***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)

[Rayderr]

I just don't get how someone can celebrate that a simple, limited background check bill went down.

I don't get it either. I don't want to read this whole thread, but I just don't understand any coherent opposition to the terms of this bill.

Essentially:

Democrats: Hey we want to pass a whole bunch of bills in the name of Sandy Hook, even though they wouldn't have had any effect on Sandy Hook and will do nothing but hinder law abiding citizens. But first we want you to pass this simple background check, and then we'll force through the other stuff.

Republicans: Wait, what? Hell no.

It's more like:

Democrats: Uh, we have no clue as to what the #### we want to do. Wait- let's pass a background check bill- no wait, let's water it down. No wait, let's water it down again. No wait, let's water it down again.

Republicans: THE UNITED NATIONS IS COMING!!! SHOOT TO KILL!!!

So I just imagined all those hearings while Diane Feinstein attempted to make certain guns illegal based on them looking scary?

She didn't get very far did she? Hence the "no clue" and "water down" statements.

Only reason why it didn't get further was because the dems started to see that it was endangering the background check, so they removed it but allowed her to pursue it seperately. But by that point, the Dems had showed their hand and the GOP acted accordingly.

You agreed with me on this earlier, so I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me now.

Who cares about Feinstein's proposals? Anything she submits is completely separate from the legislation that was rejected today.Your position is that rejecting the measure that was up for vote in the Senate today helps fight what you think Feinstein may introduce in the future?

The dems showed the path they wanted to go down when it comes to guns. Why would the GOP willingly take a step towards that destination?

 

[tommyGunZ]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................

As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety.

But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

 

[Christo]

I wonder how many anti-gun nuts are eagerly awaiting the next mass murder so they can jump up and down and say "haha! I told you so!"

That would be almost as idiotic as the gun nuts who profess sympathy immediately after every mass shooting yet then oppose any changes to prevent future tragedies.

How would the passage of this bill prevent future tragedies?

 

[Christo]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................

As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety.

But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I just don't get how someone can celebrate that a simple, limited background check bill went down.

I don't get it either. I don't want to read this whole thread, but I just don't understand any coherent opposition to the terms of this bill.

Essentially:

Democrats: Hey we want to pass a whole bunch of bills in the name of Sandy Hook, even though they wouldn't have had any effect on Sandy Hook and will do nothing but hinder law abiding citizens. But first we want you to pass this simple background check, and then we'll force through the other stuff.

Republicans: Wait, what? Hell no.

It's more like:

Democrats: Uh, we have no clue as to what the #### we want to do. Wait- let's pass a background check bill- no wait, let's water it down. No wait, let's water it down again. No wait, let's water it down again.

Republicans: THE UNITED NATIONS IS COMING!!! SHOOT TO KILL!!!

So I just imagined all those hearings while Diane Feinstein attempted to make certain guns illegal based on them looking scary?

She didn't get very far did she? Hence the "no clue" and "water down" statements.

Only reason why it didn't get further was because the dems started to see that it was endangering the background check, so they removed it but allowed her to pursue it seperately. But by that point, the Dems had showed their hand and the GOP acted accordingly.

You agreed with me on this earlier, so I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me now.

Who cares about Feinstein's proposals? Anything she submits is completely separate from the legislation that was rejected today.Your position is that rejecting the measure that was up for vote in the Senate today helps fight what you think Feinstein may introduce in the future?

The dems showed the path they wanted to go down when it comes to guns. Why would the GOP willingly take a step towards that destination?

So you're not in favor of passing legislation that you agree with on the notion that in the future, additional legislation you disagree with, that will be vetted and voted on separately, may be introduced, debated, discussed, and put up for a vote?That's insane.

 

[Christo]

And show your work.

 

[Rayderr]

I just don't get how someone can celebrate that a simple, limited background check bill went down.

I don't get it either. I don't want to read this whole thread, but I just don't understand any coherent opposition to the terms of this bill.

