***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (5 Viewers)

[Henry Ford]

Squeaky heels in this thread are hurting my ears.

I must be old and stupid. What does this mean?

 

[timschochet]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.

YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions compromises. We'll see.

FTFY. You have a real hard time with the English language don't you?

Automatic weapons are already against the law. So, assuming that somehow I were in charge, if I were to agree to make them legal, that would be a concession.

When both sides make concessions to the status quo, that is called a compromise. Get it?

Whatever dude. Are you going to accept universal background checks and a ban on high capacity magazines, or are you girding for civil war? What will you do?

 

[DaVinci]

The NRA statement was predictable, disappointing, and for me personally, infuriating:

Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again. We attended today's White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.

We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not.

The bolded is the most infuriating part. There is not ONE aspect of what is being discussed: universal background checks, limits on high capacity magazines, even a ban on certain assault weapons (to which I am opposed, BTW) that has ANYTHING to do with the Second Amendment. Yet this continues to be thrown out in response to these proposals, as a means to eliminate all reasonable discussion and increase the paranoia of gun owners. It's disgusting.

None of those things would have had any impact on what happened at Sandy Hook. Biden's Task Force and the Democrats are focused on feel-good nonsense that limits the rights of law abiding citizens but does nothing to actually make them safer, and they ridicule proposals that would actually be effective (like armed guards/police officers in the schools).

 

[Hoosier16]

Squeaky heels in this thread are hurting my ears.

I must be old and stupid. What does this mean?

I'm glad you asked first because I couldn't figure it out either. Even the internet had no clue.

 

[Hoosier16]

You seem to be conveniently avoiding the question. And the obvious answer. The control side likes to include accidents and suicides when it's convenient to their argument. But,we can exclude them, if it is now convenient to do so. So, once more with your restrictions, how many homicides have been committed with the so-called "assault rifle" in the entire existence of NYC?

I'm pretty sure I very specifically said "murders" in my response. I did say that, right? That's why I only included the over-8500 deaths number rather than a much larger one?According to this study:

https://www.ncjrs.go....aspx?id=149721

Using the definition of "assault weapon" in the New York assault weapon bill, in the year 1993

A particular firearm was positively identified with the killing 169 times This involvement was established through a match between ballistic evidence found in the deceased or at the homicide scene and an assault weapon recovered. It was determined that assault weapons were used in at least 43 homicide cases. Thus, assault weapons were involved in 16 percent of the 271 homicides where discharged firearms were recovered and 25 percent of the 169 homicides where a recovered firearm was positively linked with ballistic evidence from the crime. If the victims of the assault weapons homicides identified by this analysis represent the same proportion of all firearms homicide victims, then the number of possible homicide victims against whom assault weapons were used in New York City in 1993 could range from 240 (15.9 percent) to 383 (25.4 percent).

I'm afraid I don't have numbers for every year. 383 from 1993 would probably come pretty close to the number of people murdered with subway cars in the last several decades, though, right?How many homicides have been committed with actually-called subway cars in the entire existence of NYC?

I should also mention, I'm not in favor of banning "assault weapons" necessarily, nor have I signed any petitions to that effect, nor would I support a candidate on that basis. But the "CARS AND SUBWAYS KILL MORE PEOPLE!!!1111" arguments are pretty monumentally ridiculous.

Why would you leave this out, other than to mislead?. We went from "assault rifle" to something including handguns. It curiously specifically mentions handguns and shotguns but leaves out rifles. Perhaps because those numbers are insignificant.

For the purposes of this study, an assault weapon is defined by New York State Assembly Bill 40001. It is any centerfire, semiautomatic shotgun or pistol capable of having loaded in its magazine chamber more than six cartridges for a long gun or 10 cartridges for a pistol.

You may not agree with a ban, but Bloomberg does. The point of the original post was that he wants something banned that is responsible for very few deaths. But when presented with something else that is responsible for very few deaths, something that has a nearly 100% effective solution, he tells everyone "to keep it in perspective". I find it hard to believe anyone doesn't see that hypocrisy.

 

[Dvorak]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.

YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions compromises. We'll see.

FTFY. You have a real hard time with the English language don't you?

Automatic weapons are already against the law. So, assuming that somehow I were in charge, if I were to agree to make them legal, that would be a concession.

When both sides make concessions to the status quo, that is called a compromise. Get it?

Whatever dude. Are you going to accept universal background checks and a ban on high capacity magazines, or are you girding for civil war? What will you do?

I'm done with one-sided concessions that do nothing but disarm the law abiding.So right now, I'm busy writing my politicians and arguing with the ignorant on a fantasy football message board.

When the time comes, μολὼν λαβέ

 

[Henry Ford]

You seem to be conveniently avoiding the question. And the obvious answer. The control side likes to include accidents and suicides when it's convenient to their argument. But,we can exclude them, if it is now convenient to do so. So, once more with your restrictions, how many homicides have been committed with the so-called "assault rifle" in the entire existence of NYC?

I'm pretty sure I very specifically said "murders" in my response. I did say that, right? That's why I only included the over-8500 deaths number rather than a much larger one?According to this study:

https://www.ncjrs.go....aspx?id=149721

Using the definition of "assault weapon" in the New York assault weapon bill, in the year 1993

A particular firearm was positively identified with the killing 169 times This involvement was established through a match between ballistic evidence found in the deceased or at the homicide scene and an assault weapon recovered. It was determined that assault weapons were used in at least 43 homicide cases. Thus, assault weapons were involved in 16 percent of the 271 homicides where discharged firearms were recovered and 25 percent of the 169 homicides where a recovered firearm was positively linked with ballistic evidence from the crime. If the victims of the assault weapons homicides identified by this analysis represent the same proportion of all firearms homicide victims, then the number of possible homicide victims against whom assault weapons were used in New York City in 1993 could range from 240 (15.9 percent) to 383 (25.4 percent).

I'm afraid I don't have numbers for every year. 383 from 1993 would probably come pretty close to the number of people murdered with subway cars in the last several decades, though, right?How many homicides have been committed with actually-called subway cars in the entire existence of NYC?

