Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
KCitons

USA DUI Deaths (and how they relate to other things)

Recommended Posts

And specifically in these states you mention, what is the penalty to the private seller if he sells a gun without a background check? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

The interesting thing about this post is that there is one side that seems to be pro-gun, but also doesn't seem to have things like health care (especially mental health) or gathering data on shooters and shooters high on their priority list.  

There is not really a pro-gun, pro-mental health way to vote from where I see things.  

Not yet. But what were your anti gun choices during the 2016 election? I think it's going to be a process. The next election (and a few after that) is going to be around gun control. Your going to see regulation with minimal results. After about more years without a decrease in mass shootings (because that's what drives this topic) they will start to look at the reason why and not just the tool being used. You can't fix a leaky faucet by removing the handle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m always happy to be informed. What states both require and enforce background checks on all private sales? How are these laws enforced? Tia

The same way other laws are enforced. Re actively. What do we do when someone over servers at a bar, or an underage person acquires alcohol, or a crime is committed with a gun that is stolen? Even if you make it a law, you will still have people selling firearms outside of the regulations. The only way to catch them will be after the fact. 

I will ask you the same thing. How many states both require and enforce background checks for alcohol purchases? It should be impossible for a person to receive more than two DUIs in their lifetime. If you get one chance with a firearm, why do we give them multiple chances with alcohol?

As you know, the only regulation I'm in favor of is the universal background check. I think every transaction should be documented and every person should have a background check to buy a firearm. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

I was responding to your point.  Knew that was a mistake. 

Not really. You missed my point. That was your mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KCitons said:

The same way other laws are enforced. Re actively. What do we do when someone over servers at a bar, or an underage person acquires alcohol, or a crime is committed with a gun that is stolen? Even if you make it a law, you will still have people selling firearms outside of the regulations. The only way to catch them will be after the fact. 

I will ask you the same thing. How many states both require and enforce background checks for alcohol purchases? It should be impossible for a person to receive more than two DUIs in their lifetime. If you get one chance with a firearm, why do we give them multiple chances with alcohol?

As you know, the only regulation I'm in favor of is the universal background check. I think every transaction should be documented and every person should have a background check to buy a firearm. 

 

Wait- before we get to that, what states have background checks for all private sales? I’m still not clear on this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Wait- before we get to that, what states have background checks for all private sales? I’m still not clear on this. 

Too lazy to do your own search?

Link

Quote

Only  six states (California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island)  require universal background checks on  allfirearm sales at gun shows, including sales by unlicensed dealers. Three  more states (Connecticut, Maryland and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all  handgun  sales made at gun shows.  Eight other states (Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nebraska and North Carolina)  require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check  before  buying a handgun.  33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the gun show loophole.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Not really. You missed my point. That was your mistake.

No, i quoted you directly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was looking at this site

It shows the reasons why a person is denied a firearm during a background check.

1 - Convicted of certain crime

2- Fugitive from Justice

3- Domestic Violence

4 -Unlawful User/Addicted to a Controlled Substance.

8 - Adjudicated Mental Health

9- Undocumented Immigrant

 

I get that #4 is not referring to alcohol. But, it shows that substance abuse is a concern when it comes to passing a background check for a firearm. But a background check is not required to buy alcohol regardless of criminal history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

No, i quoted you directly. 

Quoting and understanding my point are two different things.

You don't get to tell me the point. I know what it is. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Quoting and understanding my point are two different things.

You don't get to tell me the point. I know what it is. 

 

Amazing.  You never fail to prove how uninterested you are in actual discussion.  Carry on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think requiring a person to get a license to buy and consume liquor is not a bad thing. The liquor industry would go ballistic about it (just like the gun industry would). But I think with a lot of the problems society suffers from due to liquor, having to go through training, get tested, and issued a license for the purchase and consumption of alcohol could do society a lot of good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Slapdash said:

Amazing.  You never fail to prove how uninterested you are in actual discussion.  Carry on

We are having a discussion right now. I could have just ignored your comment. 

My original post (the one you responded to) was sarcastically pointing out the hypocrisy of the anger people show towards one tragedy and not the other. 

 

If you want to have a discussion, we can do that.

