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

[Dvorak]

First, I have a couple problem with face-to-face background checks besides not wanting the government in my personal business.

1. How do we know background checks are for the sole purpose of selling a gun? I gotta tell you, I'd be running background checks on all my daughters' boyfriends...

2. What happens when a sale is denied? Now we know the buyer is a bad guy and wants to buy a gun. I would NOT want to be the seller in that position. I just made myself a big, inviting target for murder/robbery.

Compromise idea for Tim-

Concealed Carry advocates want national reciprocity. In other words, if you are licensed to conceal & carry in Ohio, you are licensed in every other state--like a driver's license.

How about we make it so anyone that has gone through the hoops to obtain such a license and passed a background check is exempt from further background checks when purchasing a gun face to face? All other sales/transfers MUST go through an FFL dealer.

Shoot, we can do the same for your evil 10+ round magazines.

Gun owners can keep the government from intruding on their privacy and society can be sure that bad guys aren't exploiting the "gun show loophole".

Because if a compromise like this is not amenable to you, I'm calling shenanigans on everything you've written about being reasonable.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I'm saying that a national database being imposed is only for that reason. What other purpose does it serve? Nobody with an illegal firearm will register anything anyways. It will only cause many people with no criminal background to become criminals. I'd guess 90% of the U.S. population sees our government as the model government of the world, and that it would never betray their people. Many other countries have thought the same right before they went down the tubes. You can see top-end governments fall into corrupted chaos in just a generation throughout history. I'm not convinced that our government is on that path to self-destruction, but it's pretty naive to think that it can't happen. Research the 2nd Amendment, and what it actually means and what it's purpose is. It is not so that we can continue to punch holes in paper or go hunting.

Myth: Gun registration works

Fact: Not in California. California has had handgun registration since 190992 and it has not any impact of violent crime rate.*93

Fact: Not in New Zealand. They repealed their gun registration law in the 1980s after police acknowledged its worthlessness.*94

Fact: Not in Australia. One report states, “It seems just to be an elaborate system of arithmetic with no tangible aim. Probably, and with the best of intentions, it may have been thought, that if it were known what firearms each individual in Victoria owned, some form of control may be exercised, and those who were guilty of criminal misuse could be readily identified. This is a fallacy, and has been proven not to be the case.”*95 In addition, cost to Australian taxpayers exceeded $200 million annually.*96

*93 FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, via the Data Online data analysis tool on the website of the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Banning high cap mags. Looks good on the surface, but let's go a little deeper. What percentage of gun crimes are committed with high cap mags?

*94 Background to the Introduction of Firearms User Licensing Instead of Rifle and Shotgun Registration Under the Arms Act 1983, (Wellington, New Zealand: n.p., 1983)

*95 Registration Firearms System, Chief Inspector Newgreen, CRB File 39-1-1385/84

*96 The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, Gary Mauser, The Fraser Institute, 2003.

High cap mags are barely represented in gun crimes anyways. So, because of a crazy who stole guns and shot up a group, only the legal, law-abiding citizens who register all their guns and follow magazine laws won't have high-cap mags and that will help save lives? I can make a high-cap magazine in my garage with a chunk of roof flashing and a spring, by the way. What would stop anybody that wanted one from using one? "Well, I was going to go shoot up a high-school football game, but I didn't want to get caught for having a 20 round magazine."!?!? Besides, if they restrict magazines to 30, or 20 or 10, what happens next shooting? Restrict to 6? Then single shot? Then no guns and we're back to knife, sword and club violence being the scurge of society like we were 300 years ago.

Myth: High capacity guns lead to more deadly shootings

Fact: The number of shots fired by criminals has not changed significantly even with the increased capacity of handguns and other firearms. Indeed, the number of shots from revolvers (all with a 6-8 round capacity) and semi-automatics were about the same – 2.04 vs. 2.53.*409 In a crime or gun battle, there is seldom time or need to shoot more.