I should also mention, I'm not in favor of banning "assault weapons" necessarily, nor have I signed any petitions to that effect, nor would I support a candidate on that basis. But the "CARS AND SUBWAYS KILL MORE PEOPLE!!!1111" arguments are pretty monumentally ridiculous.

Why would you leave this out, other than to mislead?. We went from "assault rifle" to something including handguns. It curiously specifically mentions handguns and shotguns but leaves out rifles. Perhaps because those numbers are insignificant.

For the purposes of this study, an assault weapon is defined by New York State Assembly Bill 40001. It is any centerfire, semiautomatic shotgun or pistol capable of having loaded in its magazine chamber more than six cartridges for a long gun or 10 cartridges for a pistol.

You may not agree with a ban, but Bloomberg does. The point of the original post was that he wants something banned that is responsible for very few deaths. But when presented with something else that is responsible for very few deaths, something that has a nearly 100% effective solution, he tells everyone "to keep it in perspective". I find it hard to believe anyone doesn't see that hypocrisy.

I left it out because it was late at night and I wasn't paying attention and because I'm about 99%the certain you're never going to show up in this thread with actual numbers of subway homicides versus suicides.I'm sure you do see hypocrisy. The only point I've had in this dicussion is that there's a relevant difference. That there are a whole hell of the lot more firearm deaths per year.

If you read the thread about subway safety, I also discuss the guard/gate thing. There's no way the government in NY is spending that kind of money on a solution to that size a problem. It just isn't.

Hell, the government isn't going to spend any money on guns, either. It'll be some unfunded thing or another. Banning assault weapons is cheaper than getting people health care.

 

[Henry Ford]

The NRA statement was predictable, disappointing, and for me personally, infuriating:

Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again. We attended today's White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.

We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not.

The bolded is the most infuriating part. There is not ONE aspect of what is being discussed: universal background checks, limits on high capacity magazines, even a ban on certain assault weapons (to which I am opposed, BTW) that has ANYTHING to do with the Second Amendment. Yet this continues to be thrown out in response to these proposals, as a means to eliminate all reasonable discussion and increase the paranoia of gun owners. It's disgusting.

I'm confused. If you think banning certain weapons and making it more difficult to obtain weapons doesn't have anything to do with the Second Amendment, I don't really know what you think the Second Amendment is. It may all be allowable under the Amendment - and in fact I'm pretty sure it would be - but it sure as hell has something to do with the Amendment.

 

[Hoosier16]

You seem to be conveniently avoiding the question. And the obvious answer. The control side likes to include accidents and suicides when it's convenient to their argument. But,we can exclude them, if it is now convenient to do so. So, once more with your restrictions, how many homicides have been committed with the so-called "assault rifle" in the entire existence of NYC?

I'm pretty sure I very specifically said "murders" in my response. I did say that, right? That's why I only included the over-8500 deaths number rather than a much larger one?According to this study:

https://www.ncjrs.go....aspx?id=149721

Using the definition of "assault weapon" in the New York assault weapon bill, in the year 1993

A particular firearm was positively identified with the killing 169 times This involvement was established through a match between ballistic evidence found in the deceased or at the homicide scene and an assault weapon recovered. It was determined that assault weapons were used in at least 43 homicide cases. Thus, assault weapons were involved in 16 percent of the 271 homicides where discharged firearms were recovered and 25 percent of the 169 homicides where a recovered firearm was positively linked with ballistic evidence from the crime. If the victims of the assault weapons homicides identified by this analysis represent the same proportion of all firearms homicide victims, then the number of possible homicide victims against whom assault weapons were used in New York City in 1993 could range from 240 (15.9 percent) to 383 (25.4 percent).

I'm afraid I don't have numbers for every year. 383 from 1993 would probably come pretty close to the number of people murdered with subway cars in the last several decades, though, right?How many homicides have been committed with actually-called subway cars in the entire existence of NYC?

I should also mention, I'm not in favor of banning "assault weapons" necessarily, nor have I signed any petitions to that effect, nor would I support a candidate on that basis. But the "CARS AND SUBWAYS KILL MORE PEOPLE!!!1111" arguments are pretty monumentally ridiculous.

Why would you leave this out, other than to mislead?. We went from "assault rifle" to something including handguns. It curiously specifically mentions handguns and shotguns but leaves out rifles. Perhaps because those numbers are insignificant.

For the purposes of this study, an assault weapon is defined by New York State Assembly Bill 40001. It is any centerfire, semiautomatic shotgun or pistol capable of having loaded in its magazine chamber more than six cartridges for a long gun or 10 cartridges for a pistol.

You may not agree with a ban, but Bloomberg does. The point of the original post was that he wants something banned that is responsible for very few deaths. But when presented with something else that is responsible for very few deaths, something that has a nearly 100% effective solution, he tells everyone "to keep it in perspective". I find it hard to believe anyone doesn't see that hypocrisy.

I left it out because it was late at night and I wasn't paying attention and because I'm about 99%the certain you're never going to show up in this thread with actual numbers of subway homicides versus suicides.I'm sure you do see hypocrisy. The only point I've had in this dicussion is that there's a relevant difference. That there are a whole hell of the lot more firearm deaths per year.

If you read the thread about subway safety, I also discuss the guard/gate thing. There's no way the government in NY is spending that kind of money on a solution to that size a problem. It just isn't.

Hell, the government isn't going to spend any money on guns, either. It'll be some unfunded thing or another. Banning assault weapons is cheaper than getting people health care.

It was in the first two sentences. Hard to miss.I agree. The number of subway deaths is insignificant. I don't need to show up with that number because I already submit that it is insignificant. But no more insignificant than those caused by "assualt rifles", the kind of gun that is proposed (and likely going) to be banned. That is the simple hypocrisy. You want to talk specifically about homicides when it relates to things like the subway, but quickly expand it to all firearm deaths when talking about guns. If you want to consider the cost and benefits of solutions, I think you are severely underestimating the economic cost and overestimating the benefits of a gun (I'm not sure whether to say assault rifles, assault weapons, or firearms - they get interchanged so frequently) ban.

