Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deadvolcanoes]

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.

But if they end up getting a gun, it isn't the fault of the background check. They completely bypassed the background checks, so how can we blame it?

---------- Post added 2013-03-22 at 03:55 PM ----------

The Criminal was able to obtain a gun. Period.

He got a gun through means unrelated to background checks. Their effectiveness still stands.

[Beazy]

But if they end up getting a gun, it isn't the fault of the background check. They completely bypassed the background checks, so how can we blame it?

---------- Post added 2013-03-22 at 03:55 PM ----------



He got a gun through means unrelated to background checks. Their effectiveness still stands.

No it did not effectively do anything. Now I'm not sure if your trolling or being serious.

You do realize that the Sandy Hook shooter was denied guns after a background check right? Or did you miss that in the news?

Tell me and everyone else how effective those background checks are again. . . .. . . .

Remember, you said this:

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

[Deadvolcanoes]

No it did not effectively do anything. Now I'm not sure if your trolling or being serious.

You do realize that the Sandy Hook shooter was denied guns after a background check right? Or did you miss that in the news?

Tell me and everyone else how effective those background checks are again. . . .. . . .

Actually I did miss that in the news. Care to provide a link?

And even if it's true, you just said "Sandy Hook shooter was denied guns after a background check right."

Fucking case, and point. Denied guns. Background check wins.

[Beazy]

Actually I did miss that in the news. Care to provide a link?

And even if it's true, you just said "Sandy Hook shooter was denied guns after a background check right."

Fucking case, and point. Denied guns. Background check wins.

Maybe you did miss the news for a few months. . . . the sandy hook shooter killed 20+ people. So how did the background check stop him from getting guns? Please im dying to know?!?!?

Just give it up, you're done here. You have no case, OR point. You said and I quote

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

. . . . It did NOT stop a criminal from obtaining a gun. Period, this discussion is over.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Maybe you did miss the news for a few months. . . . the sandy hook shooter killed 20+ people. So how did the background check stop him from getting guns? Please im dying to know?!?!?

Just give it up, you're done here.

Because he obtained the weapon in a manner that didn't involve a background check. Isn't that obvious?

How can you blame the background check for not being effective when he didn't even submit to one?


Where's the link where you claimed Lanza submitted to a background check?

[Beazy]

Because he obtained the weapon in a manner that didn't involve a background check. Isn't that obvious?

How can you blame the background check for not being effective when he didn't even submit to one?


Where's the link where you claimed Lanza submitted to a background check?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec...efore-20121215

Link six of Forty Million results from google.com

[Deadvolcanoes]

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec...efore-20121215

Link six of Forty Million results from google.com

Lol so not only were you wrong, but the background check waiting period also served as a deterent. More evidence that background checks work.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The background check prevented him from LEGALLY obtaining a gun. You seem to be being deliberately obtuse to the fact that background checks do stop criminals from getting guns quite frequently. If they are initially denied a gun and then go around the system to obtain one illegally, that does not mean background checks are not effective. Not everyone that is denied a gun goes and steals one.

[Beazy]

Lol so not only were you wrong, but the background check waiting period also served as a deterent. More evidence that background checks work.

LoL its over, Leave it alone. You're not making any sense. The background check stopped him from buying a gun at the store. It did not stop him from getting a gun, like you've been quoted over 3 or 4 times saying.

Like I said, you're done here.

[Deadvolcanoes]

LoL its over, Leave it alone. You're not making any sense. The background check stopped him from buying a gun at the store. It did not stop him from getting a gun, like you've been quoted over 3 or 4 times saying.

Like I said, you're done here.

I like how you keep saying "You're done," then you keep talking. You can't back up your claims so you decide it's over. That's fine. Stop talking if you'd like.

Remember this:

You do realize that the Sandy Hook shooter was denied guns after a background check right?

(Adam Lanza) tried to purchase a "long gun" rifle from a local shop but was turned away because he did not want to wait for the required 14-day background check

There is no "after a background check." It wasn't implemented to begin with.

The background check didn't stop him. The waiting period stopped him from wanting to go through the background check process.

And even if it did, which it didn't, that only supports my point that background checks stop criminals. TADA!

[Beazy]

I like how you keep saying "You're done," then you keep talking. You can't back up your claims so you decide it's over. That's fine. Stop talking if you'd like.

Remember this:




There is no "after a background check." It wasn't implemented to begin with.

The background check didn't stop him. The waiting period stopped him from wanting to go through the background check process.

And even if it did, which it didn't, that only supports my point that background checks stop criminals. TADA!