Essentially:

Democrats: Hey we want to pass a whole bunch of bills in the name of Sandy Hook, even though they wouldn't have had any effect on Sandy Hook and will do nothing but hinder law abiding citizens. But first we want you to pass this simple background check, and then we'll force through the other stuff.

Republicans: Wait, what? Hell no.

It's more like:

Democrats: Uh, we have no clue as to what the #### we want to do. Wait- let's pass a background check bill- no wait, let's water it down. No wait, let's water it down again. No wait, let's water it down again.

Republicans: THE UNITED NATIONS IS COMING!!! SHOOT TO KILL!!!

So I just imagined all those hearings while Diane Feinstein attempted to make certain guns illegal based on them looking scary?

She didn't get very far did she? Hence the "no clue" and "water down" statements.

Only reason why it didn't get further was because the dems started to see that it was endangering the background check, so they removed it but allowed her to pursue it seperately. But by that point, the Dems had showed their hand and the GOP acted accordingly.

You agreed with me on this earlier, so I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me now.

Who cares about Feinstein's proposals? Anything she submits is completely separate from the legislation that was rejected today.Your position is that rejecting the measure that was up for vote in the Senate today helps fight what you think Feinstein may introduce in the future?

The dems showed the path they wanted to go down when it comes to guns. Why would the GOP willingly take a step towards that destination?

So you're not in favor of passing legislation that you agree with on the notion that in the future, additional legislation you disagree with, that will be vetted and voted on separately, may be introduced, debated, discussed, and put up for a vote?That's insane.

I was in favor of the background checks. But let's be honest. The anti-gun crowd wasn't going to stop there.

 

[tommyGunZ]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................

As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety.

But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

It's your position that not a single gun death would be prevented by expanding background checks?

 

[Christo]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................

As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety.

But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

It's your position that not a single gun death would be prevented by expanding background checks?

I'm asking you to name one.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I was in favor of the background checks. But let's be honest. The anti-gun crowd wasn't going to stop there.

Lots of "anti-gun" folks would have stopped there. And since we saw how even common sense legislation didn't stand a chance today, why would you think far more restrictive measures would suddenly waltz through Congress?

 

[[icon]]

I wonder how many anti-gun nuts are eagerly awaiting the next mass murder so they can jump up and down and say "haha! I told you so!"

That would be almost as idiotic as the gun nuts who profess sympathy immediately after every mass shooting yet then oppose any changes to prevent future tragedies.

Because knee jerk overreactions that erode civil liberties while likely having minimal impact on the actual problem is preventing anything To be honest I wasn't really against background checks assuming it stopped at that. But for shtick purposes it's entertaining watching you guys squirm like it would have had any measurable impact on the problem.

 

[hammerva]

I wish people would stop using the "slippery scope" excuse for doing anything in this country. Yes this probably would lead to other things on gun control. But the idea that people armed guards at the entrance of schools with the end of that slope on the NRA side is a joke and typical "support my team" crap that is ruining this country.

 

[Christo]

I wish people would stop using the "slippery scope" excuse for doing anything in this country. Yes this probably would lead to other things on gun control. But the idea that people armed guards at the entrance of schools with the end of that slope on the NRA side is a joke and typical "support my team" crap that is ruining this country.

That damned slippery scope argument again!

 

[timschochet]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety. But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

It's your position that not a single gun death would be prevented by expanding background checks?

I'm asking you to name one.

He doesn't need to. I've explained over and over in this thread why universal background checks would have an impact on violent crime and save lives. If you're too lazy to look it up that's on you.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I wish people would stop using the "slippery scope" excuse for doing anything in this country. Yes this probably would lead to other things on gun control. But the idea that people armed guards at the entrance of schools with the end of that slope on the NRA side is a joke and typical "support my team" crap that is ruining this country.

Well that settles it.