I had a long post written, but after reading it again, it was starting to sound redundant and truthfully, a little bit nutty. The funny thing is that two months ago, I would have been indifferent to this discussion. But after hearing the ridiculous proposals being passed off as solutions, it's clear that the most of control side doesn't really care about solving the problem, but rather pushing a preconceived agenda. Any rational person with any logical ability can look at most the proposals and see they won't have any affect at all. It's all just window dressing.

 

[timschochet]

The NRA statement was predictable, disappointing, and for me personally, infuriating:

Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again. We attended today's White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.

We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not.

The bolded is the most infuriating part. There is not ONE aspect of what is being discussed: universal background checks, limits on high capacity magazines, even a ban on certain assault weapons (to which I am opposed, BTW) that has ANYTHING to do with the Second Amendment. Yet this continues to be thrown out in response to these proposals, as a means to eliminate all reasonable discussion and increase the paranoia of gun owners. It's disgusting.

I'm confused. If you think banning certain weapons and making it more difficult to obtain weapons doesn't have anything to do with the Second Amendment, I don't really know what you think the Second Amendment is. It may all be allowable under the Amendment - and in fact I'm pretty sure it would be - but it sure as hell has something to do with the Amendment.

Perhaps I've used the wrong vocabulary here. We've had background checks for years, and the courts have allowed it. Making them universal does not "attack" the 2nd Amendment. Same for the other 2 items that were previously part of the AWB. So for the the NRA to claim they are is both false and deliberately playing on peoples paranoia, IMO.

 

[timschochet]

You seem to be conveniently avoiding the question. And the obvious answer. The control side likes to include accidents and suicides when it's convenient to their argument. But,we can exclude them, if it is now convenient to do so. So, once more with your restrictions, how many homicides have been committed with the so-called "assault rifle" in the entire existence of NYC?

I'm pretty sure I very specifically said "murders" in my response. I did say that, right? That's why I only included the over-8500 deaths number rather than a much larger one?According to this study:

https://www.ncjrs.go....aspx?id=149721

Using the definition of "assault weapon" in the New York assault weapon bill, in the year 1993

A particular firearm was positively identified with the killing 169 times This involvement was established through a match between ballistic evidence found in the deceased or at the homicide scene and an assault weapon recovered. It was determined that assault weapons were used in at least 43 homicide cases. Thus, assault weapons were involved in 16 percent of the 271 homicides where discharged firearms were recovered and 25 percent of the 169 homicides where a recovered firearm was positively linked with ballistic evidence from the crime. If the victims of the assault weapons homicides identified by this analysis represent the same proportion of all firearms homicide victims, then the number of possible homicide victims against whom assault weapons were used in New York City in 1993 could range from 240 (15.9 percent) to 383 (25.4 percent).

I'm afraid I don't have numbers for every year. 383 from 1993 would probably come pretty close to the number of people murdered with subway cars in the last several decades, though, right?How many homicides have been committed with actually-called subway cars in the entire existence of NYC?

I should also mention, I'm not in favor of banning "assault weapons" necessarily, nor have I signed any petitions to that effect, nor would I support a candidate on that basis. But the "CARS AND SUBWAYS KILL MORE PEOPLE!!!1111" arguments are pretty monumentally ridiculous.

Why would you leave this out, other than to mislead?. We went from "assault rifle" to something including handguns. It curiously specifically mentions handguns and shotguns but leaves out rifles. Perhaps because those numbers are insignificant.

For the purposes of this study, an assault weapon is defined by New York State Assembly Bill 40001. It is any centerfire, semiautomatic shotgun or pistol capable of having loaded in its magazine chamber more than six cartridges for a long gun or 10 cartridges for a pistol.

You may not agree with a ban, but Bloomberg does. The point of the original post was that he wants something banned that is responsible for very few deaths. But when presented with something else that is responsible for very few deaths, something that has a nearly 100% effective solution, he tells everyone "to keep it in perspective". I find it hard to believe anyone doesn't see that hypocrisy.

I left it out because it was late at night and I wasn't paying attention and because I'm about 99%the certain you're never going to show up in this thread with actual numbers of subway homicides versus suicides.I'm sure you do see hypocrisy. The only point I've had in this dicussion is that there's a relevant difference. That there are a whole hell of the lot more firearm deaths per year.

If you read the thread about subway safety, I also discuss the guard/gate thing. There's no way the government in NY is spending that kind of money on a solution to that size a problem. It just isn't.

Hell, the government isn't going to spend any money on guns, either. It'll be some unfunded thing or another. Banning assault weapons is cheaper than getting people health care.

It was in the first two sentences. Hard to miss.I agree. The number of subway deaths is insignificant. I don't need to show up with that number because I already submit that it is insignificant. But no more insignificant than those caused by "assualt rifles", the kind of gun that is proposed (and likely going) to be banned. That is the simple hypocrisy. You want to talk specifically about homicides when it relates to things like the subway, but quickly expand it to all firearm deaths when talking about guns. If you want to consider the cost and benefits of solutions, I think you are severely underestimating the economic cost and overestimating the benefits of a gun (I'm not sure whether to say assault rifles, assault weapons, or firearms - they get interchanged so frequently) ban.

I had a long post written, but after reading it again, it was starting to sound redundant and truthfully, a little bit nutty. The funny thing is that two months ago, I would have been indifferent to this discussion. But after hearing the ridiculous proposals being passed off as solutions, it's clear that the most of control side doesn't really care about solving the problem, but rather pushing a preconceived agenda. Any rational person with any logical ability can look at most the proposals and see they won't have any affect at all. It's all just window dressing.

You and others keep srepeating this, and I continue disagree. There are well- reasoned arguments as to why removing the private sales loophole and limiting magazines will both make a significant difference. I have repeated some of these arguments here; for me they are highly persuasive. You also fall into the trap of assigning motivations to the other side that doesn't exist.

 

[boots11234]

You seem to be conveniently avoiding the question. And the obvious answer. The control side likes to include accidents and suicides when it's convenient to their argument. But,we can exclude them, if it is now convenient to do so. So, once more with your restrictions, how many homicides have been committed with the so-called "assault rifle" in the entire existence of NYC?