Fact: Fatal criminal shootings declined from 4.3% to 3.3% from 1974 through 1995, when ownership of semi-automatics and large capacity handguns were rising at their fastest rate.*410

*409 Urban firearm deaths: A five-year perspective, Michael McGonigal, John Cole, William Schwab, Donald Kauder, Michael Rotondo, Peter Angood, Journal of Trauma, 1993.

*410 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1966-1995.

The Clinton Assault Weapons Ban (and we can get into a discussion of what in the hell is an "assault weapon" anyways debate if you like) had essentially ZERO effect on crime.

Myth: The 1994 (former) Federal Assault Weapons Ban was effective

Fact: The ban covered only 1.39% of the models of firearms on the market, so the ban’s effectiveness was automatically limited.

Fact: “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”*383

*383 Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute of Justice, March 1999

Fact: The Brady Campaign claims that “After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer ‘assault weapons’ traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994.” However they failed to note (and these are mentioned in the NIJ study) that:

1. “Assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent use in crimes), so an 18% change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.

2. Fewer “assault weapons” were available to criminals because collectors bought-up the available supply before the ban.

*quoted from www.gunfacts.info

 

[Sammy3469]

Lol @ reciprocity...like I want some gun nut from Texas legally carrying concealed weapons in NYC...good luck with that

 

[BustedKnuckles]

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.

my only concern would be the good guys turning around and selling the bad guys guns on the side. What about limiting the number of guns one person can buy and own and keep track of said guns on a yearly basis?

 

[Cookiemonster]

Lol @ reciprocity...like I want some gun nut from Texas legally carrying concealed weapons in NYC...good luck with that

And who says Texans want some yuppy nut from NYC selling coffee in Texas. Why would someone be good to carry a concealed gun in Texas but not in NYC? Just because you have been conditioned to believe that private citizens shouldn't be allowed to carry? Do you fear for your life when you leave the safe confines of your city limits? Do you realize that about 4% of the population of the US has concealed carry permits?

 

[3C's]

Lol @ reciprocity...like I want some gun nut from Texas legally carrying concealed weapons in NYC...good luck with that

Aren't most of the gun rights people typically right wing, aka states rights types?

 

[Apple Jack]

Cookie monster another tim alias?

 

[Sammy3469]

Lol @ reciprocity...like I want some gun nut from Texas legally carrying concealed weapons in NYC...good luck with that

And who says Texans want some yuppy nut from NYC selling coffee in Texas. Why would someone be good to carry a concealed gun in Texas but not in NYC? Just because you have been conditioned to believe that private citizens shouldn't be allowed to carry? Do you fear for your life when you leave the safe confines of your city limits? Do you realize that about 4% of the population of the US has concealed carry permits?

I haven't been conditioned to believe anything. NYC already has an ultra low crime rate and everyone I know feels safe. Why would I want some Walker Twxas Ranger wannabe shooting someone at the first sign of trouble when said trouble is illusionary.

 

[Dvorak]

Lol @ reciprocity...like I want some gun nut from Texas legally carrying concealed weapons in NYC...good luck with that

Statistically, you'd be better off banning Texans from NYC UNLESS they were licensed to carry concealed...Texas study

 

[Sammy3469]

Lol @ reciprocity...like I want some gun nut from Texas legally carrying concealed weapons in NYC...good luck with that

Aren't most of the gun rights people typically right wing, aka states rights types?

they're all for states rights until they aren't. Typical right wing hypocracy.

 

[Sammy3469]

Lol @ reciprocity...like I want some gun nut from Texas legally carrying concealed weapons in NYC...good luck with that

Statistically, you'd be better off banning Texans from NYC UNLESS they were licensed to carry concealed...Texas study

I'm good with that

 

[Apple Jack]

You don't have to worry about ny'ers going to Texas.

 

[Cookiemonster]

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."

Suicide can be carried out MANY ways, and has been happening (I would guess at nearly the same rate) for thousands of years before guns. Japan has far fewer guns than the US, and their suicide rates are much higher than ours. The rate of gun accidents is so low that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission doesn't even mention them in their annual safety reports. Compared to accidental gun deaths, you are five times more likely to burn to death, five times more likely to drown, 17 times more likely to be poisoned, 17 times more likely to fall and 68 times more likely to die in an automobile accident.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Cookie monster another tim alias?

