***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[Novice2]

i am also not paying one penny to gift the gun santa claus gave me when i was seven to my son.

But you should. These background checks are important, and they need to be paid for.

You and the government are the ones that want the checks. You pay for them.

 

[mad sweeney]

i am also not paying one penny to gift the gun santa claus gave me when i was seven to my son.

But you should. These background checks are important, and they need to be paid for.

You and the government are the ones that want the checks. You pay for them.

So are you fine with selling a gun to someone who isn't legally allowed to have/buy one? If it were free would you be ok with it? How can you or the other guy say you're against criminals obtaining guns if you're willing to just sell a gun to anyone with cash?** assuming your position is similar to the other poster's, which is what it seems from the general tone of your posts.

 

[timschochet]

i am also not paying one penny to gift the gun santa claus gave me when i was seven to my son.

But you should. These background checks are important, and they need to be paid for.

You and the government are the ones that want the checks. You pay for them.

Why? I want all cars registered too. I don't expect any one else to pay for my car registration.

 

[Novice2]

i am also not paying one penny to gift the gun santa claus gave me when i was seven to my son.

But you should. These background checks are important, and they need to be paid for.

You and the government are the ones that want the checks. You pay for them.

So are you fine with selling a gun to someone who isn't legally allowed to have/buy one? If it were free would you be ok with it? How can you or the other guy say you're against criminals obtaining guns if you're willing to just sell a gun to anyone with cash?** assuming your position is similar to the other poster's, which is what it seems from the general tone of your posts.

No I don't have a problem with the background checks I do have issue with how much this costs though.That's the first times I've commented on background checks.

 

[Henry Ford]

Registration should be paid for by the purchaser. Ideally, the purchaser would go through the background check and give all relevant information to the background check people, not the seller. Then the seller calls the confirmation hotline, enters the confirmation code the buyer gives him, and is told the name of the person he can sell the gun to. ID is checked, and off we go.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but Cobalt spends more time insulting others than making points toward his stance.

To be fair, I exhausted a considerable amount of time ironing out the substantive pieces of my position much earlier in this thread. When the right wingers came in and started making disingenuous, factually incorrect, and inflammatory statements without any interest in actually consulting the peer-reviewed literature on gun violence or navigating these issues with any reason or common sense, then it warrants calling them out.It's all about meeting folks on their level. Hustler, 5Digit, boots, they're interested only in being paranoid drama queens who misrepresent not only the Constitution and the Second Amendment specifically, but also the goals and aims of folks who want to incorporate some novel approaches to gun control so that we can limit / prevent the types of massacres that have been far too common and traumatizing in the past decade.

You ignore any good point that opposes your argument and answer with insults...

^you did it again here..

Seems to be what they resort to when they don't have anything intelligent on the topic to say. For like the hundredth time, until you can provide the data backing this "peer-reviewed literature" we will continue to call you out on this biased fluff with unproven stats. I've posted a link to someone already asking these authors for the data to be exposed and zilch.The fact that Cobalt's focus is on these outlier incidents that are not even a blip on the gun violence scale just goes to show he cares more about "white people gun control issues" then gun violence as a whole.

Whatever articles you purport to be reading are not the same ones I posted. You could not have provided a more inaccurate, ill-informed summary of the literature if you tried. As I suggested the last time we danced, do everyone a favor and actually read the articles beyond the title, beyond even the abstract. Let the information marinate and come back with a more informed synopsis. Let me be crystal clear, if you don't want to do the heavy lifting of actually learning what the preponderance of the data show, but insist on confabulation to fit a position into the story you'd like to tell, then it warrants a rebuke. You've been a recidivist liar in this regard, thus far. That is more a statement of fact, as opposed to an intent to be insulting. I don't even care if you want to be snarky about it in response and stick to your guns, so to speak, pun intended. Please just get your facts straight.

I must have missed the articles you posted that were targeted at AR-15 Rifles and High Capacity Magazines. All you do is complain about these outlier incidents and your solution is to ban all semi-automatic firearms and pump action shotguns. You are the epitome of what the problem is with gun control. You have a flagrant disregard for the Second Amendment if you think you have a snowballs chance in hell of banning and confiscating every single semi-automatic firearm in the USA.

There is absolutely no reason for a normal everyday citizen to own a pump action shot gun. Not any more reason than to own a hand grenade or an missile launcher. Absolutely insane. So, let's start with the semi-automatic guns, pump action shotguns and see what happens from there. And, my god, let's get some licensing requirements to own any firearm. The process to register to vote, to get a driver's license, to apply for college....it's more difficult to do any of this than it is to walk into WalMart and buy a gun. That's ### backwards.

No one is ignoring them. We will continue to require law enforcement efforts to do a better job here. But, that's not the only problem.. The other problem is the "responsible" gun owners have been so irresponsible that non-felons and non-thugs are also killing people as well. And, there simply is way too much of this crap in circulation that it is now impossible for you police yourselves. We're going to start taking away your guns. Sorry if this doesn't pacify your hobby and/or paranoia. But, the time has come to find a new hobby and another way to manage your anxiety.

There is nothing wrong with owning guns. In fact I completely support owning many types of guns. But, carry laws permeate a culture of aggression. "Nobody is going to #### with me because I got a gun."

The problem seems to be carry laws, both concealed carry and open carry.

Let's differentiate between the right to own a gun with the right to carry (concealed or not). I think that this case illustrates that if you have liberal carry laws you'll get more of these idiots who think they can enforce their wishes on others or play vigilante or misinterpret a situation where deadly force is not justifiable only because they can pull out their pistol if #### hits the fan.

Dean from your "unbiased source""My own view on gun control is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns, would be banned."

--- Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health

I think this sums up cobalt_27 the best:

"#### Ron Paul."

Request for Data from Hemenway:

3/21/2006

Hemenway and Co-authors Refuse to Provide Data Set From 1999

Previously, I complained that David Hemenway (Harvard) and co-authors would not give out the data to a recent study that they did on road rage despite the fact that they had already published a paper in a journal and gone public talking to the media. Recently, however, I have asked for data from two other surveys in 1996 and 1999 that Hemenway also conducted. The 1996 data is available at the ICPSR, but the data from the 1999 survey is not released and Hemenway is not responding to requests on information on even when the data will be released (I last asked on March 9th). It seems as though seven years, long after their study results have been published, is excessively long. The strategy that Hemenway seems to be following is to delay providing the data for so long that no one is able to critically comment on his research simply because the data is so old. And possible concerns that anyone might have would be easy to resolve if data were provided in a timely manner.