I'm pretty sure I very specifically said "murders" in my response. I did say that, right? That's why I only included the over-8500 deaths number rather than a much larger one?According to this study:

https://www.ncjrs.go....aspx?id=149721

Using the definition of "assault weapon" in the New York assault weapon bill, in the year 1993

A particular firearm was positively identified with the killing 169 times This involvement was established through a match between ballistic evidence found in the deceased or at the homicide scene and an assault weapon recovered. It was determined that assault weapons were used in at least 43 homicide cases. Thus, assault weapons were involved in 16 percent of the 271 homicides where discharged firearms were recovered and 25 percent of the 169 homicides where a recovered firearm was positively linked with ballistic evidence from the crime. If the victims of the assault weapons homicides identified by this analysis represent the same proportion of all firearms homicide victims, then the number of possible homicide victims against whom assault weapons were used in New York City in 1993 could range from 240 (15.9 percent) to 383 (25.4 percent).

I'm afraid I don't have numbers for every year. 383 from 1993 would probably come pretty close to the number of people murdered with subway cars in the last several decades, though, right?How many homicides have been committed with actually-called subway cars in the entire existence of NYC?

I should also mention, I'm not in favor of banning "assault weapons" necessarily, nor have I signed any petitions to that effect, nor would I support a candidate on that basis. But the "CARS AND SUBWAYS KILL MORE PEOPLE!!!1111" arguments are pretty monumentally ridiculous.

Why would you leave this out, other than to mislead?. We went from "assault rifle" to something including handguns. It curiously specifically mentions handguns and shotguns but leaves out rifles. Perhaps because those numbers are insignificant.

For the purposes of this study, an assault weapon is defined by New York State Assembly Bill 40001. It is any centerfire, semiautomatic shotgun or pistol capable of having loaded in its magazine chamber more than six cartridges for a long gun or 10 cartridges for a pistol.

You may not agree with a ban, but Bloomberg does. The point of the original post was that he wants something banned that is responsible for very few deaths. But when presented with something else that is responsible for very few deaths, something that has a nearly 100% effective solution, he tells everyone "to keep it in perspective". I find it hard to believe anyone doesn't see that hypocrisy.

I left it out because it was late at night and I wasn't paying attention and because I'm about 99%the certain you're never going to show up in this thread with actual numbers of subway homicides versus suicides.I'm sure you do see hypocrisy. The only point I've had in this dicussion is that there's a relevant difference. That there are a whole hell of the lot more firearm deaths per year.

If you read the thread about subway safety, I also discuss the guard/gate thing. There's no way the government in NY is spending that kind of money on a solution to that size a problem. It just isn't.

Hell, the government isn't going to spend any money on guns, either. It'll be some unfunded thing or another. Banning assault weapons is cheaper than getting people health care.

It was in the first two sentences. Hard to miss.I agree. The number of subway deaths is insignificant. I don't need to show up with that number because I already submit that it is insignificant. But no more insignificant than those caused by "assualt rifles", the kind of gun that is proposed (and likely going) to be banned. That is the simple hypocrisy. You want to talk specifically about homicides when it relates to things like the subway, but quickly expand it to all firearm deaths when talking about guns. If you want to consider the cost and benefits of solutions, I think you are severely underestimating the economic cost and overestimating the benefits of a gun (I'm not sure whether to say assault rifles, assault weapons, or firearms - they get interchanged so frequently) ban.

I had a long post written, but after reading it again, it was starting to sound redundant and truthfully, a little bit nutty. The funny thing is that two months ago, I would have been indifferent to this discussion. But after hearing the ridiculous proposals being passed off as solutions, it's clear that the most of control side doesn't really care about solving the problem, but rather pushing a preconceived agenda. Any rational person with any logical ability can look at most the proposals and see they won't have any affect at all. It's all just window dressing.

I have been saying the exact same thing here. The grabbers aka mostly liberals, base all there decisions on feelings. It doesn't matter if there decision has an impact, what matters is it makes them feel good. Virtually all there policy's are based on feelings: affirmative action, taxes, abortion. I could go on and on. Feelings, all of them.

 

[timschochet]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.

YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions compromises. We'll see.

FTFY. You have a real hard time with the English language don't you?

Automatic weapons are already against the law. So, assuming that somehow I were in charge, if I were to agree to make them legal, that would be a concession.

When both sides make concessions to the status quo, that is called a compromise. Get it?

Whatever dude. Are you going to accept universal background checks and a ban on high capacity magazines, or are you girding for civil war? What will you do?

I'm done with one-sided concessions that do nothing but disarm the law abiding.So right now, I'm busy writing my politicians and arguing with the ignorant on a fantasy football message board.

When the time comes, μολὼν λαβέ

I had to google what you wrote there, because I didn't recognize it. As I might of guessed, it's that defiant phrase so popular with gun extremists: "come and take them!" Which means, in other words, that you equate background checks and limits on high capacity magazines as the equivalent of a tyrannical government knocking on your door and demanding to seize your firearms. I'm very sorry that you feel this way, but I find it ironic that you choose to call other people ignorant.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I have been saying the exact same thing here. The grabbers aka mostly liberals, base all there decisions on feelings. It doesn't matter if there decision has an impact, what matters is it makes them feel good. Virtually all there policy's are based on feelings: affirmative action, taxes, abortion. I could go on and on. Feelings, all of them.

Isn't feeling good an impact? I want people to feel good.

 

[timschochet]

I have been saying the exact same thing here. The grabbers aka mostly liberals, base all there decisions on feelings. It doesn't matter if there decision has an impact, what matters is it makes them feel good. Virtually all there policy's are based on feelings: affirmative action, taxes, abortion. I could go on and on. Feelings, all of them.

You could go on and on and you'd be wrong on nearly every one of them (although not on all of them.) But you're especially wrong on this issue. One of the main arguments I have read here against ANY kind of gun control, no matter how moderate, is that it's all part of a slippery slope to for the government to seize all guns. Obama has been compared to Hitler and Stalin. The question of how private citizens can defend themselves against a state dictatorship has come up repeatedly in this thread. These are NOT rational arguments. They are based on feelings from certain members of the pro-gun side.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.

YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions compromises. We'll see.

FTFY. You have a real hard time with the English language don't you?

Automatic weapons are already against the law. So, assuming that somehow I were in charge, if I were to agree to make them legal, that would be a concession.