Removing cars from the road - How do you expect to accomplish this? We recognize that in addition to guns and booze, cars are an integral part of American society. Cars over the past 2 -3 decades have been built to last longer. While emissions are decreasing, they aren't going anywhere soon. We've been expecting hover cars for decades. But, that hasn't happened.

Public transit - This is a great idea. The problem with public transit is that it becomes a political nightmare before anything can be done. It comes up for debate occasionally here in  Omaha, but nobody can agree on a plan. So, it ends up being kicked down the road for someone else to deal with. It's difficult to retrofit larger cities with light rail systems. And of course there is the question of who pays for it? 

Policies that promote density - I have no opinion on this. Do you have further explanation on what these policies would contain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, timschochet said:

Wait- before we get to that, what states have background checks for all private sales? I’m still not clear on this. 

Still waiting. 

You've got your answer. Are you just going to disregard the conversation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, KCitons said:

Still waiting. 

You've got your answer. Are you just going to disregard the conversation?

Good luck with that. I posted the same rebuttal in the shooting thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2019 at 10:11 AM, Stealthycat said:

why is this only at 4 pages ?

more people die in auto wrecks than are killed by guns by far - tens of thousands more injured

many many more kids are killed by auto wrecks than anything else right ?

why doesn't anyone care? I have a guess ........... because CNN doesn't tell you to worry about it .....

 

On 1/10/2019 at 10:16 AM, KarmaPolice said:

I am guessing it is only 4 pages because it didn't take long to see that it probably wasn't a DUI thread, but a thinly veiled extension of the gun thread.  

Eta: to my point, you came in and tied it to gun deaths just now. 

Bingo! As evidenced below:....

On 5/27/2019 at 9:25 PM, KarmaPolice said:

The interesting thing about this post is that there is one side that seems to be pro-gun, but also doesn't seem to have things like health care (especially mental health) or gathering data on shooters and shooters high on their priority list.  

There is not really a pro-gun, pro-mental health way to vote from where I see things.  

 

On 5/27/2019 at 9:42 PM, KCitons said:

Not yet. But what were your anti gun choices during the 2016 election? I think it's going to be a process. The next election (and a few after that) is going to be around gun control. Your going to see regulation with minimal results. After about more years without a decrease in mass shootings (because that's what drives this topic) they will start to look at the reason why and not just the tool being used. You can't fix a leaky faucet by removing the handle. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Ruffrodys05 said:

 

Bingo! As evidenced below:....

 

 

You're just now figuring this out?

Good job!!

When discussing guns and alcohol (duis) in the gun thread, I was told to start a new thread. I start a new thread and people complain that I'm discussing guns and alcohol. There's no pleasing some people.

Edited by KCitons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Philo Beddoe said:

Good luck with that. I posted the same rebuttal in the shooting thread. 

I think @timschochet's gotcha moment backfired. 

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
— ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

Tim did both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

people sure get chippy if people aren't in here arguing every day. 

This reads as you taking sides and as direct shot towards me.

Just to be clear. Tim and I were having a conversation two days ago. He asked a question, which I gave the answer (an answer he wasn't prepared for) 10 minutes later. Since that time, Tim has posted over 50 times. Sounds like he can't defend his position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2019 at 7:55 AM, Politician Spock said:

I think requiring a person to get a license to buy and consume liquor is not a bad thing. The liquor industry would go ballistic about it (just like the gun industry would). But I think with a lot of the problems society suffers from due to liquor, having to go through training, get tested, and issued a license for the purchase and consumption of alcohol could do society a lot of good. 

I have been thinking about your's and KC's posts about this, and I am trying to imagine what this would look like, and yes- the booze industry would go nuts.  

I think part of the equation would need to include some responsibility on the businesses selling to make sure that these background checks are getting done and getting done properly.  I would think that would chase away businesses that don't want that - maybe grocery stores, gas stations, etc.?  Basically turn it into having purely liquor stores that are used to dealing with the checks and backlash.  No more booze at sporting events, concerts?  

OR are you guys imagining just a simple licence that would require a test/background check at the time of issuing it, and then maybe a yearly check for renewal so that cuts through all the red tape in the above scenario?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

So a majority of states don't require background checks at gun shows?

Here is a link that breaks down laws by each state.

It speaks to the ignorance of many when it comes to gun regulation. 