Labels: GunControl, Hemenway, Research

POSTED BY JOHN LOTT AT 12:04 AM

 

[spreagle]

To attempt to bridge the divide between the universal background check guys and the dealer-only background check guys, I'm thinking a hunting license or concealed carry permit should suffice for a reasonable background check for non-dealer transactions. No hunting license or concealed carry permit, no sale allowed. Felons aren't allowed to have hunting licenses nor are they issued concealed carry permits. A pretty high percentage of gun owners already have hunting licenses. If not, the cost a small game license is small, maybe even less than a background check. For example, as a senior, my dads license costs a couple bucks. If a felon somehow gets a hunting license he'll be busted later during database crosschecks. Doing a background check for every single gun purchase seems like total overkill. Sure the hunting licenses are typically only bought once a year but a person who is law abiding tends to be remain law abiding. Heck you could even build in a cooling off period ... make it so the hunting license has to be a certain number of days old before a non dealer gun transaction is allowed.

 

[moleculo]

So the big hubub in my neighborhood is that there was a house broken into last week while the resident was home. She awoke to hear her dog barking, looked out the window, and saw someone running away from her house. This was at 7:00AM. She called the cops, and per her estimate, it took 2 hours for them to respond.The general issue has to do with staffing - we do not live in a city, and rely on the county sherrifs office for law enforcement. The county is 555 square miles, and we have only a handful of officers on patrol. Our particular neck of the woods is a tiny sliver, but has the highest population density and is fairly close to the city of Charlotte. We have roughly one officer per 20k residents at any given time.If that one officer has to book someone, it's a 15-20 minute drive to the sherrif's office/jail, and he has to be there for a couple of hours doing the booking. If some emergency were to come up, his response time would definitely be limited.Right next to our development is "family land", where the land owner has owned that parcel for generations. He rents his land out as he sees fit, including migrant workers, meth-heads, and Hells Angels (no schtick, there have been a number of raids there recently, Hells Angels local HQ is just down the road from us). These folks do not like our development which is fairly new - the builder chopped down some woods and brought "progress" to their back yards. The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?We are, of course, causing a big stink with the local gov't, but as you all know, gov't moves slowly. "we'll consider adding more manpower for the Sherrifs office at the next budget meeting in July, but frankly we don't have the money as it is" isn't a very re-assuring response.

 

[timschochet]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

 

[timschochet]

Latest polls: 92% of Americans in favor of universal background checks.

 

[smotherhook]

another example of why 30 round magazines are needed for invasive feral hog eradication(hunting)

 

[moleculo]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

ok, let me break this down for you.This is, in my opinion, a very real, and concrete reason for gun ownership. I'm not talking about some abstract case where people want to own a gun as a means of being macho, this is not about sporting rifles, this is a case where people in my neighborhood need a weapon solely designed to kill.

If i'm going out to buy a weapon for self defense, I want something that can put down a 300 lb Hells Angels biker who is strung out on heroin or meth or whatever. I want something powerful. I want something that can fire multiple shots in short succession (i.e. semi-automatic). I want something that has a fairly large cartridge size - I would not want to worry about re-loading...what if there is more than one assailant? I would prefer the option of more than 7 rounds at a time. I also want something that is easy to aim and shoot without a whole lot of kick - an "assault rifle" fits the bill very nicely.

I'm already on record in support of registration in this thread so I won't comment on that, but if y'all are still trying to regulate high-capacity cartridges and "assault weapons", I would have to take objection to all of that.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

another example of why 30 round magazines are needed for invasive feral hog eradication(hunting)

I like how he is wearing full camos when in a loudass helo chasing hogs, like that is going to allow them to sneak up on them.

 

[smotherhook]

another example of why 30 round magazines are needed for invasive feral hog eradication(hunting)

probably for warmth but it is funny

 

[kface]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

ok, let me break this down for you.This is, in my opinion, a very real, and concrete reason for gun ownership. I'm not talking about some abstract case where people want to own a gun as a means of being macho, this is not about sporting rifles, this is a case where people in my neighborhood need a weapon solely designed to kill.

If i'm going out to buy a weapon for self defense, I want something that can put down a 300 lb Hells Angels biker who is strung out on heroin or meth or whatever. I want something powerful. I want something that can fire multiple shots in short succession (i.e. semi-automatic). I want something that has a fairly large cartridge size - I would not want to worry about re-loading...what if there is more than one assailant? I would prefer the option of more than 7 rounds at a time. I also want something that is easy to aim and shoot without a whole lot of kick - an "assault rifle" fits the bill very nicely.

I'm already on record in support of registration in this thread so I won't comment on that, but if y'all are still trying to regulate high-capacity cartridges and "assault weapons", I would have to take objection to all of that.

If its that much of a threat, which you are clearly making it out to be, you have two very easy options:1. Petition the police that there is whole bunch of people's lives at stake. They won't leave you guys alone...they just won't

2. Band together and hire some private security

both of those don't require ar-15s

 

[moleculo]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

ok, let me break this down for you.This is, in my opinion, a very real, and concrete reason for gun ownership. I'm not talking about some abstract case where people want to own a gun as a means of being macho, this is not about sporting rifles, this is a case where people in my neighborhood need a weapon solely designed to kill.

If i'm going out to buy a weapon for self defense, I want something that can put down a 300 lb Hells Angels biker who is strung out on heroin or meth or whatever. I want something powerful. I want something that can fire multiple shots in short succession (i.e. semi-automatic). I want something that has a fairly large cartridge size - I would not want to worry about re-loading...what if there is more than one assailant? I would prefer the option of more than 7 rounds at a time. I also want something that is easy to aim and shoot without a whole lot of kick - an "assault rifle" fits the bill very nicely.

I'm already on record in support of registration in this thread so I won't comment on that, but if y'all are still trying to regulate high-capacity cartridges and "assault weapons", I would have to take objection to all of that.

If its that much of a threat, which you are clearly making it out to be, you have two very easy options:1. Petition the police that there is whole bunch of people's lives at stake. They won't leave you guys alone...they just won't

2. Band together and hire some private security

both of those don't require ar-15s

1. is in progress.2. hasn't been discussed, but is doubtful.

Yes, AR-15's aren't required in this situation. However, I would prefer that they be an option. No need to take something off of the table because it's scary.

 

[smotherhook]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

ok, let me break this down for you.This is, in my opinion, a very real, and concrete reason for gun ownership. I'm not talking about some abstract case where people want to own a gun as a means of being macho, this is not about sporting rifles, this is a case where people in my neighborhood need a weapon solely designed to kill.