When both sides make concessions to the status quo, that is called a compromise. Get it?

Whatever dude. Are you going to accept universal background checks and a ban on high capacity magazines, or are you girding for civil war? What will you do?

I'm done with one-sided concessions that do nothing but disarm the law abiding.So right now, I'm busy writing my politicians and arguing with the ignorant on a fantasy football message board.

When the time comes, μολὼν λαβέ

I had to google what you wrote there, because I didn't recognize it. As I might of guessed, it's that defiant phrase so popular with gun extremists: "come and take them!" Which means, in other words, that you equate background checks and limits on high capacity magazines as the equivalent of a tyrannical government knocking on your door and demanding to seize your firearms. I'm very sorry that you feel this way, but I find it ironic that you choose to call other people ignorant.

Tim even you can see the difference in limiting high capacity magazines and this Proposed Bill No. 122

 

[boots11234]

I have been saying the exact same thing here. The grabbers aka mostly liberals, base all there decisions on feelings. It doesn't matter if there decision has an impact, what matters is it makes them feel good. Virtually all there policy's are based on feelings: affirmative action, taxes, abortion. I could go on and on. Feelings, all of them.

Isn't feeling good an impact? I want people to feel good.

If you have the mentality of a child then yes it is good. But adults should try to make rational decisions based on outcomes other then those that make us feel good. Now go play with your blocks and let us adults discuss this issue.

 

[timschochet]

Tim even you can see the difference in limiting high capacity magazines and this Proposed Bill No. 122

I can. That's a ridiculous proposal. I doubt it's seriously being discussed anywhere.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I have been saying the exact same thing here. The grabbers aka mostly liberals, base all there decisions on feelings. It doesn't matter if there decision has an impact, what matters is it makes them feel good. Virtually all there policy's are based on feelings: affirmative action, taxes, abortion. I could go on and on. Feelings, all of them.

Isn't feeling good an impact? I want people to feel good.

If you have the mentality of a child then yes it is good. But adults should try to make rational decisions based on outcomes other then those that make us feel good. Now go play with your blocks and let us adults discuss this issue.

Grown ups stink. Gimme a snack.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Tim even you can see the difference in limiting high capacity magazines and this Proposed Bill No. 122

I can. That's a ridiculous proposal. I doubt it's seriously being discussed anywhere.

Lots of people are discussing it. When you have elected officials trampling on 2A folks have every reason to be concerned.

 

[timschochet]

Back to the politics: Several Democratic senators who have "A" ratings from the NRA have been silent so far on this issue. Plus, the Republicans, which are largely opposed to any and all new measures, remain in control of the House. So I have to wonder if, even with public opinion largely on Obama's side with regard to at least ONE of these proposals (universal background checks) anything is actually going to be accomplished. Based on the above, I have to believe that any kind of omnibus bill which includes several different proposals (the sort that politicians seem to love) is going to die an unpleasant death in Congress. Hopefully they won't do this, but will propose individual ideas instead. The other question is whether or not Obama is willing to make an executive order that would enforce universal background checks. And what would the public response be?

 

[timschochet]

Tim even you can see the difference in limiting high capacity magazines and this Proposed Bill No. 122

I can. That's a ridiculous proposal. I doubt it's seriously being discussed anywhere.

Lots of people are discussing it. When you have elected officials trampling on 2A folks have every reason to be concerned.

Link to the "lots of people"? (Specifically, the ones in favor.)

 

[smotherhook]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.

YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions compromises. We'll see.

FTFY. You have a real hard time with the English language don't you?

Automatic weapons are already against the law. So, assuming that somehow I were in charge, if I were to agree to make them legal, that would be a concession.

Once again Tim, you are illuminating your lack of knowledge on the subject. Automatic weapons are not illegal.

 

[timschochet]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.

YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions compromises. We'll see.

FTFY. You have a real hard time with the English language don't you?

Automatic weapons are already against the law. So, assuming that somehow I were in charge, if I were to agree to make them legal, that would be a concession.

Once again Tim, you are illuminating your lack of knowledge on the subject. Automatic weapons are not illegal.

Then why would cookiemonster write, "If you give us back automatic weapons"? I admit to not having studied whether they are illegal or not (though I assumed they were) because it's not relevant to the issues I am interested in. He brought them up, not me.

 

[smotherhook]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.

YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions compromises. We'll see.

FTFY. You have a real hard time with the English language don't you?

Automatic weapons are already against the law. So, assuming that somehow I were in charge, if I were to agree to make them legal, that would be a concession.

Once again Tim, you are illuminating your lack of knowledge on the subject. Automatic weapons are not illegal.

Then why would cookiemonster write, "If you give us back automatic weapons"? I admit to not having studied whether they are illegal or not (though I assumed they were) because it's not relevant to the issues I am interested in. He brought them up, not me.

man, that just struck me as hilarious

 

[smotherhook]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.

YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions compromises. We'll see.

FTFY. You have a real hard time with the English language don't you?

Automatic weapons are already against the law. So, assuming that somehow I were in charge, if I were to agree to make them legal, that would be a concession.

Once again Tim, you are illuminating your lack of knowledge on the subject. Automatic weapons are not illegal.

Then why would cookiemonster write, "If you give us back automatic weapons"? I admit to not having studied whether they are illegal or not (though I assumed they were) because it's not relevant to the issues I am interested in. He brought them up, not me.

man, that just struck me as hilarious

maybe we could get bert and ernie in on the discussion

 

[Henry Ford]

You seem to be conveniently avoiding the question. And the obvious answer. The control side likes to include accidents and suicides when it's convenient to their argument. But,we can exclude them, if it is now convenient to do so. So, once more with your restrictions, how many homicides have been committed with the so-called "assault rifle" in the entire existence of NYC?

