***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (7 Viewers)

[Mello]

National database? What could ever go wrong with that.Hope the newspaper gets sued out of existence by those that have been shown as soft targets.

New York newspaper faces backlash after publishing map of gun permit holdersA local New York newspaper is drawing the ire of its readers after publishing an interactive map that shows the names and addresses of thousands of residents who have handgun permits. The online map was published by The Journal News along with an article under the headline: "The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood." The newspaper obtained, and then published, the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties through a Freedom of Information Act request. "Do you fools realize that you also made a map for criminals to use to find homes to rob that have no guns in them to protect themselves?" one reader wrote on Facebook. "You have just destroyed the privacy of these law abiding citizens and by releasing this list, you have equated them to that of sex offenders and murders," wrote another. "These are law abiding gun owners, they are no danger to anyone except for criminals. And with this information you have made them targets for both criminals and anti gun lobbyist who i am sure are going to treat them like monsters."

"Oh no, they found out I'm a soft target" said no non-gun owner ever. They can tell everyone I don't have a gun. I have a dog and a security system. Seems to do just the trick. If they were that worried about being a soft target, wouldn't they buy a gun and become a hard target? Don't speak for us "soft targets."

You stop speaking for us "soft targets". I choose not to own a gun because I personally think it's more dangerous to have one around than not. Releasing lists like this do up the danger for not owning a gun making it more likely for me to choose to own a gun.

 

[Henry Ford]

National database? What could ever go wrong with that.Hope the newspaper gets sued out of existence by those that have been shown as soft targets.

New York newspaper faces backlash after publishing map of gun permit holdersA local New York newspaper is drawing the ire of its readers after publishing an interactive map that shows the names and addresses of thousands of residents who have handgun permits. The online map was published by The Journal News along with an article under the headline: "The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood." The newspaper obtained, and then published, the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties through a Freedom of Information Act request. "Do you fools realize that you also made a map for criminals to use to find homes to rob that have no guns in them to protect themselves?" one reader wrote on Facebook. "You have just destroyed the privacy of these law abiding citizens and by releasing this list, you have equated them to that of sex offenders and murders," wrote another. "These are law abiding gun owners, they are no danger to anyone except for criminals. And with this information you have made them targets for both criminals and anti gun lobbyist who i am sure are going to treat them like monsters."

"Oh no, they found out I'm a soft target" said no non-gun owner ever. They can tell everyone I don't have a gun. I have a dog and a security system. Seems to do just the trick. If they were that worried about being a soft target, wouldn't they buy a gun and become a hard target? Don't speak for us "soft targets."

Not everyone who doesn't have a gun thinks exactly like you. Some prefer to let people think they may have a gun.

 

[MaxThreshold]

How many of you apes went out back and "shot guns" after Christmas dinner?

How many more freedoms did you decide to give up after Christmas dinner because you're scared like a little girl?

Setting aside your lack of judgment, what's even worse is you guys have a terrible sense of humor. This was really pretty funny to you?

Well...how many? We're waiting. You can come out from under your desk now, chicken little.

 

[timschochet]

This latest guy that killed the fireman used a Bushmaster, and he was a convicted felon. So how did he get the gun? We don't know at this point, but isn't it at least a reasonable possibility that he purchased ion a private sale that was never recorded? That's how a lot of these felons get their guns. But let's not close that loophole!

 

[derek245583]

How many of you apes went out back and "shot guns" after Christmas dinner?

How many more freedoms did you decide to give up after Christmas dinner because you're scared like a little girl?

Setting aside your lack of judgment, what's even worse is you guys have a terrible sense of humor. This was really pretty funny to you?

QuiteMy cousin and I were discussing our guns after Christmas dinner and he said he just sold his ACOG scope for a red dot site. He has a short barrel on his AR-15 and its personally designed for in house battle. He has armor piercing rounds and all sorts of options on his other guns. He has his license for the high cap magazines and has a silencer on the end of 2 of his guns.I dont expect him to ever haul off and kill a school full of children or a mall full of people. I also dont expect him to ever suffer a catostrophic break in with his family getting murdered. His guns are locked away with quick access in a finger print safe.He is protecting himself from the world. That is well within his right. If it wasnt so cold last night we probably would have headed out back and tested things out.So ya, its funny cause you act like we were sitting at the table with our guns on our belts and everytime someone told a good joke someone fired one off up in the air.

 

[derek245583]

This latest guy that killed the fireman used a Bushmaster, and he was a convicted felon. So how did he get the gun? We don't know at this point, but isn't it at least a reasonable possibility that he purchased ion a private sale that was never recorded? That's how a lot of these felons get their guns. But let's not close that loophole!

Isnt it already illegal to sell a gun to a convicted felon?

 

[timschochet]

This latest guy that killed the fireman used a Bushmaster, and he was a convicted felon. So how did he get the gun? We don't know at this point, but isn't it at least a reasonable possibility that he purchased ion a private sale that was never recorded? That's how a lot of these felons get their guns. But let's not close that loophole!

Isnt it already illegal to sell a gun to a convicted felon?

Yep. But with the private sales loophole, the seller needn't ask, and the buyer needn't tell. And no check is done to make sure. That's why some of us keep trying to eliminate this loophole.

 

[derek245583]

This latest guy that killed the fireman used a Bushmaster, and he was a convicted felon. So how did he get the gun? We don't know at this point, but isn't it at least a reasonable possibility that he purchased ion a private sale that was never recorded? That's how a lot of these felons get their guns. But let's not close that loophole!

Isnt it already illegal to sell a gun to a convicted felon?

Yep. But with the private sales loophole, the seller needn't ask, and the buyer needn't tell. And no check is done to make sure. That's why some of us keep trying to eliminate this loophole.

How?

 

[timschochet]

This latest guy that killed the fireman used a Bushmaster, and he was a convicted felon. So how did he get the gun? We don't know at this point, but isn't it at least a reasonable possibility that he purchased ion a private sale that was never recorded? That's how a lot of these felons get their guns. But let's not close that loophole!