If i'm going out to buy a weapon for self defense, I want something that can put down a 300 lb Hells Angels biker who is strung out on heroin or meth or whatever. I want something powerful. I want something that can fire multiple shots in short succession (i.e. semi-automatic). I want something that has a fairly large cartridge size - I would not want to worry about re-loading...what if there is more than one assailant? I would prefer the option of more than 7 rounds at a time. I also want something that is easy to aim and shoot without a whole lot of kick - an "assault rifle" fits the bill very nicely.

I'm already on record in support of registration in this thread so I won't comment on that, but if y'all are still trying to regulate high-capacity cartridges and "assault weapons", I would have to take objection to all of that.

If its that much of a threat, which you are clearly making it out to be, you have two very easy options:1. Petition the police that there is whole bunch of people's lives at stake. They won't leave you guys alone...they just won't

2. Band together and hire some private security

both of those don't require ar-15s

pay for a service that is supposed to be paid for via tax dollars.

 

[Apple Jack]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

ok, let me break this down for you.This is, in my opinion, a very real, and concrete reason for gun ownership. I'm not talking about some abstract case where people want to own a gun as a means of being macho, this is not about sporting rifles, this is a case where people in my neighborhood need a weapon solely designed to kill.

If i'm going out to buy a weapon for self defense, I want something that can put down a 300 lb Hells Angels biker who is strung out on heroin or meth or whatever. I want something powerful. I want something that can fire multiple shots in short succession (i.e. semi-automatic). I want something that has a fairly large cartridge size - I would not want to worry about re-loading...what if there is more than one assailant? I would prefer the option of more than 7 rounds at a time. I also want something that is easy to aim and shoot without a whole lot of kick - an "assault rifle" fits the bill very nicely.

I'm already on record in support of registration in this thread so I won't comment on that, but if y'all are still trying to regulate high-capacity cartridges and "assault weapons", I would have to take objection to all of that.

If its that much of a threat, which you are clearly making it out to be, you have two very easy options:1. Petition the police that there is whole bunch of people's lives at stake. They won't leave you guys alone...they just won't

2. Band together and hire some private security

both of those don't require ar-15s

3. MoveAnd your argument for keep high capacity magazines legal is that you might need to "put down a 300 lb Hells Angel?"

 

[mad sweeney]

So the big hubub in my neighborhood is that there was a house broken into last week while the resident was home. She awoke to hear her dog barking, looked out the window, and saw someone running away from her house. This was at 7:00AM. She called the cops, and per her estimate, it took 2 hours for them to respond.

The general issue has to do with staffing - we do not live in a city, and rely on the county sherrifs office for law enforcement. The county is 555 square miles, and we have only a handful of officers on patrol. Our particular neck of the woods is a tiny sliver, but has the highest population density and is fairly close to the city of Charlotte. We have roughly one officer per 20k residents at any given time.

If that one officer has to book someone, it's a 15-20 minute drive to the sherrif's office/jail, and he has to be there for a couple of hours doing the booking. If some emergency were to come up, his response time would definitely be limited.

Right next to our development is "family land", where the land owner has owned that parcel for generations. He rents his land out as he sees fit, including migrant workers, meth-heads, and Hells Angels (no schtick, there have been a number of raids there recently, Hells Angels local HQ is just down the road from us). These folks do not like our development which is fairly new - the builder chopped down some woods and brought "progress" to their back yards.

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

We are, of course, causing a big stink with the local gov't, but as you all know, gov't moves slowly. "we'll consider adding more manpower for the Sherrifs office at the next budget meeting in July, but frankly we don't have the money as it is" isn't a very re-assuring response.

Get a dog that barks before the guy is running away.It seems like there's only a very, very small percentage of gun control advocates who don't want people to even own guns in their own homes for protection. Just don't go chasing a burglar down and shoot him up outside in the neighborhood as he's running away or execute him if you catch him.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

ok, let me break this down for you.This is, in my opinion, a very real, and concrete reason for gun ownership. I'm not talking about some abstract case where people want to own a gun as a means of being macho, this is not about sporting rifles, this is a case where people in my neighborhood need a weapon solely designed to kill.

If i'm going out to buy a weapon for self defense, I want something that can put down a 300 lb Hells Angels biker who is strung out on heroin or meth or whatever. I want something powerful. I want something that can fire multiple shots in short succession (i.e. semi-automatic). I want something that has a fairly large cartridge size - I would not want to worry about re-loading...what if there is more than one assailant? I would prefer the option of more than 7 rounds at a time. I also want something that is easy to aim and shoot without a whole lot of kick - an "assault rifle" fits the bill very nicely.

I'm already on record in support of registration in this thread so I won't comment on that, but if y'all are still trying to regulate high-capacity cartridges and "assault weapons", I would have to take objection to all of that.

If its that much of a threat, which you are clearly making it out to be, you have two very easy options:1. Petition the police that there is whole bunch of people's lives at stake. They won't leave you guys alone...they just won't

2. Band together and hire some private security

both of those don't require ar-15s

3. MoveAnd your argument for keep high capacity magazines legal is that you might need to "put down a 300 lb Hells Angel?"

That's a helluva lot better than arguing that limiting magazine sizes will prevent another Virginia Tech Shooting, oh wait it didn't.

 

[mad sweeney]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

ok, let me break this down for you.This is, in my opinion, a very real, and concrete reason for gun ownership. I'm not talking about some abstract case where people want to own a gun as a means of being macho, this is not about sporting rifles, this is a case where people in my neighborhood need a weapon solely designed to kill.

If i'm going out to buy a weapon for self defense, I want something that can put down a 300 lb Hells Angels biker who is strung out on heroin or meth or whatever. I want something powerful. I want something that can fire multiple shots in short succession (i.e. semi-automatic). I want something that has a fairly large cartridge size - I would not want to worry about re-loading...what if there is more than one assailant? I would prefer the option of more than 7 rounds at a time. I also want something that is easy to aim and shoot without a whole lot of kick - an "assault rifle" fits the bill very nicely.

I'm already on record in support of registration in this thread so I won't comment on that, but if y'all are still trying to regulate high-capacity cartridges and "assault weapons", I would have to take objection to all of that.

If its that much of a threat, which you are clearly making it out to be, you have two very easy options:1. Petition the police that there is whole bunch of people's lives at stake. They won't leave you guys alone...they just won't

2. Band together and hire some private security

both of those don't require ar-15s

pay for a service that is supposed to be paid for via tax dollars.