I'm pretty sure I very specifically said "murders" in my response. I did say that, right? That's why I only included the over-8500 deaths number rather than a much larger one?According to this study:

https://www.ncjrs.go....aspx?id=149721

Using the definition of "assault weapon" in the New York assault weapon bill, in the year 1993

A particular firearm was positively identified with the killing 169 times This involvement was established through a match between ballistic evidence found in the deceased or at the homicide scene and an assault weapon recovered. It was determined that assault weapons were used in at least 43 homicide cases. Thus, assault weapons were involved in 16 percent of the 271 homicides where discharged firearms were recovered and 25 percent of the 169 homicides where a recovered firearm was positively linked with ballistic evidence from the crime. If the victims of the assault weapons homicides identified by this analysis represent the same proportion of all firearms homicide victims, then the number of possible homicide victims against whom assault weapons were used in New York City in 1993 could range from 240 (15.9 percent) to 383 (25.4 percent).

I'm afraid I don't have numbers for every year. 383 from 1993 would probably come pretty close to the number of people murdered with subway cars in the last several decades, though, right?How many homicides have been committed with actually-called subway cars in the entire existence of NYC?

I should also mention, I'm not in favor of banning "assault weapons" necessarily, nor have I signed any petitions to that effect, nor would I support a candidate on that basis. But the "CARS AND SUBWAYS KILL MORE PEOPLE!!!1111" arguments are pretty monumentally ridiculous.

Why would you leave this out, other than to mislead?. We went from "assault rifle" to something including handguns. It curiously specifically mentions handguns and shotguns but leaves out rifles. Perhaps because those numbers are insignificant.

For the purposes of this study, an assault weapon is defined by New York State Assembly Bill 40001. It is any centerfire, semiautomatic shotgun or pistol capable of having loaded in its magazine chamber more than six cartridges for a long gun or 10 cartridges for a pistol.

You may not agree with a ban, but Bloomberg does. The point of the original post was that he wants something banned that is responsible for very few deaths. But when presented with something else that is responsible for very few deaths, something that has a nearly 100% effective solution, he tells everyone "to keep it in perspective". I find it hard to believe anyone doesn't see that hypocrisy.

I left it out because it was late at night and I wasn't paying attention and because I'm about 99%the certain you're never going to show up in this thread with actual numbers of subway homicides versus suicides.I'm sure you do see hypocrisy. The only point I've had in this dicussion is that there's a relevant difference. That there are a whole hell of the lot more firearm deaths per year.

If you read the thread about subway safety, I also discuss the guard/gate thing. There's no way the government in NY is spending that kind of money on a solution to that size a problem. It just isn't.

Hell, the government isn't going to spend any money on guns, either. It'll be some unfunded thing or another. Banning assault weapons is cheaper than getting people health care.

It was in the first two sentences. Hard to miss.I agree. The number of subway deaths is insignificant. I don't need to show up with that number because I already submit that it is insignificant. But no more insignificant than those caused by "assualt rifles", the kind of gun that is proposed (and likely going) to be banned. That is the simple hypocrisy. You want to talk specifically about homicides when it relates to things like the subway, but quickly expand it to all firearm deaths when talking about guns. If you want to consider the cost and benefits of solutions, I think you are severely underestimating the economic cost and overestimating the benefits of a gun (I'm not sure whether to say assault rifles, assault weapons, or firearms - they get interchanged so frequently) ban.

I had a long post written, but after reading it again, it was starting to sound redundant and truthfully, a little bit nutty. The funny thing is that two months ago, I would have been indifferent to this discussion. But after hearing the ridiculous proposals being passed off as solutions, it's clear that the most of control side doesn't really care about solving the problem, but rather pushing a preconceived agenda. Any rational person with any logical ability can look at most the proposals and see they won't have any affect at all. It's all just window dressing.

I agree for the most part. I do think a database with a privacy act attached would make a big difference long term. There is no short term fix.

 

[Henry Ford]

I have been saying the exact same thing here. The grabbers aka mostly liberals, base all there decisions on feelings. It doesn't matter if there decision has an impact, what matters is it makes them feel good. Virtually all there policy's are based on feelings: affirmative action, taxes, abortion. I could go on and on. Feelings, all of them.

Isn't feeling good an impact? I want people to feel good.

Wait, are we saying abortion feels good? Man, women get all the luck.

 

[Henry Ford]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.

YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions compromises. We'll see.

FTFY. You have a real hard time with the English language don't you?

Automatic weapons are already against the law. So, assuming that somehow I were in charge, if I were to agree to make them legal, that would be a concession.

Once again Tim, you are illuminating your lack of knowledge on the subject. Automatic weapons are not illegal.

Then why would cookiemonster write, "If you give us back automatic weapons"? I admit to not having studied whether they are illegal or not (though I assumed they were) because it's not relevant to the issues I am interested in. He brought them up, not me.

man, that just struck me as hilarious

maybe we could get bert and ernie in on the discussion

The Count: Two! Two features mentioned in the bill! Hahahahahaha. It's banned!

 

[timschochet]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.

YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions compromises. We'll see.

FTFY. You have a real hard time with the English language don't you?

Automatic weapons are already against the law. So, assuming that somehow I were in charge, if I were to agree to make them legal, that would be a concession.

Once again Tim, you are illuminating your lack of knowledge on the subject. Automatic weapons are not illegal.

Then why would cookiemonster write, "If you give us back automatic weapons"? I admit to not having studied whether they are illegal or not (though I assumed they were) because it's not relevant to the issues I am interested in. He brought them up, not me.

man, that just struck me as hilarious

His name may be silly, but he's made some great contributions to this discussion. He and I disagree on most of these issues, but he is an intelligent guy and I learn something new every time he posts. For me that's the best kind of poster.

 

[Blick]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.

YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions compromises. We'll see.

FTFY. You have a real hard time with the English language don't you?

Automatic weapons are already against the law. So, assuming that somehow I were in charge, if I were to agree to make them legal, that would be a concession.

Once again Tim, you are illuminating your lack of knowledge on the subject. Automatic weapons are not illegal.

Then why would cookiemonster write, "If you give us back automatic weapons"? I admit to not having studied whether they are illegal or not (though I assumed they were) because it's not relevant to the issues I am interested in. He brought them up, not me.

Very, very difficult obtain, expensive, and HIGHLY regulated.

 

[tom22406]

Tim even you can see the difference in limiting high capacity magazines and this Proposed Bill No. 122

I can. That's a ridiculous proposal. I doubt it's seriously being discussed anywhere.

