot on Tuesday, even though the guy was able to get a gun and kill you on Friday?

Are you high on marijuana?

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Duhhh!

Background checks are effective because they stop criminals from obtaining guns. That much should be incredibly obvious.

Let's walk it out. Criminal applies for a background check, get's denied! Looks like the background check stopped him!

[Grizzly Willy]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Duhhh!

Background checks are effective because they stop criminals from obtaining guns through legal sources. That much should be incredibly obvious.

Let's walk it out. Criminal applies for a background check, get's denied! Looks like the background check stopped him!

You really should include the bolded. If they end up getting a gun, then it didn't stop them from getting a gun. It just stopped them from getting a gun legally.

[Beazy]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. Duhhh!

Background checks are effective because they stop criminals from obtaining guns. That much should be incredibly obvious.

Let's walk it out. Criminal applies for a background check, get's denied! Looks like the background check stopped him!

You forgot the last couple of sentences.

So, Criminal goes home, opens moms gun safe and murders 20 + children.

-or-

Criminal participates in home invasion, gets a stolen weapon, uses it to kill a baby in a stroller and wound the mother.

The background check did not stop shit. The Criminal was able to obtain a gun. Period. The background check stopped only ONE point of sale. Unless you can prove with stats, that there is only ONE way to get a gun, then your entire point is bull shit.