It happens all the time. Even if the police dept is fully staffed and funded and across the street from his house, that doesn't mean that they can be there in time for an emergency, nor can they allocate the resources to personally guard every house every night. That's an extremely simple and obvious answer that doesn't even get into who is fighting for tax breaks or increases. Unless there's a very specific threat and a slush of funds, no police force anywhere is going to patrol a particular house or neighborhood every night.

 

[moleculo]

So the big hubub in my neighborhood is that there was a house broken into last week while the resident was home. She awoke to hear her dog barking, looked out the window, and saw someone running away from her house. This was at 7:00AM. She called the cops, and per her estimate, it took 2 hours for them to respond.

The general issue has to do with staffing - we do not live in a city, and rely on the county sherrifs office for law enforcement. The county is 555 square miles, and we have only a handful of officers on patrol. Our particular neck of the woods is a tiny sliver, but has the highest population density and is fairly close to the city of Charlotte. We have roughly one officer per 20k residents at any given time.

If that one officer has to book someone, it's a 15-20 minute drive to the sherrif's office/jail, and he has to be there for a couple of hours doing the booking. If some emergency were to come up, his response time would definitely be limited.

Right next to our development is "family land", where the land owner has owned that parcel for generations. He rents his land out as he sees fit, including migrant workers, meth-heads, and Hells Angels (no schtick, there have been a number of raids there recently, Hells Angels local HQ is just down the road from us). These folks do not like our development which is fairly new - the builder chopped down some woods and brought "progress" to their back yards.

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

We are, of course, causing a big stink with the local gov't, but as you all know, gov't moves slowly. "we'll consider adding more manpower for the Sherrifs office at the next budget meeting in July, but frankly we don't have the money as it is" isn't a very re-assuring response.

Get a dog that barks before the guy is running away.It seems like there's only a very, very small percentage of gun control advocates who don't want people to even own guns in their own homes for protection. Just don't go chasing a burglar down and shoot him up outside in the neighborhood as he's running away or execute him if you catch him.

that's not the concern. The concern is what is what happens next? They start with breaking into cars (check). Next, they break into houses (check). They seem to be getting away with both. Next step would be breaking into houses when people are known to be home. What happens when these folks decide to get a bit rapey?These folks seem to be getting bolder and bolder.

 

[Blick]

This is a little off topic, but anyway...I wonder what percentage of school principals would favor access to non-lethal means (flash grenade, stun gun, etc.) of subduing someone in a life/death situation like Newtown. Such means could be accessed only by the principal or their representative and they would receive all proper training. It obviously won't stop this country's gun violence problem, but may help reduce the carnage of another school shooting.

 

[moleculo]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

ok, let me break this down for you.This is, in my opinion, a very real, and concrete reason for gun ownership. I'm not talking about some abstract case where people want to own a gun as a means of being macho, this is not about sporting rifles, this is a case where people in my neighborhood need a weapon solely designed to kill.

If i'm going out to buy a weapon for self defense, I want something that can put down a 300 lb Hells Angels biker who is strung out on heroin or meth or whatever. I want something powerful. I want something that can fire multiple shots in short succession (i.e. semi-automatic). I want something that has a fairly large cartridge size - I would not want to worry about re-loading...what if there is more than one assailant? I would prefer the option of more than 7 rounds at a time. I also want something that is easy to aim and shoot without a whole lot of kick - an "assault rifle" fits the bill very nicely.

I'm already on record in support of registration in this thread so I won't comment on that, but if y'all are still trying to regulate high-capacity cartridges and "assault weapons", I would have to take objection to all of that.

If its that much of a threat, which you are clearly making it out to be, you have two very easy options:1. Petition the police that there is whole bunch of people's lives at stake. They won't leave you guys alone...they just won't

2. Band together and hire some private security

both of those don't require ar-15s

3. MoveAnd your argument for keep high capacity magazines legal is that you might need to "put down a 300 lb Hells Angel?"

not sure what is funny. Have you shot a pistol before? it's not easy to hit a target at a decent range, much less with adreneline pumping and possibly poor lighting. I think one would be justified in wanting more than a couple of shots.

 

[Apple Jack]

Wait a second...Hells Angels in NC? I assumed you lived in Oakland when you said that. Are there even any "Hells Angels" in NC? And do they even resemble real ones?ETA: If you are in conflict with one person and can't manage to get it done with ten shots, is it such a good idea for you to be shooting guns? And you can just load another clip, you keep missing anyway, so the time it takes will be of no consequence.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Wait a second...Hells Angels in NC? I assumed you lived in Oakland when you said that. Are there even any "Hells Angels" in NC? And do they even resemble real ones?

Hells Angels are every.

 

[moleculo]

Wait a second...Hells Angels in NC? I assumed you lived in Oakland when you said that. Are there even any "Hells Angels" in NC? And do they even resemble real ones?ETA: If you are in conflict with one person and can't manage to get it done with ten shots, is it such a good idea for you to be shooting guns? And you can just load another clip, you keep missing anyway, so the time it takes will be of no consequence.

the FBI raid last summer. The 4 in Lancaster county were across from our neighborhood. I didn't hear it because my house doesn't back up to their land, but folks in my neighborhood were woken up that day to explosions at 6:00AM, presumably flash grenades or whatever during the raid.

 

[smotherhook]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

ok, let me break this down for you.This is, in my opinion, a very real, and concrete reason for gun ownership. I'm not talking about some abstract case where people want to own a gun as a means of being macho, this is not about sporting rifles, this is a case where people in my neighborhood need a weapon solely designed to kill.

If i'm going out to buy a weapon for self defense, I want something that can put down a 300 lb Hells Angels biker who is strung out on heroin or meth or whatever. I want something powerful. I want something that can fire multiple shots in short succession (i.e. semi-automatic). I want something that has a fairly large cartridge size - I would not want to worry about re-loading...what if there is more than one assailant? I would prefer the option of more than 7 rounds at a time. I also want something that is easy to aim and shoot without a whole lot of kick - an "assault rifle" fits the bill very nicely.

I'm already on record in support of registration in this thread so I won't comment on that, but if y'all are still trying to regulate high-capacity cartridges and "assault weapons", I would have to take objection to all of that.

If its that much of a threat, which you are clearly making it out to be, you have two very easy options:1. Petition the police that there is whole bunch of people's lives at stake. They won't leave you guys alone...they just won't

2. Band together and hire some private security

both of those don't require ar-15s

pay for a service that is supposed to be paid for via tax dollars.