 

[Christo]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety. But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

It's your position that not a single gun death would be prevented by expanding background checks?

I'm asking you to name one.

He doesn't need to.I've explained over and over in this thread why universal background checks would have an impact on violent crime and save lives. If you're too lazy to look it up that's on you.

 

[tommyGunZ]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................

As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety.

But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

It's your position that not a single gun death would be prevented by expanding background checks?

I'm asking you to name one.

That's silly. What I can do is direct you to studies that show how additional background checks in some states lead to fewer homicides.

Three studies have examined how state laws limiting access to guns for
DVRO respondents and domestic violence misdemeanants affect IPH (Vigdor and Mercy 2003, 2006; Zeoli and Webster 2010). Vigdor and Mercy examined the effects of state DVRO and domestic violence misdemeanant gun
restrictions on state-level IPH from 1982 to 1998 (2003), and again from 1982
to 2002 (2006). In both studies, DVRO laws were significantly associated with
reductions in IPH risk, both for IPHs committed with guns and total IPHs.
Further investigation uncovered that these reductions rested on the capacity
of states to support background checks on would-be gun purchasers (Vigdor
and Mercy 2003, 2006). This finding highlights the importance of ensuring
that systems for implementing these laws are in place and supported: the prohibition against purchasing a gun can be effective only if background checks
yield current, comprehensive, and accurate disqualifying information.
There was also a measurable difference in the effect of laws prohibiting
gun purchases compared to laws prohibiting possession only (Vigdor and
Mercy 2006). In states prohibiting purchase, total and gun IPH had an associated reduction of 10% to 12%; there was no measurable impact of possessiononly laws. Purchase may be the more effective prohibited action because the
restriction on possession relies on respondents to voluntarily surrender their
guns or law enforcement to collect guns from newly prohibited respondents
(Vigdor and Mercy 2006).
A later analysis of state domestic violence gun laws and IPH in 46 U.S. cities from 1979 to 2003 provides further evidence of the state DVRO laws’ impact (Zeoli and Webster 2010). The 46 cities were in 27 states, 15 of which have
DVRO gun prohibitions and 9 of which have domestic violence misdemeanant gun prohibitions. Cities in states with DVRO gun restrictions had 19%
fewer IPHs and 25% fewer IPHs committed with guns compared to cities
without those state laws (Zeoli and Webster 2010)

.

 

[timschochet]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety. But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

It's your position that not a single gun death would be prevented by expanding background checks?

I'm asking you to name one.

He doesn't need to.I've explained over and over in this thread why universal background checks would have an impact on violent crime and save lives. If you're too lazy to look it up that's on you.

Yep that's what I expected. Its your standard reply when you can't think of a witty retort. Might as well give me another.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I was in favor of the background checks. But let's be honest. The anti-gun crowd wasn't going to stop there.

Lots of "anti-gun" folks would have stopped there. And since we saw how even common sense legislation didn't stand a chance today, why would you think far more restrictive measures would suddenly waltz through Congress?

"common sense" - The buzzword to be applied absent of or in opposition to an empirical argument.

 

[tom22406]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................

As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I'm implying that once the next tragedy happens we will do this all over again.

 

[Christo]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................

As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety.

But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

It's your position that not a single gun death would be prevented by expanding background checks?

I'm asking you to name one.

That's silly. What I can do is direct you to studies that show how additional background checks in some states lead to fewer homicides.