Huh? Wasn't I arguing with him on the last page?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Cookie monster another tim alias?

Huh? Wasn't I arguing with him on the last page?

It's Tim. What does that prove?

 

[Cookiemonster]

Lol @ reciprocity...like I want some gun nut from Texas legally carrying concealed weapons in NYC...good luck with that

Aren't most of the gun rights people typically right wing, aka states rights types?

they're all for states rights until they aren't. Typical right wing hypocracy.

So when the Constitution says "shall not be infringed," it only applies to whom? So any state that wants to should be able to use cruel and unusual punishment? Illegal search and seizure?

 

[Cookiemonster]

Cookie monster another tim alias?

Huh? Wasn't I arguing with him on the last page?

It's Tim. What does that prove?

OK. Something we can ALL agree on.

 

[Dvorak]

Lol @ reciprocity...like I want some gun nut from Texas legally carrying concealed weapons in NYC...good luck with that

Aren't most of the gun rights people typically right wing, aka states rights types?

I thought this entire thread thread was about to what degree we were going to violate states rights. If states rights are still on the table, I cheerfully withdraw my compromise.

 

[Cookiemonster]

NYC already has an ultra low crime rate and everyone I know feels safe.

Funny. A quick google search of "NYC low crime" puts this article at the top of the list. Yeah. You haven't been conditioned to believe anything.

 

[BobbyLayne]

We having a serious national conversation about mental heath yet?

No?

Oh, well, maybe next year we'll get serious about solving problems instead of sputtering rhetoric.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

We having a serious national conversation about mental heath yet? No? Oh, well, maybe next year we'll get serious about solving problems instead of sputtering rhetoric.

What exactly do you think this serious conversation would consist of? My guess is that gun opponents generally support more spending on mental health services.

 

[Henry Ford]

We having a serious national conversation about mental heath yet? No? Oh, well, maybe next year we'll get serious about solving problems instead of sputtering rhetoric.

That would certainly be nice. I think that the ability to get everyone who needs it free or exceptionally low-cost mental health care across this country would probably go a lot farther than any gun ban would to curbing violence.Unfortunately, the same political wing which is anti- gun regulation tends to be anti- government sponsored health care.

 

[Otis]

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!

No, he just reached into the felon vortex and pulled out the weapon of his choosing. You didn't know that? Yeah, gun control is pointless because crooks can always find unlimited numbers of any kinds of weapons automatically, from the magic gun felon vortex. Stupid vortex! :shakes fist:

 

[BeaverCleaver]

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!

No, he just reached into the felon vortex and pulled out the weapon of his choosing. You didn't know that? Yeah, gun control is pointless because crooks can always find unlimited numbers of any kinds of weapons automatically, from the magic gun felon vortex. Stupid vortex! :shakes fist:

Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Gun control doesn't seem to be working well there. It seems the crooks there are finding unlimited numbers of weapons too as they approach almost 500 deadly shootings this year. Their revised law permanently prohibits violent felons from owning guns, and anyone convicted of committing a violent misdemeanor faces a five-year ban.

 

[urbanhack]

Lol @ reciprocity...like I want some gun nut from Texas legally carrying concealed weapons in NYC...good luck with that

And who says Texans want some yuppy nut from NYC selling coffee in Texas. Why would someone be good to carry a concealed gun in Texas but not in NYC?

 

[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!

No, he just reached into the felon vortex and pulled out the weapon of his choosing. You didn't know that? Yeah, gun control is pointless because crooks can always find unlimited numbers of any kinds of weapons automatically, from the magic gun felon vortex. Stupid vortex! :shakes fist:

Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Gun control doesn't seem to be working well there. It seems the crooks there are finding unlimited numbers of weapons too as they approach almost 500 deadly shootings this year.