It happens all the time. Even if the police dept is fully staffed and funded and across the street from his house, that doesn't mean that they can be there in time for an emergency, nor can they allocate the resources to personally guard every house every night. That's an extremely simple and obvious answer that doesn't even get into who is fighting for tax breaks or increases. Unless there's a very specific threat and a slush of funds, no police force anywhere is going to patrol a particular house or neighborhood every night.

correct! all the more reason to arm oneself

 

[Apple Jack]

Wait a second...Hells Angels in NC? I assumed you lived in Oakland when you said that. Are there even any "Hells Angels" in NC? And do they even resemble real ones?ETA: If you are in conflict with one person and can't manage to get it done with ten shots, is it such a good idea for you to be shooting guns? And you can just load another clip, you keep missing anyway, so the time it takes will be of no consequence.

the FBI raid last summer. The 4 in Lancaster county were across from our neighborhood. I didn't hear it because my house doesn't back up to their land, but folks in my neighborhood were woken up that day to explosions at 6:00AM, presumably flash grenades or whatever during the raid.

What makes you think one of these people would want to attack you?

 

[timschochet]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

ok, let me break this down for you.This is, in my opinion, a very real, and concrete reason for gun ownership. I'm not talking about some abstract case where people want to own a gun as a means of being macho, this is not about sporting rifles, this is a case where people in my neighborhood need a weapon solely designed to kill.

If i'm going out to buy a weapon for self defense, I want something that can put down a 300 lb Hells Angels biker who is strung out on heroin or meth or whatever. I want something powerful. I want something that can fire multiple shots in short succession (i.e. semi-automatic). I want something that has a fairly large cartridge size - I would not want to worry about re-loading...what if there is more than one assailant? I would prefer the option of more than 7 rounds at a time. I also want something that is easy to aim and shoot without a whole lot of kick - an "assault rifle" fits the bill very nicely.

I'm already on record in support of registration in this thread so I won't comment on that, but if y'all are still trying to regulate high-capacity cartridges and "assault weapons", I would have to take objection to all of that.

Gotcha. Well, we're close to being on the same page here. I have doubts that you need an AR-15 for home defense, and extremely strong doubts that you need a 30 round magazine, but I can't justify making either illegal any longer because I don't believe it can be done effectively.

 

[moleculo]

Wait a second...Hells Angels in NC? I assumed you lived in Oakland when you said that. Are there even any "Hells Angels" in NC? And do they even resemble real ones?ETA: If you are in conflict with one person and can't manage to get it done with ten shots, is it such a good idea for you to be shooting guns? And you can just load another clip, you keep missing anyway, so the time it takes will be of no consequence.

the FBI raid last summer. The 4 in Lancaster county were across from our neighborhood. I didn't hear it because my house doesn't back up to their land, but folks in my neighborhood were woken up that day to explosions at 6:00AM, presumably flash grenades or whatever during the raid.

What makes you think one of these people would want to attack you?

no reason other than proximity.TBH, I'm personally not that concerned. The land where these folks are is on the other end of the neighborhood from me, however I do know people living on that block, whose yards back up to this parcel of land. They are the ones freaking out. Again - there have been a rash of car break-ins and recently this week a home invasion.more concerning to me is the druggie house-wife across the street from me who has suspicious vehicles coming to and from her house all day. I am, of course, also concerned that if 911 were called in emergency situation, it could take anywhere between 10 minutes and 2 hours for a deputy to respond.

 

[moleculo]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

ok, let me break this down for you.This is, in my opinion, a very real, and concrete reason for gun ownership. I'm not talking about some abstract case where people want to own a gun as a means of being macho, this is not about sporting rifles, this is a case where people in my neighborhood need a weapon solely designed to kill.

If i'm going out to buy a weapon for self defense, I want something that can put down a 300 lb Hells Angels biker who is strung out on heroin or meth or whatever. I want something powerful. I want something that can fire multiple shots in short succession (i.e. semi-automatic). I want something that has a fairly large cartridge size - I would not want to worry about re-loading...what if there is more than one assailant? I would prefer the option of more than 7 rounds at a time. I also want something that is easy to aim and shoot without a whole lot of kick - an "assault rifle" fits the bill very nicely.

I'm already on record in support of registration in this thread so I won't comment on that, but if y'all are still trying to regulate high-capacity cartridges and "assault weapons", I would have to take objection to all of that.

Gotcha. Well, we're close to being on the same page here. I have doubts that you need an AR-15 for home defense, and extremely strong doubts that you need a 30 round magazine, but I can't justify making either illegal any longer because I don't believe it can be done effectively.

see, that's the thing..need. I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to define what I need, in pretty much any situation. As a responsible adult, I believe I am in the best position to define what I need, and if I determine that having 30 shots > having 6 shots, I want the right to do so.

 

[timschochet]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

ok, let me break this down for you.This is, in my opinion, a very real, and concrete reason for gun ownership. I'm not talking about some abstract case where people want to own a gun as a means of being macho, this is not about sporting rifles, this is a case where people in my neighborhood need a weapon solely designed to kill.

If i'm going out to buy a weapon for self defense, I want something that can put down a 300 lb Hells Angels biker who is strung out on heroin or meth or whatever. I want something powerful. I want something that can fire multiple shots in short succession (i.e. semi-automatic). I want something that has a fairly large cartridge size - I would not want to worry about re-loading...what if there is more than one assailant? I would prefer the option of more than 7 rounds at a time. I also want something that is easy to aim and shoot without a whole lot of kick - an "assault rifle" fits the bill very nicely.

I'm already on record in support of registration in this thread so I won't comment on that, but if y'all are still trying to regulate high-capacity cartridges and "assault weapons", I would have to take objection to all of that.

Gotcha. Well, we're close to being on the same page here. I have doubts that you need an AR-15 for home defense, and extremely strong doubts that you need a 30 round magazine, but I can't justify making either illegal any longer because I don't believe it can be done effectively.

see, that's the thing..need. I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to define what I need, in pretty much any situation. As a responsible adult, I believe I am in the best position to define what I need, and if I determine that having 30 shots > having 6 shots, I want the right to do so.

You could make the exact same argument about drugs or the maximum speed limit on the freeway, but sometimes we have to measure society's needs vs your personal ones. If I truly beloved that by banning high capacity magazines I could save lives, then your "need" for them has to be evaluated by society, rather than just by yourself, in order to decide if it should take precedence. Personally I doubt that it would.