The waiting period is criteria of the background check, if you have to get into who said what about certain criteria of the background check, it just shows how badly youve been pwnd and your grasping for straws. . . . . .On top of that, he still killed people with a weapon 2 days later, so no, background checks did not stop the criminal. Youre still wrong.

Are you trying to say that sandy hook didnt happen and its some government conspiracy to "TAKE DEM GUNZ" and that no one was harmed because of background checks?

[Svifnymr]

Governor Cuomo is a prime representation of what every gun-rights activist fears. A political figure using a tragic event to shape laws about a topic he doesn't really understand. The result is a law that has adverse effects that even the creator admits he didn't intend. And when you have to apologize and correct your new law, twice, for mistakes born out of ignorance, you start to lose any credibility that you know what you're talking about.

I believe it was NJ that passed a law a few years ago making "Smart guns" mandatory within 2 years. They acknowledge in the law that no such thing exists, and state that once such a thing is invented and mass produced, that it shall be mandatory within 2 years of it happening. That's from memory though, so could have messed up a detail or two.

[Deadvolcanoes]

The waiting period is criteria of the background check

Exactly. And he didn't want to wait, which means no background check was performed.

if you have to get into who said what about certain criteria of the background check

I don't have to, but it sure is fun to point out when other people are wrong.

On top of that, he still killed people with a weapon 2 days later

Which has nothing to do with background checks. Literally nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nothing. Actually something. No just kidding, nothing.

Because you can obtain guns illegally doesn't mean background checks are ineffective. When applied they stop criminals.

How many criminals, you ask? 600 thousand over 14 years.

THATS EFFECTIVE!

[Beazy]

Exactly. And he didn't want to wait, which means no background check was performed.




I don't have to, but it sure is fun to point out when other people are wrong.




Which has nothing to do with background checks. Literally nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nothing. Actually something. No just kidding, nothing.

Because you can obtain guns illegally doesn't mean background checks are ineffective. When applied they stop criminals.

How many criminals, you ask? 600 thousand over 14 years.

THATS EFFECTIVE!

They dont stop anyone from getting a fire arm, they only stop them from legally buying one. Period. Sorry your so wrong. I think we proved that time and time again in this thread.

[Jaxi]

Sure it does. It means that guns need to be more controlled. This was not a case about some criminals who thinks in advance how to get their weapons trough underground, but lazy ass parenting who obviously doesn't deserve the right to own gun.

No, it did not. Posting a single story is not the same as posting an argument. You could have just as easily been advocating for her to be carrying a concealed weapon's permit.

[Deadvolcanoes]

They dont stop anyone from getting a fire arm, they only stop them from legally buying one. Period. Sorry your so wrong. I think we proved that time and time again in this thread.

Of course they do. You apply for one. You get denied. That's how background checks work.

That you can get one illegally has no bearing on the effectiveness of background checks.

You're blaming the seat belt for someones death when they didn't even buckle up. It's mind boggling.

[Svifnymr]

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.

The entire background check conversation is just going round and round, since folks are just avoiding using qualifiers for their statements, so why bother trying to inject some clarifications into it?

[Beazy]

Of course they do. You apply for one. You get denied. That's how background checks work.

That you can get one illegally has no bearing on the effectiveness of background checks.

You're blaming the seat belt for someones death when they didn't even buckle up. It's mind boggling.

Actually you can get one legally by simply buying if from a 3rd party. No crime needed.

So youre still wrong.

[Prime017]

Lol so not only were you wrong, but the background check waiting period also served as a deterent. More evidence that background checks work.

So if the background check stopped him from getting a gun then what did he use to kill all of those kids?

I don't think we should give up on background checks, but for the most part, the only people who are going to willingly submit to them are the people who know they have a clean record, or people with previous convictions/court decisions that they weren't aware would make them ineligible to own a fire arm. What the statistics show on background checks show is only the number of denials. It doesn't show that anyone committed any crimes, with or without a gun, after being denied. That set of data is something I would very much like to see. Just because someone has a previous criminal conviction doesn't automatically mean that they are going to commit more crimes. It drastically increases the probability, but you cannot prosecute on probability.

Background checks only make it so that people intent on committing a gun crime cannot walk into their local legitimate gun shop to buy a gun. It means that they're forced into black markets or other means of procurement. That means background checks are only effective in limiting a single avenue of purchase. It does not mean that they're an effective tool of reducing the access of guns to those who would use them wrongly.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Actually you can get one legally by simply buying if from a 3rd party. No crime needed.

Which stillllllllllllll doesn't involve a background check!