>

Three studies have examined how state laws limiting access to guns for
DVRO respondents and domestic violence misdemeanants affect IPH (Vigdor and Mercy 2003, 2006; Zeoli and Webster 2010). Vigdor and Mercy examined the effects of state DVRO and domestic violence misdemeanant gun
restrictions on state-level IPH from 1982 to 1998 (2003), and again from 1982
to 2002 (2006). In both studies, DVRO laws were significantly associated with
reductions in IPH risk, both for IPHs committed with guns and total IPHs.
Further investigation uncovered that these reductions rested on the capacity
of states to support background checks on would-be gun purchasers (Vigdor
and Mercy 2003, 2006). This finding highlights the importance of ensuring
that systems for implementing these laws are in place and supported: the prohibition against purchasing a gun can be effective only if background checks
yield current, comprehensive, and accurate disqualifying information.
There was also a measurable difference in the effect of laws prohibiting
gun purchases compared to laws prohibiting possession only (Vigdor and
Mercy 2006). In states prohibiting purchase, total and gun IPH had an associated reduction of 10% to 12%; there was no measurable impact of possessiononly laws. Purchase may be the more effective prohibited action because the
restriction on possession relies on respondents to voluntarily surrender their
guns or law enforcement to collect guns from newly prohibited respondents
(Vigdor and Mercy 2006).
A later analysis of state domestic violence gun laws and IPH in 46 U.S. cities from 1979 to 2003 provides further evidence of the state DVRO laws’ impact (Zeoli and Webster 2010). The 46 cities were in 27 states, 15 of which have
DVRO gun prohibitions and 9 of which have domestic violence misdemeanant gun prohibitions. Cities in states with DVRO gun restrictions had 19%
fewer IPHs and 25% fewer IPHs committed with guns compared to cities
without those state laws (Zeoli and Webster 2010)

.

What do domestic violence studies have to do with Newtown types tragedies?

 

[timschochet]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................

As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I'm implying that once the next tragedy happens we will do this all over again.

So what? It won't make any difference. The politicians will still be too terrified of the NRA to do anything.

I am a fan of pluralism, so I really don't have too much complaint that this is the way the process works. In terms of what I wanted this time around, the results were unfortunate. But in general it's not a bad thing that there exists certain voters who will vote primarily on one issue, giving them far more impact on that issue than their numbers warrant. It makes our system work better, not worse.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Freedom wins

You gun grabbers managed to put more guns into more unskilled hands over the last few months than ever before. Don't be surprised when more stupid people do stupid things with guns that you drove them to buy.

Be proud of your accomplishments.

 

[Christo]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................

As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I'm implying that once the next tragedy happens we will do this all over again.

That makes sense.

 

[tom22406]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................

As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I'm implying that once the next tragedy happens we will do this all over again.

So what? It won't make any difference. The politicians will still be too terrified of the NRA to do anything.

I am a fan of pluralism, so I really don't have too much complaint that this is the way the process works. In terms of what I wanted this time around, the results were unfortunate. But in general it's not a bad thing that there exists certain voters who will vote primarily on one issue, giving them far more impact on that issue than their numbers warrant. It makes our system work better, not worse.

I said long ago this was about winning the house back at mid-terms and very little to do with "common sense" laws being passed.

The POTUS was pretty clear in his message today that it's up to the voters now to change this so we will see how well this works.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Think of all of the lives that could be saved if Universal Background Checks were passed to prevent criminals from purchasing weapons at gun shows:

Oakland, CA 27.3 gun homicides per 100k
Chicago, IL 16.4 gun homicides per 100k

Baltimore, MD 29.5 gun homicides per 100k
Philadelphia, PA 18.5 gun homicides per 100k

National Average: 3.2

Oh wait...6 states already require universal background checks on all firearm sales: CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI
+3 more states require background checks on all handgun sales: CT, MD, PA

My link

 

[greenroom]

I wonder how many anti-gun nuts are eagerly awaiting the next mass murder so they can jump up and down and say "haha! I told you so!"

That would be almost as idiotic as the gun nuts who profess sympathy immediately after every mass shooting yet then oppose any changes to prevent future tragedies.

How would the passage of this bill prevent future tragedies?

I will play since it would prevent someone from legally purchasing a gun if they are felons and/or have mental issues from a gun show. That would prevent them from shooting a gun that they legally purchased.

Know can you show how this would not prevent future tragedies.