Isnt it already illegal to sell a gun to a convicted felon?

Yep. But with the private sales loophole, the seller needn't ask, and the buyer needn't tell. And no check is done to make sure. That's why some of us keep trying to eliminate this loophole.

How?

By making it a federal law that EVERY sale or transfer of a firearm has to be recorded, including private sales, and that the purchaser's name be checked on a national database to make sure the buyer is not a felon.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What's the argument in favor of keeping the "gun show loophole" around? Is it just convenience, or is there some other reason why people oppose closing this?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

How many of you apes went out back and "shot guns" after Christmas dinner?

How many more freedoms did you decide to give up after Christmas dinner because you're scared like a little girl?

says the guy who owns a gun for protection I dont carry or own a gun ,and i dont worry about someone randomly picking my house out for a home invasion. i dont worry about the government coming after my things ,or my rights. I dont brag about having a gun within my reach at all times ''just in case''.Those are the actions of a person who`s scared of the big bad world

 

[5 digit know nothing]

He included cites in his post. Should he come to your house with a whiteboard and draw you a picture?

Boom.http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/

Proving Cause and Effect

The National Academies report noted that drawing a causal inference is "always complicated and, in the behavioral and social sciences, fraught with uncertainty."

Charles F. Wellford, chair of the committees that authored the report and a professor of criminology at the University of Maryland, says it’s the causal relationship that people are interested in when the question of guns and crime is broached. "While scientists can make the distinction between association and causation, in the real world the interest is in the latter," Wellford tells FactCheck.org, noting that this is his opinion, not the panel’s. "Work that knowingly reports findings that do not meet a causal test knowing they will be used as if they do can only produce confusion especially in such contentious issues."

The report said that "case-control studies" (the urban-area-to-urban-area type of comparisons) "show that violence is positively associated with firearms ownership." What the National Academies calls "ecological studies" (those comparing large areas, such as countries) "provide contradictory evidence on violence and firearms." But neither have shown a causal relationship. Both studies fail to address the multiple factors involved in the decision to buy a gun – owning a gun is not a random decision, said the report. And data on gun ownership may be insufficient (such numbers are based on surveys). It also faulted ecological studies that look at large geographic areas, saying, "there is no way of knowing whether the homicides or suicides occurred in the same areas in which the firearms are owned."

In comparing the United States to industrialized democracies, the Academies says data show the U.S. has the highest rate of homicide and firearm-related homicide. But this also raises a chicken-and-egg question. "A high level of violence may be a cause of a high level of firearms availability instead of the other way around."

So what you are saying is that data is inconclusive. So this whole, arm everyone thing has as much backing as the de-arm everyone thing. So we are back at square one and you don't think anything needs to be done on gun control?

Those are two different arguments.The argument you replied to was the "ban guns since, more guns = more murders"

The argument you are trying to pigeon hole via the lack of causation refuting that more guns does not equal more murders, is the "armed civilians/guards prevents massacre events"

The second argument represents a tiny subset of the first argument's data points. HTH

 

[Cookiemonster]

What's the argument in favor of keeping the "gun show loophole" around? Is it just convenience, or is there some other reason why people oppose closing this?

"Gun show loophole" is really just private, face to face sales. Many people don't want the feds to have blanket registration because history has shown that oppressive governments will use those registrations for confiscation. Not saying our government is on the path of Nazi Germany or Spain, but we're not far from being England or Australia. My answer to that would be to make an informal database available for private sellers to call, visit or check online to assure that the buyer is legal to own a gun and a bill of sale required to follow the firearm. Anybody found with a firearm that is not legally allowed to have one would have to provide the bill of sale or face stiffer penalty for possession. I keep trying to come up with solutions that would not increase cost to government or private citizens. Looks like I made it to this thread about 4000 replies too late, but I've been spending most of my time on the gun forums lately instead.

 

[derek245583]

What's the argument in favor of keeping the "gun show loophole" around? Is it just convenience, or is there some other reason why people oppose closing this?

Not sure there is one...its more of a "how do we do it?"..I think

 

[Mello]

How many of you apes went out back and "shot guns" after Christmas dinner?

How many more freedoms did you decide to give up after Christmas dinner because you're scared like a little girl?

says the guy who owns a gun for protection I dont carry or own a gun ,and i dont worry about someone randomly picking my house out for a home invasion. i dont worry about the government coming after my things ,or my rights. I dont brag about having a gun within my reach at all times ''just in case''.Those are the actions of a person who`s scared of the big bad world

As long as you are not trying to get the laws changed to make it tougher for people to own guns, I would agree with you. If you are though, that's an act of fear far greater that the gun owners'. Instead of just making a personal decision, you are trying to impose your views on everyone else.

 

[Cookiemonster]

This latest guy that killed the fireman used a Bushmaster, and he was a convicted felon. So how did he get the gun? We don't know at this point, but isn't it at least a reasonable possibility that he purchased ion a private sale that was never recorded? That's how a lot of these felons get their guns. But let's not close that loophole!

A long, but good read here.Heroin has been illegal in this country (and most) for a long time. How is it that it keeps finding plenty of suppliers and buyers? No matter how much we regulate, it will still exist. It will only make outlaws of otherwise law-abiding citizens, or the criminals will be the only ones with them. That makes everybody feel better?

 

[Cookiemonster]

So glad a certified nut witha felony in his past can gets bushmaster and lay a trap for volunteer first responders. Keep up the good work NRA. Really good work

Maybe the most ignorant, dumbest post evah. Congrats.

The fact that you don't get the pint that the NRAs advicacy for lenient after market sales let this guy get this gun shows more about your ignorant response than my point. But then again not much the NRA lobbies for makes good sense

Like, protecting the 2nd Amendment? How about the 1st (speech and press)? 4th (search and seizure)? 5th Amendment (due process, self-incrimination, eminent domain)? 8th (cruel and unusual punishment)? You realize when the other rights of the people begin to be taken away, it's because the people didn't have the balls or ability to put their foot down? The 1st and 2nd are the people's tools to prevent the rest of the dominoes from falling.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

I now just check this thread to read Tims posts.