 

[Apple Jack]

Wait a second...Hells Angels in NC? I assumed you lived in Oakland when you said that. Are there even any "Hells Angels" in NC? And do they even resemble real ones?ETA: If you are in conflict with one person and can't manage to get it done with ten shots, is it such a good idea for you to be shooting guns? And you can just load another clip, you keep missing anyway, so the time it takes will be of no consequence.

the FBI raid last summer. The 4 in Lancaster county were across from our neighborhood. I didn't hear it because my house doesn't back up to their land, but folks in my neighborhood were woken up that day to explosions at 6:00AM, presumably flash grenades or whatever during the raid.

What makes you think one of these people would want to attack you?

no reason other than proximity.TBH, I'm personally not that concerned. The land where these folks are is on the other end of the neighborhood from me, however I do know people living on that block, whose yards back up to this parcel of land. They are the ones freaking out. Again - there have been a rash of car break-ins and recently this week a home invasion.more concerning to me is the druggie house-wife across the street from me who has suspicious vehicles coming to and from her house all day. I am, of course, also concerned that if 911 were called in emergency situation, it could take anywhere between 10 minutes and 2 hours for a deputy to respond.

Yeah, it sounds like your other neighbors are sketchier. Those Angels guys were probably concerned with not drawing the attention of law enforcement, thus the polite response to a neighbor asking them to keep it down at a party. It sounds like a business. If somebody had done that with the Oakland/SF/NYC Angels back in the day, there's a good chance they'd have gotten a stomping. Seems like a relatively well-run national business at this point. One that people don't want to f with, which ironically might keep some sketchy people away. I digress...just found that interesting.

 

[Otis]

Lights out with ya rights out, snitches!!11

 

[wazoo11]

The UK consistently has lower murder rates than the US even in UN data which attempts to standardize reporting.

If they want to increase their murder rate, they need to get themselves a harder-fought War on Drugs.

That and gangs which often go hand in hand.http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/america-doesnt-have-a-gun-problem-it-has-a-gang-problem/Ending drug war may be ‘best gun control measure we can enact’

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Seems to be what they resort to when they don't have anything intelligent on the topic to say. For like the hundredth time, until you can provide the data backing this "peer-reviewed literature" we will continue to call you out on this biased fluff with unproven stats. I've posted a link to someone already asking these authors for the data to be exposed and zilch.

The fact that Cobalt's focus is on these outlier incidents that are not even a blip on the gun violence scale just goes to show he cares more about "white people gun control issues" then gun violence as a whole.

Jesus.I'm not what's more amazing: the fact that you still haven't gotten it or the fact that you think that you get it more than others. This is some pretty ####### complete self-delusion going on.

Yep keep posting drivel from an organization who's leader's view is:

My own view on gun control is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns, would be banned.

Relying on surveys in which "People today are simply more likely to tell survey-takers they do not own a gun, he said, because it is less socially acceptable."Where you end up drawing conclusions like this:

survey of "firearm owners"

When figures from the ATF show the total firearms produced in the U.S. (minus exports) at 3.5 million in 1998. That figure fluctuated, reaching 3.7 million in 2007. Then, it jumped drastically, rising 64 percent from 2007 to 2011, topping 6.1 million that year.

As Sorenson explained, scientists can’t conduct a random experiment. So, instead, researchers are left with statistical models, which are “very fragile,” says Charles F. Wellford, who was chair of the committees that authored a lengthy 2004 report on this topic by the National Research Council of the National Academies. These models are subject to what control variables researchers use. “Everyone knows there’s other things than guns that cause crime,” says Wellford, a professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland. So these models become very complex and slight changes can cause very different results, he says.

Like I said until they expose their data and delineate the exact controls used (or more importantly neglected to include) it's all drivel to me.

 

[mad sweeney]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

ok, let me break this down for you.This is, in my opinion, a very real, and concrete reason for gun ownership. I'm not talking about some abstract case where people want to own a gun as a means of being macho, this is not about sporting rifles, this is a case where people in my neighborhood need a weapon solely designed to kill.

If i'm going out to buy a weapon for self defense, I want something that can put down a 300 lb Hells Angels biker who is strung out on heroin or meth or whatever. I want something powerful. I want something that can fire multiple shots in short succession (i.e. semi-automatic). I want something that has a fairly large cartridge size - I would not want to worry about re-loading...what if there is more than one assailant? I would prefer the option of more than 7 rounds at a time. I also want something that is easy to aim and shoot without a whole lot of kick - an "assault rifle" fits the bill very nicely.

I'm already on record in support of registration in this thread so I won't comment on that, but if y'all are still trying to regulate high-capacity cartridges and "assault weapons", I would have to take objection to all of that.

If its that much of a threat, which you are clearly making it out to be, you have two very easy options:1. Petition the police that there is whole bunch of people's lives at stake. They won't leave you guys alone...they just won't

2. Band together and hire some private security

both of those don't require ar-15s

3. MoveAnd your argument for keep high capacity magazines legal is that you might need to "put down a 300 lb Hells Angel?"

not sure what is funny. Have you shot a pistol before? it's not easy to hit a target at a decent range, much less with adreneline pumping and possibly poor lighting. I think one would be justified in wanting more than a couple of shots.

I'm not a gun expert but it sounds like a shotgun would be your choice to combat this fear.

 

[mad sweeney]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

ok, let me break this down for you.This is, in my opinion, a very real, and concrete reason for gun ownership. I'm not talking about some abstract case where people want to own a gun as a means of being macho, this is not about sporting rifles, this is a case where people in my neighborhood need a weapon solely designed to kill.

If i'm going out to buy a weapon for self defense, I want something that can put down a 300 lb Hells Angels biker who is strung out on heroin or meth or whatever. I want something powerful. I want something that can fire multiple shots in short succession (i.e. semi-automatic). I want something that has a fairly large cartridge size - I would not want to worry about re-loading...what if there is more than one assailant? I would prefer the option of more than 7 rounds at a time. I also want something that is easy to aim and shoot without a whole lot of kick - an "assault rifle" fits the bill very nicely.

I'm already on record in support of registration in this thread so I won't comment on that, but if y'all are still trying to regulate high-capacity cartridges and "assault weapons", I would have to take objection to all of that.

If its that much of a threat, which you are clearly making it out to be, you have two very easy options:1. Petition the police that there is whole bunch of people's lives at stake. They won't leave you guys alone...they just won't

2. Band together and hire some private security

both of those don't require ar-15s

pay for a service that is supposed to be paid for via tax dollars.