Point is that we can make believe our point would prevent or not prevent the shootings. But hey the system is perfect, and we do not need to do anything. That has worked well for us. Or hey we can to the Ted Cruz idea and put more money into to the current system that has worked so well..

 

[eurotrashman]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety. But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

It's your position that not a single gun death would be prevented by expanding background checks?

I'm asking you to name one.

You are asking him to predict the future?

 

[Novice2]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety. But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

It's your position that not a single gun death would be prevented by expanding background checks?

I'm asking you to name one.

You are asking him to predict the future?

it's already been predicted by stating the bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

 

[tommyGunZ]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................

As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety.

But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

It's your position that not a single gun death would be prevented by expanding background checks?

I'm asking you to name one.

That's silly. What I can do is direct you to studies that show how additional background checks in some states lead to fewer homicides.

>

Three studies have examined how state laws limiting access to guns for
DVRO respondents and domestic violence misdemeanants affect IPH (Vigdor and Mercy 2003, 2006; Zeoli and Webster 2010). Vigdor and Mercy examined the effects of state DVRO and domestic violence misdemeanant gun
restrictions on state-level IPH from 1982 to 1998 (2003), and again from 1982
to 2002 (2006). In both studies, DVRO laws were significantly associated with
reductions in IPH risk, both for IPHs committed with guns and total IPHs.
Further investigation uncovered that these reductions rested on the capacity
of states to support background checks on would-be gun purchasers (Vigdor
and Mercy 2003, 2006). This finding highlights the importance of ensuring
that systems for implementing these laws are in place and supported: the prohibition against purchasing a gun can be effective only if background checks
yield current, comprehensive, and accurate disqualifying information.
There was also a measurable difference in the effect of laws prohibiting
gun purchases compared to laws prohibiting possession only (Vigdor and
Mercy 2006). In states prohibiting purchase, total and gun IPH had an associated reduction of 10% to 12%; there was no measurable impact of possessiononly laws. Purchase may be the more effective prohibited action because the
restriction on possession relies on respondents to voluntarily surrender their
guns or law enforcement to collect guns from newly prohibited respondents
(Vigdor and Mercy 2006).
A later analysis of state domestic violence gun laws and IPH in 46 U.S. cities from 1979 to 2003 provides further evidence of the state DVRO laws’ impact (Zeoli and Webster 2010). The 46 cities were in 27 states, 15 of which have
DVRO gun prohibitions and 9 of which have domestic violence misdemeanant gun prohibitions. Cities in states with DVRO gun restrictions had 19%
fewer IPHs and 25% fewer IPHs committed with guns compared to cities
without those state laws (Zeoli and Webster 2010)

.

What do domestic violence studies have to do with Newtown types tragedies?

Care to leave the goal posts in one spot?

 

[Christo]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety. But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

It's your position that not a single gun death would be prevented by expanding background checks?

I'm asking you to name one.

You are asking him to predict the future?

I'm asking him (now anyone) to name one of the tragedies we've had (Newtown/Columbine/Ft. Hood/Northern Illinois/Virginia Tech) where the perpetrator purchased his guns at a gun show where if background checks had been in effect the purchase would have been stopped.

 

[Christo]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................

As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety.

But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

It's your position that not a single gun death would be prevented by expanding background checks?

I'm asking you to name one.

That's silly. What I can do is direct you to studies that show how additional background checks in some states lead to fewer homicides.

<blockquote>

gun purchases compared to laws prohibiting possession only (Vigdor and
Mercy 2006). In states prohibiting purchase, total and gun IPH had an associated reduction of 10% to 12%; there was no measurable impact of possessiononly laws. Purchase may be the more effective prohibited action because the
restriction on possession relies on respondents to voluntarily surrender their
guns or law enforcement to collect guns from newly prohibited respondents
(Vigdor and Mercy 2006).
A later analysis of state domestic violence gun laws and IPH in 46 U.S. cities from 1979 to 2003 provides further evidence of the state DVRO laws’ impact (Zeoli and Webster 2010). The 46 cities were in 27 states, 15 of which have
DVRO gun prohibitions and 9 of which have domestic violence misdemeanant gun prohibitions. Cities in states with DVRO gun restrictions had 19%
fewer IPHs and 25% fewer IPHs committed with guns compared to cities
without those state laws (Zeoli and Webster 2010)
.