He never fails to impress me with the lack of actual knowledge, yet he somehow constructs sentence after sentence as if he's convinced himself that he actually knows the subject matter.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Can someone please explain why law abiding citizens meed automatic weapons?

 

[Henry Ford]

This latest guy that killed the fireman used a Bushmaster, and he was a convicted felon. So how did he get the gun? We don't know at this point, but isn't it at least a reasonable possibility that he purchased ion a private sale that was never recorded? That's how a lot of these felons get their guns. But let's not close that loophole!

A long, but good read here.Heroin has been illegal in this country (and most) for a long time. How is it that it keeps finding plenty of suppliers and buyers? No matter how much we regulate, it will still exist. It will only make outlaws of otherwise law-abiding citizens, or the criminals will be the only ones with them. That makes everybody feel better?

No, but the lack of availability on the open market keeps the impulse first-time user from using heroin, at least that's how the story goes. The idea is, if you don't know the criminal underbelly, you can't get heroin. Yes, I agree that's not working on a macro level - and that's a world-wide phenomenon - but I think most people believe that it's saved a lot of lives. It's also created a pretty messed-up criminal underbelly all its own, and during the periods that heroin is in vogue and easy to get, it's an absolute nightmare.I think that on some level, we all agree that on all of these issues the only way to make heroin, or guns, or anything else for that matter a non-issue is to deal with the demand side instead of the supply side. But without being able to handle all of the societal forces that create demand, supply-side is something that has to be tackled on at least some level.

 

[Mello]

This latest guy that killed the fireman used a Bushmaster, and he was a convicted felon. So how did he get the gun? We don't know at this point, but isn't it at least a reasonable possibility that he purchased ion a private sale that was never recorded? That's how a lot of these felons get their guns. But let's not close that loophole!

A long, but good read here.Heroin has been illegal in this country (and most) for a long time. How is it that it keeps finding plenty of suppliers and buyers? No matter how much we regulate, it will still exist. It will only make outlaws of otherwise law-abiding citizens, or the criminals will be the only ones with them. That makes everybody feel better?

No, but the lack of availability on the open market keeps the impulse first-time user from using heroin, at least that's how the story goes. The idea is, if you don't know the criminal underbelly, you can't get heroin. Yes, I agree that's not working on a macro level - and that's a world-wide phenomenon - but I think most people believe that it's saved a lot of lives. It's also created a pretty messed-up criminal underbelly all its own, and during the periods that heroin is in vogue and easy to get, it's an absolute nightmare.I think that on some level, we all agree that on all of these issues the only way to make heroin, or guns, or anything else for that matter a non-issue is to deal with the demand side instead of the supply side. But without being able to handle all of the societal forces that create demand, supply-side is something that has to be tackled on at least some level.

No it doesn't because the laws, enforcement, and criminal network that is created harms far more people than the actual harm caused by the drug itself if it was available legally. Now this wouldn't be as big of an issue with additional gun laws because we've already created a vast black market with our current laws, so adding more would just add more criminals and get more people involved in the black market. It would still, IMO, cause more harm to more people than good.Edit: IMO, for societal change to occur, the problems have to be out in the open for everyone to see.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Exactly what I said when I was "making myself look stupid."

lol, no.You were trying to "show" that gun ownership rates were uncorrelated or negatively correlated with murders. All your link said is that we don't know why gun ownership trends with murders. It could be that more guns gets you more murders or more murders gets you more guns. Either way, it's still the opposite of what you were trying to say before.

You just made yourself look stupid again.

You have a reading problem.

What the National Academies calls "ecological studies" (those comparing large areas, such as countries) "provide contradictory evidence on violence and firearms."

Exactly what I said when I was "making myself look stupid."

UK Homicide rate 1960 through 2010:

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9899/ukhomicides.png

Of course this is not showing just gun-related homicides because that would be biased.

Handguns in the US account for about 70% of all gun-related homicides.

UK bans handguns in 1997, then sees a 20% surge in homicides.

Russia has nearly triple the homicide rate of the US (11.5 vs. 4.8)

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Russia is 12,750,000

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000

The homicide rate in Brazil had been steadily declining, but has bounced back up from 2006 onwards and is above 25 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Brazil is 14,800,0001 to 17,600,0002

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Switzerland is 3,400,000

Switzerland has a population of 7,907,000

The homicide rate in Switzerland is 0.7 per 100k

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Canada is 9,950,000 (pop: 34,482,779) (intentional homicide rate: 1.6)

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Italy is 7,000,000 (pop: 60,626,442) (intentional homicide rate: 0.9)

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Norway is 1,320,000 (pop: 4,952,000) (intentional homicide rate: 0.6)

You are too stubborn to admit your "Harvard Lit Review" holds no water, so you resort to calling people stupid. Can't argue with stupid.

 

[Cookiemonster]

This latest guy that killed the fireman used a Bushmaster, and he was a convicted felon. So how did he get the gun? We don't know at this point, but isn't it at least a reasonable possibility that he purchased ion a private sale that was never recorded? That's how a lot of these felons get their guns. But let's not close that loophole!

A long, but good read here.Heroin has been illegal in this country (and most) for a long time. How is it that it keeps finding plenty of suppliers and buyers? No matter how much we regulate, it will still exist. It will only make outlaws of otherwise law-abiding citizens, or the criminals will be the only ones with them. That makes everybody feel better?

No, but the lack of availability on the open market keeps the impulse first-time user from using heroin, at least that's how the story goes. The idea is, if you don't know the criminal underbelly, you can't get heroin. Yes, I agree that's not working on a macro level - and that's a world-wide phenomenon - but I think most people believe that it's saved a lot of lives. It's also created a pretty messed-up criminal underbelly all its own, and during the periods that heroin is in vogue and easy to get, it's an absolute nightmare.I think that on some level, we all agree that on all of these issues the only way to make heroin, or guns, or anything else for that matter a non-issue is to deal with the demand side instead of the supply side. But without being able to handle all of the societal forces that create demand, supply-side is something that has to be tackled on at least some level.