It happens all the time. Even if the police dept is fully staffed and funded and across the street from his house, that doesn't mean that they can be there in time for an emergency, nor can they allocate the resources to personally guard every house every night. That's an extremely simple and obvious answer that doesn't even get into who is fighting for tax breaks or increases. Unless there's a very specific threat and a slush of funds, no police force anywhere is going to patrol a particular house or neighborhood every night.

correct! all the more reason to arm oneself

I'm not against people owning guns for home protection. It's more guns in public that I am opposed to. But since I have your attention, going back to your comment about no checks and anyone with $500 can buy your gun, do you feel any responsibility (or do you think any gun seller should) to make sure the person you're selling a gun to is legally allowed to have one? Discounting family, are you ok with getting a gun into a criminal's hands in that manner?

 

[smotherhook]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

ok, let me break this down for you.This is, in my opinion, a very real, and concrete reason for gun ownership. I'm not talking about some abstract case where people want to own a gun as a means of being macho, this is not about sporting rifles, this is a case where people in my neighborhood need a weapon solely designed to kill.

If i'm going out to buy a weapon for self defense, I want something that can put down a 300 lb Hells Angels biker who is strung out on heroin or meth or whatever. I want something powerful. I want something that can fire multiple shots in short succession (i.e. semi-automatic). I want something that has a fairly large cartridge size - I would not want to worry about re-loading...what if there is more than one assailant? I would prefer the option of more than 7 rounds at a time. I also want something that is easy to aim and shoot without a whole lot of kick - an "assault rifle" fits the bill very nicely.

I'm already on record in support of registration in this thread so I won't comment on that, but if y'all are still trying to regulate high-capacity cartridges and "assault weapons", I would have to take objection to all of that.

If its that much of a threat, which you are clearly making it out to be, you have two very easy options:1. Petition the police that there is whole bunch of people's lives at stake. They won't leave you guys alone...they just won't

2. Band together and hire some private security

both of those don't require ar-15s

pay for a service that is supposed to be paid for via tax dollars.

It happens all the time. Even if the police dept is fully staffed and funded and across the street from his house, that doesn't mean that they can be there in time for an emergency, nor can they allocate the resources to personally guard every house every night. That's an extremely simple and obvious answer that doesn't even get into who is fighting for tax breaks or increases. Unless there's a very specific threat and a slush of funds, no police force anywhere is going to patrol a particular house or neighborhood every night.

correct! all the more reason to arm oneself

I'm not against people owning guns for home protection. It's more guns in public that I am opposed to. But since I have your attention, going back to your comment about no checks and anyone with $500 can buy your gun, do you feel any responsibility (or do you think any gun seller should) to make sure the person you're selling a gun to is legally allowed to have one? Discounting family, are you ok with getting a gun into a criminal's hands in that manner?

I would like to be able to defend my family away from home too(in public). I live in Texas so I dont have to worry about concealed carry. I can only speak for myself but I wouldnt sell any gun to anyone that I didnt know. Matter of fact, Ive never sold a gun and dont plan to. A felon in possession of a firearm is illegal regardless of where he got it. The way many of these posts are worded sounds like I met a stranger in the parking lot of Wal Mart, struck up a conversation and try to sell my 500 dollar gun. I honestly dont know one person who would do that. I certainly wouldnt.

 

[StrikeS2k]

 

[smotherhook]

powerful message

 

[mad sweeney]

The point of all this is that residents of our community cannot depend on Law Enforcement for security. What would you anti-gun folks have residents of my community do?

If you had bothered to read this thread, you would discover that there are almost no "anti-gun folks" in here- except in the minds of a few paranoid gun owners- and none among the politicians involved in making decisions either. Instead, there are people attempting to propose some very moderate gun restrictions: some make sense and some don't, but none involve seizing anyone's guns. So your question is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

ok, let me break this down for you.This is, in my opinion, a very real, and concrete reason for gun ownership. I'm not talking about some abstract case where people want to own a gun as a means of being macho, this is not about sporting rifles, this is a case where people in my neighborhood need a weapon solely designed to kill.

If i'm going out to buy a weapon for self defense, I want something that can put down a 300 lb Hells Angels biker who is strung out on heroin or meth or whatever. I want something powerful. I want something that can fire multiple shots in short succession (i.e. semi-automatic). I want something that has a fairly large cartridge size - I would not want to worry about re-loading...what if there is more than one assailant? I would prefer the option of more than 7 rounds at a time. I also want something that is easy to aim and shoot without a whole lot of kick - an "assault rifle" fits the bill very nicely.

I'm already on record in support of registration in this thread so I won't comment on that, but if y'all are still trying to regulate high-capacity cartridges and "assault weapons", I would have to take objection to all of that.

If its that much of a threat, which you are clearly making it out to be, you have two very easy options:1. Petition the police that there is whole bunch of people's lives at stake. They won't leave you guys alone...they just won't

2. Band together and hire some private security

both of those don't require ar-15s

pay for a service that is supposed to be paid for via tax dollars.

It happens all the time. Even if the police dept is fully staffed and funded and across the street from his house, that doesn't mean that they can be there in time for an emergency, nor can they allocate the resources to personally guard every house every night. That's an extremely simple and obvious answer that doesn't even get into who is fighting for tax breaks or increases. Unless there's a very specific threat and a slush of funds, no police force anywhere is going to patrol a particular house or neighborhood every night.

correct! all the more reason to arm oneself

I'm not against people owning guns for home protection. It's more guns in public that I am opposed to. But since I have your attention, going back to your comment about no checks and anyone with $500 can buy your gun, do you feel any responsibility (or do you think any gun seller should) to make sure the person you're selling a gun to is legally allowed to have one? Discounting family, are you ok with getting a gun into a criminal's hands in that manner?

I would like to be able to defend my family away from home too(in public). I live in Texas so I dont have to worry about concealed carry. I can only speak for myself but I wouldnt sell any gun to anyone that I didnt know. Matter of fact, Ive never sold a gun and dont plan to. A felon in possession of a firearm is illegal regardless of where he got it. The way many of these posts are worded sounds like I met a stranger in the parking lot of Wal Mart, struck up a conversation and try to sell my 500 dollar gun. I honestly dont know one person who would do that. I certainly wouldnt.

The post when you wrote about "if you have $500.." gave a little bit of that impression.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Like I said until they expose their data and delineate the exact controls used (or more importantly neglected to include) it's all drivel to me.