What do domestic violence studies have to do with Newtown types tragedies?

Care to leave the goal posts in one spot?

Perhaps you should read the posts you were responding to.

 

[Todd Andrews]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................

As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety.

But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

It's your position that not a single gun death would be prevented by expanding background checks?

I'm asking you to name one.

Name one that wont be prevented.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Republicans = Crazy KooKs get Guns!!1!

 

[ichris]

Hey you guys lost the debate. This is now a celebration of freedom thread.

 

[MaxThreshold]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety. But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

It's your position that not a single gun death would be prevented by expanding background checks?

I'm asking you to name one.

Name one that wont be prevented.

SandyHook? What do I win?

 

[Todd Andrews]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety. But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

It's your position that not a single gun death would be prevented by expanding background checks?

I'm asking you to name one.

Name one that wont be prevented.

SandyHook? What do I win?

Christo rules: show your work.

 

[MaxThreshold]

SandyHook?

What do I win?

Christo rules: show your work.

My work: Guns * Background Checks = 0 stoppage of Sandy Hook (from one of the leaders of your party, nonetheless).

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced her assault weapons ban amendment this morning, warning her Senate colleagues that universal background checks would not have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre

Again...What do I win?

 

[[icon]]

Think of all of the lives that could be saved if Universal Background Checks were passed to prevent criminals from purchasing weapons at gun shows:

Oakland, CA 27.3 gun homicides per 100k

Chicago, IL 16.4 gun homicides per 100k

Baltimore, MD 29.5 gun homicides per 100k

Philadelphia, PA 18.5 gun homicides per 100k

National Average: 3.2

Oh wait...6 states already require universal background checks on all firearm sales: CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI

+3 more states require background checks on all handgun sales: CT, MD, PA

My link

MAKING A DIFFERENCE

"But they'd be HIGHER without them"

 

[[icon]]

SandyHook?

What do I win?

Christo rules: show your work.

My work: Guns * Background Checks = 0 stoppage of Sandy Hook (from one of the leaders of your party, nonetheless).

>Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced her assault weapons ban amendment this morning, warning her Senate colleagues that universal background checks would not have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre

Again...What do I win?

Another 25,000 word treatise by Timmay talking around the subject by exposing his feelings on the socioeconomic repercussions of the repression of certain demographics... oh and something about israel.

 

[FootballDummy]

SandyHook?

What do I win?

Christo rules: show your work.

My work: Guns * Background Checks = 0 stoppage of Sandy Hook (from one of the leaders of your party, nonetheless).

>Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced her assault weapons ban amendment this morning, warning her Senate colleagues that universal background checks would not have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre

Again...What do I win?

The chance to be shot by someone with a mental illness. Yay!

 

[Christo]

SandyHook?

What do I win?

Christo rules: show your work.

My work: Guns * Background Checks = 0 stoppage of Sandy Hook (from one of the leaders of your party, nonetheless).

>Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced her assault weapons ban amendment this morning, warning her Senate colleagues that universal background checks would not have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre<

/span>

Again...What do I win?

The chance to be shot by someone with a mental illness. Yay!

How do background checks stop people with mental illnesses from getting guns?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

SandyHook?

What do I win?

Christo rules: show your work.

My work: Guns * Background Checks = 0 stoppage of Sandy Hook (from one of the leaders of your party, nonetheless).

>Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced her assault weapons ban amendment this morning, warning her Senate colleagues that universal background checks would not have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre

Again...What do I win?