Some want to do away with the 2nd Amendment. Arguing that it stands in the way of the states being able to regulate guns as needed. But, there are already states with a wide range of laws that are not being impeded by the 2nd Amendment. 

We need to close the gun show/private sales loophole. This is being done at the state level. More and more states are looking to adopt this as law. Anti gun groups aren't happy with that, they want a federal law. Which is when the 2nd Amendment becomes an issue. 

There are states with background checks, registration, and even a database of guns. Along with training, licensing and waiting periods. What people want instead is for the Federal government to ignore the Constitution and overstep what the states are doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KCitons said:

This reads as you taking sides and as direct shot towards me.

Just to be clear. Tim and I were having a conversation two days ago. He asked a question, which I gave the answer (an answer he wasn't prepared for) 10 minutes later. Since that time, Tim has posted over 50 times. Sounds like he can't defend his position.

I just find it funny when people use these "gotcha" moments when somebody hasn't posted in a thread for a day.   I honestly wasn't paying too much attention to what his supposed position was - that people can walk into ANY gun show and get a gun without a background check?

Sorry I brought it up and added more fuel to your echo chamber :tinfoilhat: theories.   

And knowing how many times he's posted since then is a little :stalker:ish.  (yes, that was a direct shot towards you...)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

I have been thinking about your's and KC's posts about this, and I am trying to imagine what this would look like, and yes- the booze industry would go nuts.  

I think part of the equation would need to include some responsibility on the businesses selling to make sure that these background checks are getting done and getting done properly.  I would think that would chase away businesses that don't want that - maybe grocery stores, gas stations, etc.?  Basically turn it into having purely liquor stores that are used to dealing with the checks and backlash.  No more booze at sporting events, concerts?  

OR are you guys imagining just a simple licence that would require a test/background check at the time of issuing it, and then maybe a yearly check for renewal so that cuts through all the red tape in the above scenario?

 

It has to be an instantaneous background check when the drivers license is scanned. It doesn't need to give details, just return verification that the id matches the person standing in front of you and whether they pass or fail. This would help reduce the effectiveness drinking due to fake ID's. You would have to alter the bar code and the database in order to get a positive return.

Would you expect that a firearm background check would only be checked once a year? I don't think people would be happy with that. They want one done each time the person makes a purchase. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, KCitons said:

We need to close the gun show/private sales loophole.

is that really how criminals get guns ?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

I just find it funny when people use these "gotcha" moments when somebody hasn't posted in a thread for a day.   I honestly wasn't paying too much attention to what his supposed position was - that people can walk into ANY gun show and get a gun without a background check?

Sorry I brought it up and added more fuel to your echo chamber :tinfoilhat: theories.   

And knowing how many times he's posted since then is a little :stalker:ish.  (yes, that was a direct shot towards you...)

 

Again, you're showing your side.

You've got twice as many posts as I do. So, I assume you've been around here for awhile. There are posters that complained because another poster would start threads and then not respond to their questions. Again, it was the group against one person. 

As to the bolded, you fail to recognize Tim's gotcha moment. But, try to point out mine? Seems like a double standard. 

He wanted to have a conversation based off my comment that "guns are regulated more than alcohol". He doesn't even understand that his own state (California) has regulations requiring private sales must go through a licensed firearm dealer. His own comment proves this:

Quote

A convicted felon can go to any gun show in the country and buy whatever gun he wants from a private seller. There are no background checks, no questions asked. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stealthycat said:

is that really how criminals get guns ?  

It depends on how you define criminal?

Is it how someone with a criminal history gets guns? Yes. 

Is it how El Chappo gets his guns? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

I have been thinking about your's and KC's posts about this, and I am trying to imagine what this would look like, and yes- the booze industry would go nuts.  

I think part of the equation would need to include some responsibility on the businesses selling to make sure that these background checks are getting done and getting done properly.  I would think that would chase away businesses that don't want that - maybe grocery stores, gas stations, etc.?  Basically turn it into having purely liquor stores that are used to dealing with the checks and backlash.  No more booze at sporting events, concerts?  

OR are you guys imagining just a simple licence that would require a test/background check at the time of issuing it, and then maybe a yearly check for renewal so that cuts through all the red tape in the above scenario?