It would be drivel to you in any case. It may as well be written in hexa-decimal for you to have any chance to understand it.

Shocking more condescension! I'm wicked smarht, graduated college on a full ride.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Like I said until they expose their data and delineate the exact controls used (or more importantly neglected to include) it's all drivel to me.

It would be drivel to you in any case. It may as well be written in hexa-decimal for you to have any chance to understand it.

Shocking more condescension! I'm wicked smarht, graduated college on a full ride.

Sounds like you got exactly what you paid for then.

This is a recurring tired theme, the "gun grabbers" think they are more intelligent than the "gun nuts".self-delusion indeed

 

[ichris]

I have some reasonable objections to requiring background checks for face to face private sales, aka closing the gun show loophole. Although it goes against a learned instinct to NEVER negotiate my gun rights with the gun control crowd, I'll attempt to help you understand my reasoning.

Currently you must be an FFL to use the NICS system. They don't let private parties use it. Unless that changes, all background checks require an FFL to call it in, and the ATF also requires them to collect a filled out form 4473 containing all your personal information. FFLs won't do these things for free. Currently all the local gun shops charge about $40 for a transfer. On top of the transfer fee WA state also requires the FFL collect sales tax, it doesn't matter whether the gun is new or used. Ultimately it will end up being a massive tax hike on gun owners that most of us can't afford. This won't be a big deal to the majority of people who just want to buy a gun to protect their family. But the hobbyists and collectors who trade often will be crippled, and that's not acceptable.

If the goal is to create a safer society without infringing on the 2nd amendment, it's something everyone should pay for without unduly penalizing gun owners. If you object to this it may indicate you are more interested in punishing gun owners instead of making society safer. Policy rooted in hoplophobia will only give gun rights advocates more reasons to dig our heels in deeper.

In WA we do plenty to limit the perceived gun show loophole though. The WA Arms Collectors organization runs most of the gun shows here. Gun show rules limit firearm sales only to current members. To be a member you must pass a background check. Obviously private sales outside of gun shows aren't under the same rules. But in those cases people generally request to see the buyer's concealed weapons permit, because you must pass a background check to obtain one. It's not an obligation to verify the buyer, but it's something I would do if I was going to sell a weapon. I know that if one of the guns I sold ended up at a crime scene it would eventually lead the investigators to my door. But if I've gone through the effort to see the buyers conceal permit or WAC membership badge then I've done everything in my power to verify I am not arming a prohibited person.

Regardless, if a prohibited person wants a gun, they will be able to get one. There's no way around that, even though it's illegal for them to have one. This is why I can't support a new system that costs me more money and requires an FFL for face to face private sales. It's not going to stop bad people from obtaining weapons. It'll only make it harder and more expensive for law abiding citizens to purchase them.

A universal background check system that could work for me must have these goals:

[*]Make the gun transfer process safer and easier, not harder and more expensive.

[*]Needs to allow universal access to accommodate private sales, without requiring an FFL.

[*]Internet sales will no longer require FFLs because the universal background check system verifies the buyer's legal status

[*]No new revenue will be raised off private gun sales

I could only support a universal background check system that makes it easier to verify a person. I'm not confident our legislators are capable of creating a system that streamlines the process instead of complicating it. I haven't heard any ideas floated around that would resolve any of my reservations or appease my suggestions. Until I do, I will remain with the NRA against universal background checks.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Latest polls: 92% of Americans in favor of universal background checks.

Here's the problem I have with Universal background checks. They can't be enforced without registration. The current proposals do not require registration or any other owner information to be sent to the ATF after a successful check. They are going after the low hanging fruit which is par for the course. Once they get this in and realize it is not effective and now they need registration that will be the next stepping stone to attempt to get passed. Registration will lead to confiscation, you can argue this until you are blue in the face but it is the reason why only hunting rifles are getting registered in Canada, 75% of firearms are not getting registered.Plus universal background checks are unconstitutional, have at it. Today it is illegal for an individual to sell a firearm out of state. Private sales of firearms represent intrastate commerce not to be confused with interstate commerce. Given this, the Commerce Clause does not apply and it is out of the domain of the federal government. It is the responsibility of each state to regulate private sales.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Plus universal background checks are unconstitutional, have at it. Today it is illegal for an individual to sell a firearm out of state. Private sales of firearms represent intrastate commerce not to be confused with interstate commerce. Given this, the Commerce Clause does not apply and it is out of the domain of the federal government. It is the responsibility of each state to regulate private sales.

Stellar as always

No content as always, ignored.

 

[Skyryder222]

Wayne LaPierre today before the Senate:

You're never going to get criminals to go through background checks...all the law-abiding people will go through it...none of it makes any sense in the real world.

Again, LaPierre ignores the point that if law-abiding sellers of guns are required to run background checks, they will not participate in sales to felons, thus reducing the number of significant sales considerably.

What LaPierre won't say is the REAL reason the NRA is opposed to background checks- because the extremist element of this group truly believes that these checks will be used to seize their guns. This is the same segment of our population which believes that the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for private citizens to fight against a tyrannical government, and that any proposed gun restrictions are proof of the tyranny. LaPierre represents a lot of people who actually believe this crap, but he's prudent enough not to reveal it before the public. So he sticks with the "it won't have any effect" argument. In the case of high cap magazines, he may have a real point. In the case of background checks, he doesn't.

tim, private citizens are not going to run background checks regardless of the law. i have a gun and i am asking 500 dollars for it. you have 500 and want the gun. sold. case closed

There will be some like you who will choose to break the law. I don't think this will apply to the majority. Remember, polling suggests that 75% of gun-owners, as well as a strong majority of NRA members, support universal background checks. Based on those numbers, I think most will obey the law, whatever it is.

do i need to run a background check on my uncle who i am selling a .25-06 to or just people who i dont know

Everyone. Even if you give the gun to your daughter as a gift. Any transfer of a firearm requires a background check. You want to transfer a gun, you call an 800 number, give the name and Social Security number of the new owner, pay a small fee, and clear the name. If the new owner is a felon or mentally ill, you will be informed that the transfer is illegal.It's really pretty simple, actually. There is no rational reason that I can see to be opposed. There is one irrational reason- that you are afraid the government will have knowledge of what weapons you own.

Exactly!

 

[Skyryder222]

Re: the earlier discussed "people pull into your driveway late at night" scenario, and whether or not it's a situation to immediately draw your gun in.Why you don't just start shooting

Dude, this is an argument for gun control. No