Hmm. I wonder if that's because some convicted felon in Chicago can drive to another state, go to a gun show, purchase a gun in a private sale without anyone knowing he is a felon, and then bring it back to Chicago? Do you suppose that's a possibility?

 

[BeaverCleaver]

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!

No, he just reached into the felon vortex and pulled out the weapon of his choosing. You didn't know that? Yeah, gun control is pointless because crooks can always find unlimited numbers of any kinds of weapons automatically, from the magic gun felon vortex. Stupid vortex! :shakes fist:

Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Gun control doesn't seem to be working well there. It seems the crooks there are finding unlimited numbers of weapons too as they approach almost 500 deadly shootings this year.

Hmm. I wonder if that's because some convicted felon in Chicago can drive to another state, go to a gun show, purchase a gun in a private sale without anyone knowing he is a felon, and then bring it back to Chicago? Do you suppose that's a possibility?

Hmm...sure it is a possibility and more than likely it doesn't happen as often as you want to think. How many of those felons even own a car? More than likely the guns they acquire are in Chicago and not going out of state.

 

[3C's]

Lol @ reciprocity...like I want some gun nut from Texas legally carrying concealed weapons in NYC...good luck with that

Aren't most of the gun rights people typically right wing, aka states rights types?

I thought this entire thread thread was about to what degree we were going to violate states rights. If states rights are still on the table, I cheerfully withdraw my compromise.

Certain things can be done at the Federal level which don't infringe on "states rights".

 

[Cookiemonster]

Lol @ reciprocity...like I want some gun nut from Texas legally carrying concealed weapons in NYC...good luck with that

And who says Texans want some yuppy nut from NYC selling coffee in Texas. Why would someone be good to carry a concealed gun in Texas but not in NYC?

Was my response not equally stereotypical and arbitrary?

 

[BassNBrew]

http://news.yahoo.com/dc-cops-investigating-whether-nbcs-gregory-violated-gun-170426968--abc-news-politics.html

Are more gun laws the answer when people don't understand the current gun laws?

Washington police are investigating whether NBC's David Gregory broke the law by holding up what appeared to be a 30-round gun magazine on Sunday's Meet the Press after the network apparently got conflicting opinions about whether it would be legal for him to do so.

 

[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!

No, he just reached into the felon vortex and pulled out the weapon of his choosing. You didn't know that? Yeah, gun control is pointless because crooks can always find unlimited numbers of any kinds of weapons automatically, from the magic gun felon vortex. Stupid vortex! :shakes fist:

Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Gun control doesn't seem to be working well there. It seems the crooks there are finding unlimited numbers of weapons too as they approach almost 500 deadly shootings this year.

Hmm. I wonder if that's because some convicted felon in Chicago can drive to another state, go to a gun show, purchase a gun in a private sale without anyone knowing he is a felon, and then bring it back to Chicago? Do you suppose that's a possibility?

Hmm...sure it is a possibility and more than likely it doesn't happen as often as you want to think. How many of those felons even own a car? More than likely the guns they acquire are in Chicago and not going out of state.

Given that less than 10% of households in the U.S. are without cars, I think most felons have access to vehicles.

 

[tom22406]

http://news.yahoo.com/dc-cops-investigating-whether-nbcs-gregory-violated-gun-170426968--abc-news-politics.htmlAre more gun laws the answer when people don't understand the current gun laws?

Washington police are investigating whether NBC's David Gregory broke the law by holding up what appeared to be a 30-round gun magazine on Sunday's Meet the Press after the network apparently got conflicting opinions about whether it would be legal for him to do so.

Yeah I posted this earlier but got no takers on a reply.I hope they fine him just for stupidity.

 

[Dvorak]

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!

No, he just reached into the felon vortex and pulled out the weapon of his choosing. You didn't know that? Yeah, gun control is pointless because crooks can always find unlimited numbers of any kinds of weapons automatically, from the magic gun felon vortex. Stupid vortex! :shakes fist:

Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Gun control doesn't seem to be working well there. It seems the crooks there are finding unlimited numbers of weapons too as they approach almost 500 deadly shootings this year.