 

I think both a gun and a liquor license would allow the consumer to purchase a gun or liquor by simply showing their gun or liquor license to the vendor (gun purchase would have 1 business day to get the purchased gun insured. If the vendor is not sent a valid pic or pdf of the insruance, he has to report it to the local authorities). For liquor, the burden on the vendor is to be able to verify a valid license. And that's it. So booze and sporting events, concerts, etc... is fine as long as it's sold to someone who shows their liquor license. 

It could be setup to use technology to verify the license is still valid by swiping it and having it check with the licensing system. Felonies can be automatically reported to the licnesing system and invalidate the license. Misdemeanors could as well, but should be limited to the severity of the crime. Background checks could be automatically run so that the license automatically "renews". Cost would be covered by an annual fee for the license. 

For the consumer, having a valid ID would be the same process as now (just a different ID), but the consumer would be paying annually for the license, to cover the background checks. I think a liquor license should also require the applicant to take a class and a test, but this wouldn't be near as in depth as gun license training and testing. The liquor license test could also check for mental health flags if we want it to. 

I think the annual fee, the class and the test would deter the person who only buys booze a few times a year or less, but I think most people would do it, even if some will complain about it. It could do a lot to help. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KCitons said:

Here is a link that breaks down laws by each state.

It speaks to the ignorance of many when it comes to gun regulation. 

Some want to do away with the 2nd Amendment. Arguing that it stands in the way of the states being able to regulate guns as needed. But, there are already states with a wide range of laws that are not being impeded by the 2nd Amendment. 

We need to close the gun show/private sales loophole. This is being done at the state level. More and more states are looking to adopt this as law. Anti gun groups aren't happy with that, they want a federal law. Which is when the 2nd Amendment becomes an issue. 

There are states with background checks, registration, and even a database of guns. Along with training, licensing and waiting periods. What people want instead is for the Federal government to ignore the Constitution and overstep what the states are doing. 

Your link isn't even up to date. We have default registration in Mass and the AR platform is banned. Every time we purchase a firearm (both pistols and rifles), either private or through an FFL, it gets registered and we have to detail the serial number/make/model/caliber etc.

https://mircs.chs.state.ma.us/fa10/action/home?app_context=home&app_action=presentTrans

"Massachusetts requires all sellers of firearms to report firearms sales and transfers to the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services, which maintains comprehensive records of sales and transfers. See the Retention of Sales / Background Checks Records section for further information. Massachusetts does not, however, require firearm owners to periodically confirm their continuing ownership of firearms or their eligibility to possess firearms."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Thanks, I didn't know I was on a specific team.  

You're welcome. 

Lot's of other stuff in that post. But you chose to concentrate on the 1st few words. That's what makes you part of a specific team. 

Wrong is wrong, regardless of who you stand next to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Also didn't know it's a requirement to quote whole posts and respond to every bullet point.  Thanks again! 

It's not.

But, it speaks volumes that your concern is about which team I think you are on, and not that a poster posts blatant lies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

It's not.

But, it speaks volumes that your concern is about which team I think you are on, and not that a poster posts blatant lies.

 

There is a difference between blatant lies and being ignorant about something.  

I know, more "team lefty" evidence for me saying that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

There is a difference between blatant lies and being ignorant about something.  

I know, more "team lefty" evidence for me saying that. 

Defending ignorance?

When someone states " convicted felon can go to any gun show in the country and buy whatever gun he wants from a private seller. There are no background checks, no questions asked." It's a blatant lie. 

The failure to own it is ignorant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@KarmaPolice do you believe that a convicted felon can walk into any gun show in the country and buy a whatever gun he wants from a private seller without a background check and no questions asked?

Also, do you believe that a person convicted of multiply duis can walk into any liquor store in the country and buy whatever booze he wants without a background check and no questions asked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Defending ignorance?

When someone states " convicted felon can go to any gun show in the country and buy whatever gun he wants from a private seller. There are no background checks, no questions asked." It's a blatant lie. 

The failure to own it is ignorant. 

Yeah, I dont agree with you.  Shocker, I know.  Blatant lie is stating something despite you knowing it to be false.  If Tim keeps posting that after seeing the stats on the states, then yes- it's a blatant lie.  Until then its ignorance on the topic.  