So how do you curb the demand side for guns? When I see our President's kids and politician's kids going to a private school with 11 armed guards as well as the SS protection for the little Obamas, I wonder why it's good for them but not for us? I understand the celebrity and political power makes a better target of someone, but just because their odds are higher of being a target doesn't make it OK for one side to be protected by firearms and not the other. I love that Feinstein is so opposed to gun rights, but has a concealed carry permit herself and armed security everywhere she goes. Maybe they know something we don't?

 

[tom22406]

Heard some buzz on this story a few minutes ago and got a good laugh.

David Gregory under investigation by D.C. police after Meet the Press incident

"Meet the Press" host David Gregory is under investigation by Washington D.C. police after he brandished what appeared to be a 30-round magazine during Sunday morning's program, according to various published reports. District of Columbia laws prohibit the possession of a large-capacity ammunition device that holds more than 10 rounds. Police told CNN they were still trying to determine whether Gregory was holding a prop or a real magazine

 

[derek245583]

This latest guy that killed the fireman used a Bushmaster, and he was a convicted felon. So how did he get the gun? We don't know at this point, but isn't it at least a reasonable possibility that he purchased ion a private sale that was never recorded? That's how a lot of these felons get their guns. But let's not close that loophole!

A long, but good read here.Heroin has been illegal in this country (and most) for a long time. How is it that it keeps finding plenty of suppliers and buyers? No matter how much we regulate, it will still exist. It will only make outlaws of otherwise law-abiding citizens, or the criminals will be the only ones with them. That makes everybody feel better?

No, but the lack of availability on the open market keeps the impulse first-time user from using heroin, at least that's how the story goes. The idea is, if you don't know the criminal underbelly, you can't get heroin. Yes, I agree that's not working on a macro level - and that's a world-wide phenomenon - but I think most people believe that it's saved a lot of lives. It's also created a pretty messed-up criminal underbelly all its own, and during the periods that heroin is in vogue and easy to get, it's an absolute nightmare.I think that on some level, we all agree that on all of these issues the only way to make heroin, or guns, or anything else for that matter a non-issue is to deal with the demand side instead of the supply side. But without being able to handle all of the societal forces that create demand, supply-side is something that has to be tackled on at least some level.

But wouldnt convicted felons be pretty knowledgeable about said underbelly?

 

[Henry Ford]

This latest guy that killed the fireman used a Bushmaster, and he was a convicted felon. So how did he get the gun? We don't know at this point, but isn't it at least a reasonable possibility that he purchased ion a private sale that was never recorded? That's how a lot of these felons get their guns. But let's not close that loophole!

A long, but good read here.Heroin has been illegal in this country (and most) for a long time. How is it that it keeps finding plenty of suppliers and buyers? No matter how much we regulate, it will still exist. It will only make outlaws of otherwise law-abiding citizens, or the criminals will be the only ones with them. That makes everybody feel better?

No, but the lack of availability on the open market keeps the impulse first-time user from using heroin, at least that's how the story goes. The idea is, if you don't know the criminal underbelly, you can't get heroin. Yes, I agree that's not working on a macro level - and that's a world-wide phenomenon - but I think most people believe that it's saved a lot of lives. It's also created a pretty messed-up criminal underbelly all its own, and during the periods that heroin is in vogue and easy to get, it's an absolute nightmare.I think that on some level, we all agree that on all of these issues the only way to make heroin, or guns, or anything else for that matter a non-issue is to deal with the demand side instead of the supply side. But without being able to handle all of the societal forces that create demand, supply-side is something that has to be tackled on at least some level.

But wouldnt convicted felons be pretty knowledgeable about said underbelly?

Depends on the felon, but likely moreso than your average citizen.

 

[kentric]

This latest guy that killed the fireman used a Bushmaster, and he was a convicted felon. So how did he get the gun? We don't know at this point, but isn't it at least a reasonable possibility that he purchased ion a private sale that was never recorded? That's how a lot of these felons get their guns. But let's not close that loophole!

A long, but good read here.Heroin has been illegal in this country (and most) for a long time. How is it that it keeps finding plenty of suppliers and buyers? No matter how much we regulate, it will still exist. It will only make outlaws of otherwise law-abiding citizens, or the criminals will be the only ones with them. That makes everybody feel better?

No, but the lack of availability on the open market keeps the impulse first-time user from using heroin, at least that's how the story goes. The idea is, if you don't know the criminal underbelly, you can't get heroin. Yes, I agree that's not working on a macro level - and that's a world-wide phenomenon - but I think most people believe that it's saved a lot of lives. It's also created a pretty messed-up criminal underbelly all its own, and during the periods that heroin is in vogue and easy to get, it's an absolute nightmare.I think that on some level, we all agree that on all of these issues the only way to make heroin, or guns, or anything else for that matter a non-issue is to deal with the demand side instead of the supply side. But without being able to handle all of the societal forces that create demand, supply-side is something that has to be tackled on at least some level.

+1

 

[kentric]

This latest guy that killed the fireman used a Bushmaster, and he was a convicted felon. So how did he get the gun? We don't know at this point, but isn't it at least a reasonable possibility that he purchased ion a private sale that was never recorded? That's how a lot of these felons get their guns. But let's not close that loophole!

A long, but good read here.Heroin has been illegal in this country (and most) for a long time. How is it that it keeps finding plenty of suppliers and buyers? No matter how much we regulate, it will still exist. It will only make outlaws of otherwise law-abiding citizens, or the criminals will be the only ones with them. That makes everybody feel better?