Hmm. I wonder if that's because some convicted felon in Chicago can drive to another state, go to a gun show, purchase a gun in a private sale without anyone knowing he is a felon, and then bring it back to Chicago? Do you suppose that's a possibility?

You've been told this is already highly illegal before. If he did this, both buyer and seller committed a felony. Arrest them both. If someone is willing to sell a gun to someone from out of state, they aren't going to run a face-to-face background check nor are they going to report it to the national database. They are a criminal. They do not obey laws.You lack of knowledge about guns and the laws surrounding them is amazing given your propensity to post in this thread.

 

[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.

"Bad Guys" as you call them, would not have to worry about purchasing. All they would have to do is wait for their local newspaper to publish the list of gun owners in their area. They would then know which homes to burgle to obtain their firearms. I wonder if there is an app for this?

Waitaminnut. First we are supposed to believe that publishing the names is bad because burglars will go after the homes without guns. Now we're supposed to believe the publishing the names is bad because burglars will go after the homes with guns in order to get the guns?

 

[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!

No, he just reached into the felon vortex and pulled out the weapon of his choosing. You didn't know that? Yeah, gun control is pointless because crooks can always find unlimited numbers of any kinds of weapons automatically, from the magic gun felon vortex. Stupid vortex! :shakes fist:

Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Gun control doesn't seem to be working well there. It seems the crooks there are finding unlimited numbers of weapons too as they approach almost 500 deadly shootings this year.

Hmm. I wonder if that's because some convicted felon in Chicago can drive to another state, go to a gun show, purchase a gun in a private sale without anyone knowing he is a felon, and then bring it back to Chicago? Do you suppose that's a possibility?

You've been told this is already highly illegal before. If he did this, both buyer and seller committed a felony. Arrest them both. If someone is willing to sell a gun to someone from out of state, they aren't going to run a face-to-face background check nor are they going to report it to the national database. They are a criminal. They do not obey laws.You lack of knowledge about guns and the laws surrounding them is amazing given your propensity to post in this thread.

Given that there is no background check required for a private sale, how can we know that a crime was committed in order to arrest anyone? And how would the seller, who is probably an honest guy, know he was breaking the law?

 

[Dvorak]

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.

"Bad Guys" as you call them, would not have to worry about purchasing. All they would have to do is wait for their local newspaper to publish the list of gun owners in their area. They would then know which homes to burgle to obtain their firearms. I wonder if there is an app for this?

Waitaminnut. First we are supposed to believe that publishing the names is bad because burglars will go after the homes without guns. Now we're supposed to believe the publishing the names is bad because burglars will go after the homes with guns in order to get the guns?

Bad guy wants a gun, looks to "I have a gun" shopping list published in paper.Bad guy wants valuables BUT doesn't want to get shot, looks to "I have a gun" list to know where not to go.It's bad for everyone.The more you know...

 

[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.

"Bad Guys" as you call them, would not have to worry about purchasing. All they would have to do is wait for their local newspaper to publish the list of gun owners in their area. They would then know which homes to burgle to obtain their firearms. I wonder if there is an app for this?

Waitaminnut. First we are supposed to believe that publishing the names is bad because burglars will go after the homes without guns. Now we're supposed to believe the publishing the names is bad because burglars will go after the homes with guns in order to get the guns?

Bad guy wants a gun, looks to "I have a gun" shopping list published in paper.Bad guy wants valuables BUT doesn't want to get shot, looks to "I have a gun" list to know where not to go.It's bad for everyone.The more you know...

Damn there's a lot to fear.

 

[tom22406]

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.

"Bad Guys" as you call them, would not have to worry about purchasing. All they would have to do is wait for their local newspaper to publish the list of gun owners in their area. They would then know which homes to burgle to obtain their firearms. I wonder if there is an app for this?

Waitaminnut. First we are supposed to believe that publishing the names is bad because burglars will go after the homes without guns. Now we're supposed to believe the publishing the names is bad because burglars will go after the homes with guns in order to get the guns?