But yet the pro-gun people are nuts?How generous of Sen. Meyer to allow 1 shot.This was a Senator(not some internet legislator)proposing this and yet you don't want anybody to be alarmed.He might as well have went for the entire ban and be done with it.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Tim even you can see the difference in limiting high capacity magazines and this Proposed Bill No. 122

I can. That's a ridiculous proposal. I doubt it's seriously being discussed anywhere.

But yet the pro-gun people are nuts?How generous of Sen. Meyer to allow 1 shot.This was a Senator(not some internet legislator)proposing this and yet you don't want anybody to be alarmed.He might as well have went for the entire ban and be done with it.

State Senator.

 

[timschochet]

Tim even you can see the difference in limiting high capacity magazines and this Proposed Bill No. 122

I can. That's a ridiculous proposal. I doubt it's seriously being discussed anywhere.

But yet the pro-gun people are nuts?How generous of Sen. Meyer to allow 1 shot.This was a Senator(not some internet legislator)proposing this and yet you don't want anybody to be alarmed.He might as well have went for the entire ban and be done with it.

A state senator. There are probably thousands of crazy proposals from state senators every week. None of them are worth talking about.

 

[tom22406]

Tim even you can see the difference in limiting high capacity magazines and this Proposed Bill No. 122

I can. That's a ridiculous proposal. I doubt it's seriously being discussed anywhere.

But yet the pro-gun people are nuts?How generous of Sen. Meyer to allow 1 shot.This was a Senator(not some internet legislator)proposing this and yet you don't want anybody to be alarmed.He might as well have went for the entire ban and be done with it.

State Senator.

No doubt in that but it doesn't take away from the stupidity of this bill.

 

[Hoosier16]

It was in the first two sentences. Hard to miss.

I agree. The number of subway deaths is insignificant. I don't need to show up with that number because I already submit that it is insignificant. But no more insignificant than those caused by "assualt rifles", the kind of gun that is proposed (and likely going) to be banned. That is the simple hypocrisy. You want to talk specifically about homicides when it relates to things like the subway, but quickly expand it to all firearm deaths when talking about guns. If you want to consider the cost and benefits of solutions, I think you are severely underestimating the economic cost and overestimating the benefits of a gun (I'm not sure whether to say assault rifles, assault weapons, or firearms - they get interchanged so frequently) ban.

I had a long post written, but after reading it again, it was starting to sound redundant and truthfully, a little bit nutty. The funny thing is that two months ago, I would have been indifferent to this discussion. But after hearing the ridiculous proposals being passed off as solutions, it's clear that the most of control side doesn't really care about solving the problem, but rather pushing a preconceived agenda. Any rational person with any logical ability can look at most the proposals and see they won't have any affect at all. It's all just window dressing.

You and others keep srepeating this, and I continue disagree. There are well- reasoned arguments as to why removing the private sales loophole and limiting magazines will both make a significant difference. I have repeated some of these arguments here; for me they are highly persuasive. You also fall into the trap of assigning motivations to the other side that doesn't exist.

I think we solved the private sale loophole pages ago. We mostly agree there. We even agreed to a privately held database. There are no well-reasoned arguments that limiting magazine capacities will make a significant difference. The difference in opinion here is that you (and others apparently) believe the ability to reload a gun quickly is an expert skill. It's not. And if it isn't, I don't see how you can view magazine restrictions as effective.

 

[smotherhook]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.

YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions compromises. We'll see.

FTFY. You have a real hard time with the English language don't you?

Automatic weapons are already against the law. So, assuming that somehow I were in charge, if I were to agree to make them legal, that would be a concession.

Once again Tim, you are illuminating your lack of knowledge on the subject. Automatic weapons are not illegal.

Then why would cookiemonster write, "If you give us back automatic weapons"? I admit to not having studied whether they are illegal or not (though I assumed they were) because it's not relevant to the issues I am interested in. He brought them up, not me.

Very, very difficult obtain, expensive, and HIGHLY regulated.

expensive is an understatement

 

[boots11234]

It was in the first two sentences. Hard to miss.

I agree. The number of subway deaths is insignificant. I don't need to show up with that number because I already submit that it is insignificant. But no more insignificant than those caused by "assualt rifles", the kind of gun that is proposed (and likely going) to be banned. That is the simple hypocrisy. You want to talk specifically about homicides when it relates to things like the subway, but quickly expand it to all firearm deaths when talking about guns. If you want to consider the cost and benefits of solutions, I think you are severely underestimating the economic cost and overestimating the benefits of a gun (I'm not sure whether to say assault rifles, assault weapons, or firearms - they get interchanged so frequently) ban.

I had a long post written, but after reading it again, it was starting to sound redundant and truthfully, a little bit nutty. The funny thing is that two months ago, I would have been indifferent to this discussion. But after hearing the ridiculous proposals being passed off as solutions, it's clear that the most of control side doesn't really care about solving the problem, but rather pushing a preconceived agenda. Any rational person with any logical ability can look at most the proposals and see they won't have any affect at all. It's all just window dressing.

You and others keep srepeating this, and I continue disagree. There are well- reasoned arguments as to why removing the private sales loophole and limiting magazines will both make a significant difference. I have repeated some of these arguments here; for me they are highly persuasive. You also fall into the trap of assigning motivations to the other side that doesn't exist.

I think we solved the private sale loophole pages ago. We mostly agree there. We even agreed to a privately held database. There are no well-reasoned arguments that limiting magazine capacities will make a significant difference. The difference in opinion here is that you (and others apparently) believe the ability to reload a gun quickly is an expert skill. It's not. And if it isn't, I don't see how you can view magazine restrictions as effective.

So this private list, what's to stop politicians down the line from creating a new law giving them access to this list? This will not work, it will get very low compliance. Since when do law abiding citizens have to justify a Right? Maybe justify a Right isn't the right term, how about register a Right?

 

[boots11234]

Also, is this really the job of the federal govt? I would think this is much more a states issue. Feds have no business discussing this

 

[tom22406]

Anybody see the Piers Morgan interview with Ben Shapiro last night?Entertaining if nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Also, is this really the job of the federal govt? I would think this is much more a states issue. Feds have no business discussing this

Guns cross state lines all the time. Seems like the sort of thing where the feds have a role to play.