No, but the lack of availability on the open market keeps the impulse first-time user from using heroin, at least that's how the story goes. The idea is, if you don't know the criminal underbelly, you can't get heroin. Yes, I agree that's not working on a macro level - and that's a world-wide phenomenon - but I think most people believe that it's saved a lot of lives. It's also created a pretty messed-up criminal underbelly all its own, and during the periods that heroin is in vogue and easy to get, it's an absolute nightmare.I think that on some level, we all agree that on all of these issues the only way to make heroin, or guns, or anything else for that matter a non-issue is to deal with the demand side instead of the supply side. But without being able to handle all of the societal forces that create demand, supply-side is something that has to be tackled on at least some level.

No it doesn't because the laws, enforcement, and criminal network that is created harms far more people than the actual harm caused by the drug itself if it was available legally. Now this wouldn't be as big of an issue with additional gun laws because we've already created a vast black market with our current laws, so adding more would just add more criminals and get more people involved in the black market. It would still, IMO, cause more harm to more people than good.Edit: IMO, for societal change to occur, the problems have to be out in the open for everyone to see.

How would adding more laws create more criminals? While there would still be a large supply of "illegal" weapons available immediately after the enactment of a law prohibiting certain weapons, if you banned all semis, all law abiding citizens would turn in their weapons and would not re-sell. With this, the supply would decline substantially.

 

[Henry Ford]

This latest guy that killed the fireman used a Bushmaster, and he was a convicted felon. So how did he get the gun? We don't know at this point, but isn't it at least a reasonable possibility that he purchased ion a private sale that was never recorded? That's how a lot of these felons get their guns. But let's not close that loophole!

A long, but good read here.Heroin has been illegal in this country (and most) for a long time. How is it that it keeps finding plenty of suppliers and buyers? No matter how much we regulate, it will still exist. It will only make outlaws of otherwise law-abiding citizens, or the criminals will be the only ones with them. That makes everybody feel better?

No, but the lack of availability on the open market keeps the impulse first-time user from using heroin, at least that's how the story goes. The idea is, if you don't know the criminal underbelly, you can't get heroin. Yes, I agree that's not working on a macro level - and that's a world-wide phenomenon - but I think most people believe that it's saved a lot of lives. It's also created a pretty messed-up criminal underbelly all its own, and during the periods that heroin is in vogue and easy to get, it's an absolute nightmare.I think that on some level, we all agree that on all of these issues the only way to make heroin, or guns, or anything else for that matter a non-issue is to deal with the demand side instead of the supply side. But without being able to handle all of the societal forces that create demand, supply-side is something that has to be tackled on at least some level.

No it doesn't because the laws, enforcement, and criminal network that is created harms far more people than the actual harm caused by the drug itself if it was available legally. Now this wouldn't be as big of an issue with additional gun laws because we've already created a vast black market with our current laws, so adding more would just add more criminals and get more people involved in the black market. It would still, IMO, cause more harm to more people than good.Edit: IMO, for societal change to occur, the problems have to be out in the open for everyone to see.

Do you believe that all drugs should be decriminalized and unregulated?

 

[Cookiemonster]

This latest guy that killed the fireman used a Bushmaster, and he was a convicted felon. So how did he get the gun? We don't know at this point, but isn't it at least a reasonable possibility that he purchased ion a private sale that was never recorded? That's how a lot of these felons get their guns. But let's not close that loophole!

A long, but good read here.Heroin has been illegal in this country (and most) for a long time. How is it that it keeps finding plenty of suppliers and buyers? No matter how much we regulate, it will still exist. It will only make outlaws of otherwise law-abiding citizens, or the criminals will be the only ones with them. That makes everybody feel better?

No, but the lack of availability on the open market keeps the impulse first-time user from using heroin, at least that's how the story goes. The idea is, if you don't know the criminal underbelly, you can't get heroin. Yes, I agree that's not working on a macro level - and that's a world-wide phenomenon - but I think most people believe that it's saved a lot of lives. It's also created a pretty messed-up criminal underbelly all its own, and during the periods that heroin is in vogue and easy to get, it's an absolute nightmare.I think that on some level, we all agree that on all of these issues the only way to make heroin, or guns, or anything else for that matter a non-issue is to deal with the demand side instead of the supply side. But without being able to handle all of the societal forces that create demand, supply-side is something that has to be tackled on at least some level.

No it doesn't because the laws, enforcement, and criminal network that is created harms far more people than the actual harm caused by the drug itself if it was available legally. Now this wouldn't be as big of an issue with additional gun laws because we've already created a vast black market with our current laws, so adding more would just add more criminals and get more people involved in the black market. It would still, IMO, cause more harm to more people than good.Edit: IMO, for societal change to occur, the problems have to be out in the open for everyone to see.

How would adding more laws create more criminals? While there would still be a large supply of "illegal" weapons available immediately after the enactment of a law prohibiting certain weapons, if you banned all semis, all law abiding citizens would turn in their weapons and would not re-sell. With this, the supply would decline substantially.

I would be one. I am (aside from occasionally doing 5-10 over the speed limit) a very lawful man. If I were ordered to turn in all of my guns, I would choose to become an outlaw. If you think turn-ins and confiscation is the answer, see the article I linked a few posts up.

 

[Henry Ford]

This latest guy that killed the fireman used a Bushmaster, and he was a convicted felon. So how did he get the gun? We don't know at this point, but isn't it at least a reasonable possibility that he purchased ion a private sale that was never recorded? That's how a lot of these felons get their guns. But let's not close that loophole!

A long, but good read here.Heroin has been illegal in this country (and most) for a long time. How is it that it keeps finding plenty of suppliers and buyers? No matter how much we regulate, it will still exist. It will only make outlaws of otherwise law-abiding citizens, or the criminals will be the only ones with them. That makes everybody feel better?