Bad guy wants a gun, looks to "I have a gun" shopping list published in paper.Bad guy wants valuables BUT doesn't want to get shot, looks to "I have a gun" list to know where not to go.It's bad for everyone.The more you know...

Damn there's a lot to fear.

Maybe just post a "Gun Free Zone" sign in your front yard and be done with it

 

[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.

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.

"Bad Guys" as you call them, would not have to worry about purchasing. All they would have to do is wait for their local newspaper to publish the list of gun owners in their area. They would then know which homes to burgle to obtain their firearms. I wonder if there is an app for this?

Waitaminnut. First we are supposed to believe that publishing the names is bad because burglars will go after the homes without guns. Now we're supposed to believe the publishing the names is bad because burglars will go after the homes with guns in order to get the guns?

Bad guy wants a gun, looks to "I have a gun" shopping list published in paper.Bad guy wants valuables BUT doesn't want to get shot, looks to "I have a gun" list to know where not to go.It's bad for everyone.The more you know...

Where the hell do you live - Beirut???

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

"Bad Guys" as you call them, would not have to worry about purchasing. All they would have to do is wait for their local newspaper to publish the list of gun owners in their area. They would then know which homes to burgle to obtain their firearms. I wonder if there is an app for this?

Waitaminnut. First we are supposed to believe that publishing the names is bad because burglars will go after the homes without guns. Now we're supposed to believe the publishing the names is bad because burglars will go after the homes with guns in order to get the guns?

I do not tell you what to believe first, second, or otherwise. I do note that guns, and drugs, are among the most commonly burgled items. Make of that what you will.

Cuing the gun regulation argument for limiting access to certain types of weapons to keep them out of "bad guy hands" in 3....2...1...

 

[BassNBrew]

http://news.yahoo.com/dc-cops-investigating-whether-nbcs-gregory-violated-gun-170426968--abc-news-politics.htmlAre more gun laws the answer when people don't understand the current gun laws?

Washington police are investigating whether NBC's David Gregory broke the law by holding up what appeared to be a 30-round gun magazine on Sunday's Meet the Press after the network apparently got conflicting opinions about whether it would be legal for him to do so.

Yeah I posted this earlier but got no takers on a reply.I hope they fine him just for stupidity.

I scanned but didn't see it posted earlier. Guess this news isn't interesting.

 

[Enderdog]

i dont worry about someone randomly picking my house out for a home invasion.

I don't worry about car crashes but I still wear a seat belt.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://news.yahoo.com/dc-cops-investigating-whether-nbcs-gregory-violated-gun-170426968--abc-news-politics.htmlAre more gun laws the answer when people don't understand the current gun laws?

Washington police are investigating whether NBC's David Gregory broke the law by holding up what appeared to be a 30-round gun magazine on Sunday's Meet the Press after the network apparently got conflicting opinions about whether it would be legal for him to do so.

Yeah I posted this earlier but got no takers on a reply.I hope they fine him just for stupidity.

I scanned but didn't see it posted earlier. Guess this news isn't interesting.

I don't think there are many on either side of the aisle who find the conversation topic "David Gregory is an idiot" to be all that shocking or interesting.

 

[MaxThreshold]

We having a serious national conversation about mental heath yet? No? Oh, well, maybe next year we'll get serious about solving problems instead of sputtering rhetoric.

Nope, not yet. I'd have to think about it some more, but my initial response to this would be that I'm not sure if I want a bunch of government goons deciding who is unfit or crazy. I'm mean, look at the some of the posts in this thread from our resident liberals. Most of them are calling anyone who doesn't agree with them "crazy".So, currently, the left controls the government. Guess who gets the "crazy" tag when Liberals control government? Pro-Gun advocates, conservatives, "anyone who doesn't agree with me", etc...Guess who gets the "crazy" tag when Conservatives control government? Liberals(although, I'm sure to it wouldn't matter since they are scared of guns anyways).