 

[mad sweeney]

SandyHook?

What do I win?

Christo rules: show your work.

My work: Guns * Background Checks = 0 stoppage of Sandy Hook (from one of the leaders of your party, nonetheless).

>Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced her assault weapons ban amendment this morning, warning her Senate colleagues that universal background checks would not have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre<

/span>

Again...What do I win?



You're really something. Can't admit your own failings but still want to pile on others and pretend you're not the cowardly poster that you are.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You're really something. Can't admit your own failings but still want to pile on others and pretend you're not the cowardly poster that you are.

Out for a late evening trolling session?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

SandyHook?

What do I win?

Christo rules: show your work.

My work: Guns * Background Checks = 0 stoppage of Sandy Hook (from one of the leaders of your party, nonetheless).

>Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced her assault weapons ban amendment this morning, warning her Senate colleagues that universal background checks would not have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre<

/span>

Again...What do I win?

The chance to be shot by someone with a mental illness. Yay!

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the federal database. Seventeen states have submitted fewer than ten mental health records, and four states have not submitted any mental records at all.

44 states have submitted fewer than 10 records to the controlled substance file in the NICS Index, and 33 have not submitted any records at all. Even though federal regulations and policy establish that a failed drug test, single drug-related arrest, or admission of drug use within the past year temporarily disqualify a person from possessing a gun.

52 of the 61 agencies for which the FBI keeps relevant data have reported no mental health records to NICS. The vast majority of federal records were submitted the Department of Veterans Affairs.

 

[jwp]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

No he's implying this will shut up the whack job anti-gunners until the next tragedy at which point they can use the event to politicize their agenda.

A whack job calling out others as whack jobs. Ironic.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

another no content poster added to ignore

 

[tommyboy]

I wonder how many anti-gun nuts are eagerly awaiting the next mass murder so they can jump up and down and say "haha! I told you so!"

That would be almost as idiotic as the gun nuts who profess sympathy immediately after every mass shooting yet then oppose any changes to prevent future tragedies.

Nothing in the bill would have prevented previous or future tragedies

 

[timschochet]

It is absolutely correct that this bill would not likely have prevented any mass shooting tragedies. In fact, if you go back to my very first post in this long long thread, I wrote that none of the gun control measures being considered would have prevented Newtown. Newtown served to focus attention on an issue that was well worth discussing, but nothing being proposed would have stopped it.

That being said, I strongly believe that universal background checks would decrease gun violence in general in this country, and perhaps significantly. I have made this argument several times in this thread, but for those who have missed it, here it is again:

First off, we have no idea how many private purchases and transfers of guns, which currently do not require a background check, are illegal sales (meaning the purchaser is either a convicted felon or mentally ill). Law enforcement suspects that a large percentage of bad guys acquire guns in this fashion, but we don't know (and never will) what that percentage is. Right now, for an illegal sale to happen, only one party needs to break the law: the buyer. The buyer simply does not inform the seller that he, the buyer, is a convicted felon. The seller, under no obligation to make a background check, doesn't know any better. He simply sells his gun for cash and that is the end of the transaction. And this happens all the time at gun shows.

But if we require universal background checks, in order for an illegal sale to happen, TWO parties will need to break the law: both the buyer AND the seller. Even if the buyer lies about who he is; the seller will have to either neglect to run the background check, or be willing to sell his weapon to a felon anyhow. I believe that most gun sellers are honest and do not deliberately want to sell their weapons to felons or crazy people. So they won't. Which means it will be that much more difficult for the bad guys to acquire guns. Impossible? No. But more difficult, yes. And that is the key to effective laws.

So if those opposed to this bill tell you that it failed because it would have been ineffective, they are wrong. It would have been quite effective. This bill failed because the NRA successfully convinced it's supporters, who successfully convinced their Senators, that this bill was the first step in a concerted government effort to seize all private firearms.