No, but the lack of availability on the open market keeps the impulse first-time user from using heroin, at least that's how the story goes. The idea is, if you don't know the criminal underbelly, you can't get heroin. Yes, I agree that's not working on a macro level - and that's a world-wide phenomenon - but I think most people believe that it's saved a lot of lives. It's also created a pretty messed-up criminal underbelly all its own, and during the periods that heroin is in vogue and easy to get, it's an absolute nightmare.I think that on some level, we all agree that on all of these issues the only way to make heroin, or guns, or anything else for that matter a non-issue is to deal with the demand side instead of the supply side. But without being able to handle all of the societal forces that create demand, supply-side is something that has to be tackled on at least some level.

So how do you curb the demand side for guns? When I see our President's kids and politician's kids going to a private school with 11 armed guards as well as the SS protection for the little Obamas, I wonder why it's good for them but not for us? I understand the celebrity and political power makes a better target of someone, but just because their odds are higher of being a target doesn't make it OK for one side to be protected by firearms and not the other. I love that Feinstein is so opposed to gun rights, but has a concealed carry permit herself and armed security everywhere she goes. Maybe they know something we don't?

Well, that's the thing. You can't completely curb the demand side for guns in this country immediately. It's a cultural phenomenon that has to be tackled. I think a lot of people believe that if guns are less celebrated and less available as a "spur-of-the-moment" purchase, they'll be less culturally beloved. And that will begin the process of lowering demand.However, there's just no way to immediately stop demand. So in order to decrease the number of guns in circulation, supply has to be touched too.

I don't think anyone with any sense is saying "no one should ever be allowed to have a gun ever." Security, even private security but also police forces and military, which has been through rigorous training and oversight, should be assumed to continue to exist into the future. So the "SHE HAS SECURITY!!!" argument isn't really going to resonate with anyone because no one is saying it shouldn't exist.

 

[timschochet]

I would be one. I am (aside from occasionally doing 5-10 over the speed limit) a very lawful man. If I were ordered to turn in all of my guns, I would choose to become an outlaw. If you think turn-ins and confiscation is the answer, see the article I linked a few posts up.

Un####ingbelievable. Supposed you were ordered to record all of your private sales of guns (if you even have any) and to not to purchase any more high capacity magazines. Would you become an outlaw then?

 

[timschochet]

I now just check this thread to read Tims posts. He never fails to impress me with the lack of actual knowledge, yet he somehow constructs sentence after sentence as if he's convinced himself that he actually knows the subject matter.

Glad I impress you. Have you come to the conclusion that reporting all gun transactions would be a good idea, or are you still under the paranoid delusion that it's a plot to seize all of your firearms?

 

[timschochet]

What's the argument in favor of keeping the "gun show loophole" around? Is it just convenience, or is there some other reason why people oppose closing this?

"Gun show loophole" is really just private, face to face sales. Many people don't want the feds to have blanket registration because history has shown that oppressive governments will use those registrations for confiscation. Not saying our government is on the path of Nazi Germany or Spain, but we're not far from being England or Australia. My answer to that would be to make an informal database available for private sellers to call, visit or check online to assure that the buyer is legal to own a gun and a bill of sale required to follow the firearm. Anybody found with a firearm that is not legally allowed to have one would have to provide the bill of sale or face stiffer penalty for possession. I keep trying to come up with solutions that would not increase cost to government or private citizens. Looks like I made it to this thread about 4000 replies too late, but I've been spending most of my time on the gun forums lately instead.

No. That's not the correct answer. You don't compromise with paranoid people. They're starting from an irrational basis to begin with. We need to simply impose a FORMAL national database of all firearms and firearms transactions in this country that every law enforcement has access to. We're never going to get the paranoid people to go along with this, so we need to force it into law in the face of their opposition.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I would be one. I am (aside from occasionally doing 5-10 over the speed limit) a very lawful man. If I were ordered to turn in all of my guns, I would choose to become an outlaw. If you think turn-ins and confiscation is the answer, see the article I linked a few posts up.

Un####ingbelievable. Supposed you were ordered to record all of your private sales of guns (if you even have any) and to not to purchase any more high capacity magazines. Would you become an outlaw then?

Why is this unbelievable to you? Because you have a different opinion about this issue? Illegal Immigrants kill more people every year than psychos with guns yet you don't advocate for illegals to turn themselves in. Funny how that works, huh?

 

[Glass Joe]

I would be one. I am (aside from occasionally doing 5-10 over the speed limit) a very lawful man. If I were ordered to turn in all of my guns, I would choose to become an outlaw. If you think turn-ins and confiscation is the answer, see the article I linked a few posts up.

Un####ingbelievable. Supposed you were ordered to record all of your private sales of guns (if you even have any) and to not to purchase any more high capacity magazines. Would you become an outlaw then?

Why is this unbelievable to you? Because you have a different opinion about this issue? Illegal Immigrants kill more people every year than psychos with guns yet you don't advocate for illegals to turn themselves in. Funny how that works, huh?

It's hard to believe guns are so dear to you people that you'd risk prison to keep them. Truly odd.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

You don't compromise with paranoid people.

I might agree with you if we were talking about some sort of small fringe group, but there are a LOT of people that you and I would view as paranoid.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I now just check this thread to read Tims posts. He never fails to impress me with the lack of actual knowledge, yet he somehow constructs sentence after sentence as if he's convinced himself that he actually knows the subject matter.

Glad I impress you. Have you come to the conclusion that reporting all gun transactions would be a good idea, or are you still under the paranoid delusion that it's a plot to seize all of your firearms?