Yes, I will defend it - I am sure there is a bunch of stuff in these threads that i am ignorant about.  Pretty unreasonable to think everyone should know everything about every topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Yeah, I dont agree with you.  Shocker, I know.  Blatant lie is stating something despite you knowing it to be false.  If Tim keeps posting that after seeing the stats on the states, then yes- it's a blatant lie.  Until then its ignorance on the topic.  

Yes, I will defend it - I am sure there is a bunch of stuff in these threads that i am ignorant about.  Pretty unreasonable to think everyone should know everything about every topic. 

Considering that Tim lives in California, where they have some the strictest laws, and Tim has been vocal about gun regulations, I would think he would know that his statement was incorrect. 

Therefore, it's a blatant lie. 

Do you give SC the same benefit of being ignorant when Fish calls him a liar every other day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Considering that Tim lives in California, where they have some the strictest laws, and Tim has been vocal about gun regulations, I would think he would know that his statement was incorrect. 

Therefore, it's a blatant lie. 

Do you give SC the same benefit of being ignorant when Fish calls him a liar every other day?

No, because some of the stuff he is called out on has been disproved or stats have been posted to the contrary in the thread, and he still posts the same statements.  

If Tim continues to post stuff like he did after someone showing him that's not the case, then that is akin to what SC has done in the other thread.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

No, because some of the stuff he is called out on has been disproved or stats have been posted to the contrary in the thread, and he still posts the same statements.  

If Tim continues to post stuff like he did after someone showing him that's not the case, then that is akin to what SC has done in the other thread.  

 

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/764628-usa-shootings/?do=findComment&comment=21841954

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Well then he should know that info. 

You guys have any better memory than I do! 

And a better memory than Tim does!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, KCitons said:

It depends on how you define criminal?

Is it how someone with a criminal history gets guns? Yes. 

Is it how El Chappo gets his guns? No.

everyone loves the "gun show loophole" phrase ..... out of the last 40,000 people murdered in the USA and guns being used ............ how many were attained by "gun show loophole" ???

exceptionally few wouldn't you say ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, KCitons said:

A convicted felon can go to any gun show in the country and buy whatever gun he wants from a private seller. There are no background checks, no questions asked. 

I don't know who said that but felons cannot legally own guns ............. why would a felon try ? wouldn't he be breaking the law ?

can a convicted DUI person go into a liquor store and buy liquor/beer ?

Edited by Stealthycat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I don't know who said that but felons cannot legally own guns ............. why would a felon try ? wouldn't he be breaking the law ?

can a convicted DUI person go into a liquor store and buy liquor/beer ?

If they had recently gotten a DUI then they would not have a license and without any other form of ID they should not be able to purchase it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

If they had recently gotten a DUI then they would not have a license and without any other form of ID they should not be able to purchase it.

This is such a stretch it's comical. 

First off, you're about the same age as me. Out of 10 times, how many are you carded to buy alcohol? For me, it'a maybe 2 out of 10. 

Secondly, having a DUI does not preclude you from obtaining a state ID. Which allows you to buy all the alcohol you want. What is the equivalent for a convicted felon to purchase a firearm? There isn't one. Which is why I stand by my original post. 

Guns are regulated more than alcohol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2019 at 9:42 PM, KCitons said:

Not yet. But what were your anti gun choices during the 2016 election? I think it's going to be a process. The next election (and a few after that) is going to be around gun control. Your going to see regulation with minimal results. After about more years without a decrease in mass shootings (because that's what drives this topic) they will start to look at the reason why and not just the tool being used. You can't fix a leaky faucet by removing the handle. 

The facts disagree with you here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

If they had recently gotten a DUI then they would not have a license and without any other form of ID they should not be able to purchase it.

If I was KC or SC I would see this as a softball coming right into my wheelhouse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

everyone loves the "gun show loophole" phrase ..... out of the last 40,000 people murdered in the USA and guns being used ............ how many were attained by "gun show loophole" ???

exceptionally few wouldn't you say ?

I don't know. And frankly, I don't care. 

I do know that it makes sense to have a background check on all firearm transactions. This will hopefully prevent those that have a criminal history from obtaining a firearm and possibly committing violent crimes. 

Unlike the anti gun crowd here, I will not bite my tongue because you have a similar stance as mine. If you believe that we should not have universal background checks, then I would see you as being just as ignorant as the rest of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.