 

[BustedKnuckles]

i dont worry about someone randomly picking my house out for a home invasion.

I don't worry about car crashes but I still wear a seat belt.

Well i dont wear a seat belt.I dont fear flying.im not afraid of the boogy man or bad people....buts thats just me.

 

[Henry Ford]

i dont worry about someone randomly picking my house out for a home invasion.

I don't worry about car crashes but I still wear a seat belt.

Well i dont wear a seat belt.I dont fear flying.im not afraid of the boogy man or bad people....buts thats just me.

Click it or ticket, criminal.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

You have a reading problem.

[snip]

You are a blind man preaching to the choir, the Harvard Lit Review was debunked on numerous angles, time for you to google up some other article to cling on to. You are not winning over any supporters here with your trumped up report ignoring glaring contradictions in countries like Russia and Brazil (2 of the top 10 countries by population) because they do not fit into your article's filter to showcase it's biased POV.USA 312 million pop, 270 million guns, 87k guns per 100k, 4.8 int. homicides per 100k

Russia 142 million pop, 12.8 million guns, 9k guns per 100k, 11.5 int. homicides per 100k

Brazil 197 million pop, 16.2 million guns, 0.8k guns per 100k, 25 int. homicides per 100k

Russia has 1/10th the guns of the US and 240% the number of int. homicides per 100k compared to the US

Brazil has 1/100th the number of guns of the US and 521% the number of int. homicides per 100k compared to the US

 

[parasaurolophus]

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

Who cares? I want a national database. I want limits on high capacity magazines. And if Chaos Commish is correct that certain rifles will only work with high capacity magazines (I can't confirm this anywhere) then I want those rifles banned. I don't give a #### about Switzerland.

more guns ≠ more murders

God, you just wasted a lot of time to make yourself look stupid.

Link from a friend

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

Seems obvious but there you go.

Have you read the literature they refer to?

 

[tommyGunZ]

You have a reading problem.

[snip]

You are a blind man preaching to the choir, the Harvard Lit Review was debunked on numerous angles, time for you to google up some other article to cling on to. You are not winning over any supporters here with your trumped up report ignoring glaring contradictions in countries like Russia and Brazil (2 of the top 10 countries by population) because they do not fit into your article's filter to showcase it's biased POV.USA 312 million pop, 270 million guns, 87k guns per 100k, 4.8 int. homicides per 100k

Russia 142 million pop, 12.8 million guns, 9k guns per 100k, 11.5 int. homicides per 100k

Brazil 197 million pop, 16.2 million guns, 0.8k guns per 100k, 25 int. homicides per 100k

Russia has 1/10th the guns of the US and 240% the number of int. homicides per 100k compared to the US

Brazil has 1/100th the number of guns of the US and 521% the number of int. homicides per 100k compared to the US

So when looking at the global data, you pick out the couple of anomalies, and suggest they are the rule, and ignore the mountain of evidence directly contradicting your position?

 

[timschochet]

You have a reading problem.

[snip]

You are a blind man preaching to the choir, the Harvard Lit Review was debunked on numerous angles, time for you to google up some other article to cling on to. You are not winning over any supporters here with your trumped up report ignoring glaring contradictions in countries like Russia and Brazil (2 of the top 10 countries by population) because they do not fit into your article's filter to showcase it's biased POV.USA 312 million pop, 270 million guns, 87k guns per 100k, 4.8 int. homicides per 100k

Russia 142 million pop, 12.8 million guns, 9k guns per 100k, 11.5 int. homicides per 100k

Brazil 197 million pop, 16.2 million guns, 0.8k guns per 100k, 25 int. homicides per 100k

Russia has 1/10th the guns of the US and 240% the number of int. homicides per 100k compared to the US

Brazil has 1/100th the number of guns of the US and 521% the number of int. homicides per 100k compared to the US

So when looking at the global data, you pick out the couple of anomalies, and suggest they are the rule, and ignore the mountain of evidence directly contradicting your position?

Apparently they get it from John Lott, who has made a fortune cherry picking data in order to please the NRA.