Sure. As soon as you convince all the criminals to register all of their firearms too. Nobody is saying that gun registration is a plot to seize guns. We are saying that if a government becomes so entitled that they feel they can infringe on the rights we have in our Constitution, the registration logs are what they will use. Why have them in a database at all? What would that solve?Un####ingbelievable that I would chose not to turn in my guns? How about the freedom of speech comes under attack? How about a government panel decides that the violence and moral vacuum is to blame. Should they be allowed to confiscate your computer and high-speed internet (I mean really, who needs to download pictures so fast? So it takes you a day or so to surf Facebook)? Should you have to register your televisions? Anything over 34" is only useful for high definition to show all the gory details on those video games and rated R movies. We should take those back! BTW, we'll give you "fair market value" for the TVs and laptops. I think $50 each sounds right.I don't even have any high cap mags. I'm a Californian and didn't have any pre-ban here... so I just carry a couple extra 10 round mags (mostly to counterbalance the gun weight on the opposite hip, but also because I am not sure if 7 rounds would be enough).You are obviously arguing from an emotional stance, and can't really be reasoned with because you deny to accept anything other than what CNN or MSNBC feeds you. If you care to discuss ideas and solutions that could be feasible and realistic, I think you'll find many of the gun guys willing to oblige. If you just want us to bend over and take one "for the children" as the media is so fond of saying, I think the conversation becomes one-sided and choose not to engage.

 

[Cookiemonster]

What's the argument in favor of keeping the "gun show loophole" around? Is it just convenience, or is there some other reason why people oppose closing this?

"Gun show loophole" is really just private, face to face sales. Many people don't want the feds to have blanket registration because history has shown that oppressive governments will use those registrations for confiscation. Not saying our government is on the path of Nazi Germany or Spain, but we're not far from being England or Australia. My answer to that would be to make an informal database available for private sellers to call, visit or check online to assure that the buyer is legal to own a gun and a bill of sale required to follow the firearm. Anybody found with a firearm that is not legally allowed to have one would have to provide the bill of sale or face stiffer penalty for possession. I keep trying to come up with solutions that would not increase cost to government or private citizens. Looks like I made it to this thread about 4000 replies too late, but I've been spending most of my time on the gun forums lately instead.

No. That's not the correct answer. You don't compromise with paranoid people. They're starting from an irrational basis to begin with. We need to simply impose a FORMAL national database of all firearms and firearms transactions in this country that every law enforcement has access to. We're never going to get the paranoid people to go along with this, so we need to force it into law in the face of their opposition.

I can spot one person here today that seems extremely paranoid. "Oh my God! The evil, super-high-powered, military killing machines should be stricken from the earth and I can't believe any sane person would risk touching one!"

 

[timschochet]

I would be one. I am (aside from occasionally doing 5-10 over the speed limit) a very lawful man. If I were ordered to turn in all of my guns, I would choose to become an outlaw. If you think turn-ins and confiscation is the answer, see the article I linked a few posts up.

Un####ingbelievable. Supposed you were ordered to record all of your private sales of guns (if you even have any) and to not to purchase any more high capacity magazines. Would you become an outlaw then?

Why is this unbelievable to you? Because you have a different opinion about this issue? Illegal Immigrants kill more people every year than psychos with guns yet you don't advocate for illegals to turn themselves in. Funny how that works, huh?

 

[Glass Joe]

I now just check this thread to read Tims posts. He never fails to impress me with the lack of actual knowledge, yet he somehow constructs sentence after sentence as if he's convinced himself that he actually knows the subject matter.

Glad I impress you. Have you come to the conclusion that reporting all gun transactions would be a good idea, or are you still under the paranoid delusion that it's a plot to seize all of your firearms?

Sure. As soon as you convince all the criminals to register all of their firearms too. Nobody is saying that gun registration is a plot to seize guns. We are saying that if a government becomes so entitled that they feel they can infringe on the rights we have in our Constitution, the registration logs are what they will use. Why have them in a database at all? What would that solve?Un####ingbelievable that I would chose not to turn in my guns? How about the freedom of speech comes under attack? How about a government panel decides that the violence and moral vacuum is to blame. Should they be allowed to confiscate your computer and high-speed internet (I mean really, who needs to download pictures so fast? So it takes you a day or so to surf Facebook)? Should you have to register your televisions? Anything over 34" is only useful for high definition to show all the gory details on those video games and rated R movies. We should take those back! BTW, we'll give you "fair market value" for the TVs and laptops. I think $50 each sounds right.I don't even have any high cap mags. I'm a Californian and didn't have any pre-ban here... so I just carry a couple extra 10 round mags (mostly to counterbalance the gun weight on the opposite hip, but also because I am not sure if 7 rounds would be enough).You are obviously arguing from an emotional stance, and can't really be reasoned with because you deny to accept anything other than what CNN or MSNBC feeds you. If you care to discuss ideas and solutions that could be feasible and realistic, I think you'll find many of the gun guys willing to oblige. If you just want us to bend over and take one "for the children" as the media is so fond of saying, I think the conversation becomes one-sided and choose not to engage.

Problem is the gun owners on this thread have shot down every proposal suggested here.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

You are obviously arguing from an emotional stance, and can't really be reasoned with

So are you

 

[urbanhack]

I would be one. I am (aside from occasionally doing 5-10 over the speed limit) a very lawful man. If I were ordered to turn in all of my guns, I would choose to become an outlaw. If you think turn-ins and confiscation is the answer, see the article I linked a few posts up.

Un####ingbelievable. Supposed you were ordered to record all of your private sales of guns (if you even have any) and to not to purchase any more high capacity magazines. Would you become an outlaw then?

Why is this unbelievable to you? Because you have a different opinion about this issue? Illegal Immigrants kill more people every year than psychos with guns yet you don't advocate for illegals to turn themselves in. Funny how that works, huh?

 

[timschochet]

I now just check this thread to read Tims posts. He never fails to impress me with the lack of actual knowledge, yet he somehow constructs sentence after sentence as if he's convinced himself that he actually knows the subject matter.

Glad I impress you. Have you come to the conclusion that reporting all gun transactions would be a good idea, or are you still under the paranoid delusion that it's a plot to seize all of your firearms?

Sure. As soon as you convince all the criminals to register all of their firearms too. Nobody is saying that gun registration is a plot to seize guns. We are saying that if a government becomes so entitled that they feel they can infringe on the rights we have in our Constitution, the registration logs are what they will use. Why have them in a database at all? What would that solve?Un####ingbelievable that I would chose not to turn in my guns? How about the freedom of speech comes under attack? How about a government panel decides that the violence and moral vacuum is to blame. Should they be allowed to confiscate your computer and high-speed internet (I mean really, who needs to download pictures so fast? So it takes you a day or so to surf Facebook)? Should you have to register your televisions? Anything over 34" is only useful for high definition to show all the gory details on those video games and rated R movies. We should take those back! BTW, we'll give you "fair market value" for the TVs and laptops. I think $50 each sounds right.I don't even have any high cap mags. I'm a Californian and didn't have any pre-ban here... so I just carry a couple extra 10 round mags (mostly to counterbalance the gun weight on the opposite hip, but also because I am not sure if 7 rounds would be enough).You are obviously arguing from an emotional stance, and can't really be reasoned with because you deny to accept anything other than what CNN or MSNBC feeds you. If you care to discuss ideas and solutions that could be feasible and realistic, I think you'll find many of the gun guys willing to oblige. If you just want us to bend over and take one "for the children" as the media is so fond of saying, I think the conversation becomes one-sided and choose not to engage.

First off, not arguing from an emotional stance at all. The un####ingbelievable part is not that you wouldn't turn in all your guns, but that you consider the question of being forced to turn in all of your guns a reasonable proposition for debate. No one in this thread (and nobody reasonable outside this thread) is proposing that you turn in all your guns. Personally, I have never proposed that you turn in ANY of your guns. I want a national database imposed, and a ban on high cap mags. That's all. In terms of the discussion nationwide, these two issues are in play, along with a return of the Assault Weapons Ban of the 1990s. Yet try to have a rational discussion on these very mild regulatory ideas, and suddenly people like you want to discuss how you'll respond when all of your guns are seized. This is exactly the paranoia I am talking about. And you want to call me emotional? Un####ingbelievable.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Problem is the gun owners on this thread have shot down every proposal suggested here.

Sorry. Just jumped into this thread today. What proposals have there been, and about what? If all the proposals have been about further restricting legal American citizens rights to keep and bear arms, I can see why. We have felt under constant attack since Aurora and ten times as much since Newtown. The maistream media is putting on a full-court press, and the anti-gun politicians didn't wait for the blood to cool in Connecticut before beginning their assault. I've already given a cheap, realistic solution to keeping guns out of the hands of those not allowed to have them. What problems do you want to solve, and what solutions do you propose? I'd be happy to discuss.

 

[Henry Ford]

I would be one. I am (aside from occasionally doing 5-10 over the speed limit) a very lawful man. If I were ordered to turn in all of my guns, I would choose to become an outlaw. If you think turn-ins and confiscation is the answer, see the article I linked a few posts up.

Un####ingbelievable. Supposed you were ordered to record all of your private sales of guns (if you even have any) and to not to purchase any more high capacity magazines. Would you become an outlaw then?

Why is this unbelievable to you? Because you have a different opinion about this issue? Illegal Immigrants kill more people every year than psychos with guns yet you don't advocate for illegals to turn themselves in. Funny how that works, huh?

What do they kill people with? Knives?

 

[timschochet]

I now just check this thread to read Tims posts. He never fails to impress me with the lack of actual knowledge, yet he somehow constructs sentence after sentence as if he's convinced himself that he actually knows the subject matter.

Glad I impress you. Have you come to the conclusion that reporting all gun transactions would be a good idea, or are you still under the paranoid delusion that it's a plot to seize all of your firearms?

Sure. As soon as you convince all the criminals to register all of their firearms too.

Oh, wanted to respond to this part too, even though I already have several times.The idea is (1) to isolate the criminals and their weapons and (2) to make it more difficult for criminals to obtain their weapons. Right now if a bad guy wants to buy a gun from a good guy, he can simply pretend to be a good guy himself, and buy it in a private sale, often at a gun show. Since no background check is made, we have no way of knowing who the bad guys are, and they get away with it. By having a national database and a background check for all gun transactions, bad guys won't be able to purchase their guns in this manner. Now as the Reason article correctly points out, some of them will buy the guns in the black market anyhow. But it will be less easy to do, and law enforcement will have a much easier time breaking up the black market because they will be able to immediately recognize firearms that are not on the database. This is a logical way to fight crime, and there is no reason not to do it which is not based on delusional paranoid fears.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Right now if a bad guy wants to buy a gun from a good guy, he can simply pretend to be a good guy himself, and buy it in a private sale, often at a gun show.

All the talk about "good guys" and "bad guys" just plays into the arguments made by gun proponents.

 

[timschochet]

Right now if a bad guy wants to buy a gun from a good guy, he can simply pretend to be a good guy himself, and buy it in a private sale, often at a gun show.

All the talk about "good guys" and "bad guys" just plays into the arguments made by gun proponents.

I used the terms, in this forum, before Wayne LaPierre used them at his press conference. I have no problem using them. I want the "good guys" (law-abiding citizens) to keep their guns for their pleasure and personal protection.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Right now if a bad guy wants to buy a gun from a good guy, he can simply pretend to be a good guy himself, and buy it in a private sale, often at a gun show.

All the talk about "good guys" and "bad guys" just plays into the arguments made by gun proponents.

I used the terms, in this forum, before Wayne LaPierre used them at his press conference. I have no problem using them. I want the "good guys" (law-abiding citizens) to keep their guns for their pleasure and personal protection.

I don't think there's a clear divide between "good guys" and "bad guys." Yeah, we know now that the Newtown killer was clearly bad, but he didn't have any prior convictions or anything, so it seems entirely possible we would have considered him a "good guy" before he killed all those kids. Oh, and his mom was apparently a "good guy", which is how she bought all the guns, although she seems to have been paranoid and unstable and incapable of keeping the guns away from her "bad" son. Sometimes good guys become bad guys depending upon circumstances. There's no way to effectively keep guns out of the hands of the "bad guys" without putting limitations on good guys.Not to mention that the most common gun-related deaths are suicides, most of which are committed by "good guys." Same with accidental gun deaths, which are often committed by "good guys."