 

[smotherhook]

Also, is this really the job of the federal govt? I would think this is much more a states issue. Feds have no business discussing this

Guns cross state lines all the time. Seems like the sort of thing where the feds have a role to play.

the majority of guns dont cross state lines

 

[Jackstraw]

Also, is this really the job of the federal govt? I would think this is much more a states issue. Feds have no business discussing this

Guns cross state lines all the time. Seems like the sort of thing where the feds have a role to play.

the majority of guns dont cross state lines

Nonsense. If that were the case we'd have a gun manufacturer in every state.

 

[Henry Ford]

Also, is this really the job of the federal govt? I would think this is much more a states issue. Feds have no business discussing this

Guns cross state lines all the time. Seems like the sort of thing where the feds have a role to play.

the majority of guns dont cross state lines

That's a silly thing to say.

 

[Hoosier16]

It was in the first two sentences. Hard to miss.

I agree. The number of subway deaths is insignificant. I don't need to show up with that number because I already submit that it is insignificant. But no more insignificant than those caused by "assualt rifles", the kind of gun that is proposed (and likely going) to be banned. That is the simple hypocrisy. You want to talk specifically about homicides when it relates to things like the subway, but quickly expand it to all firearm deaths when talking about guns. If you want to consider the cost and benefits of solutions, I think you are severely underestimating the economic cost and overestimating the benefits of a gun (I'm not sure whether to say assault rifles, assault weapons, or firearms - they get interchanged so frequently) ban.

I had a long post written, but after reading it again, it was starting to sound redundant and truthfully, a little bit nutty. The funny thing is that two months ago, I would have been indifferent to this discussion. But after hearing the ridiculous proposals being passed off as solutions, it's clear that the most of control side doesn't really care about solving the problem, but rather pushing a preconceived agenda. Any rational person with any logical ability can look at most the proposals and see they won't have any affect at all. It's all just window dressing.

You and others keep srepeating this, and I continue disagree. There are well- reasoned arguments as to why removing the private sales loophole and limiting magazines will both make a significant difference. I have repeated some of these arguments here; for me they are highly persuasive. You also fall into the trap of assigning motivations to the other side that doesn't exist.

I think we solved the private sale loophole pages ago. We mostly agree there. We even agreed to a privately held database. There are no well-reasoned arguments that limiting magazine capacities will make a significant difference. The difference in opinion here is that you (and others apparently) believe the ability to reload a gun quickly is an expert skill. It's not. And if it isn't, I don't see how you can view magazine restrictions as effective.

So this private list, what's to stop politicians down the line from creating a new law giving them access to this list? This will not work, it will get very low compliance. Since when do law abiding citizens have to justify a Right? Maybe justify a Right isn't the right term, how about register a Right?

I guess the same thing that stops them from passing a law giving them access to your health record. Or any other privately held information.

 

[Guest]

Recent gun control proposals, in a way, resemble Voter ID proposals.  It can be argued that both gun control and Voter ID are reasonable restrictions on Constitutional rights, and those restrictions are meant to forward a compelling state interest (fair elections; safer society).  Yet many of the people most opposed to the reasonable restrictions on the right to vote are those people most ardent in support of reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms; and many of the people most opposed to reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms are those people most ardent in support of reasonable restrictions on the right to vote.Granted, people split on their application of restrictions on these two rights likely disagree on whether the respective restrictions are reasonable and/or whether the state interest in the two examples is compelling.  It seems to me, though, that if you're opposed to reasonable restrictions on Constitutional rights then you should apply that rule uniformly or else you appear driven by ideology and not principle.

We did this pages ago. They're not really similar.What's similar to registering guns is registering to vote which nobody has a problem with.

First, apologies for not following all 115 pages closely.Second, so you'd be cool with not checking gun purchasers' IDs? Because that also seems similar.

It comes down to the balancing test. I'm ok with using fingerprints to verify identity for both buying a gun and voting.

 

[smotherhook]

Also, is this really the job of the federal govt? I would think this is much more a states issue. Feds have no business discussing this

Guns cross state lines all the time. Seems like the sort of thing where the feds have a role to play.

the majority of guns dont cross state lines

That's a silly thing to say.

i guess i meant to say after private ownership is established

 

[Cliff Clavin]

It was in the first two sentences. Hard to miss.

I agree. The number of subway deaths is insignificant. I don't need to show up with that number because I already submit that it is insignificant. But no more insignificant than those caused by "assualt rifles", the kind of gun that is proposed (and likely going) to be banned. That is the simple hypocrisy. You want to talk specifically about homicides when it relates to things like the subway, but quickly expand it to all firearm deaths when talking about guns. If you want to consider the cost and benefits of solutions, I think you are severely underestimating the economic cost and overestimating the benefits of a gun (I'm not sure whether to say assault rifles, assault weapons, or firearms - they get interchanged so frequently) ban.

I had a long post written, but after reading it again, it was starting to sound redundant and truthfully, a little bit nutty. The funny thing is that two months ago, I would have been indifferent to this discussion. But after hearing the ridiculous proposals being passed off as solutions, it's clear that the most of control side doesn't really care about solving the problem, but rather pushing a preconceived agenda. Any rational person with any logical ability can look at most the proposals and see they won't have any affect at all. It's all just window dressing.

You and others keep srepeating this, and I continue disagree. There are well- reasoned arguments as to why removing the private sales loophole and limiting magazines will both make a significant difference. I have repeated some of these arguments here; for me they are highly persuasive. You also fall into the trap of assigning motivations to the other side that doesn't exist.

100+ pages and still spouting the same nonsense. Excellent work timothy.

 

[Henry Ford]

Also, is this really the job of the federal govt? I would think this is much more a states issue. Feds have no business discussing this

Guns cross state lines all the time. Seems like the sort of thing where the feds have a role to play.

the majority of guns dont cross state lines

That's a silly thing to say.

i guess i meant to say after private ownership is established

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-29/news/os-florida-illegal-guns-09272010_1_illegal-gun-trafficking-mayors-against-illegal-guns-lax-gun-laws

Mayors Against Illegal Guns has traced 145,321 guns that were used in crimes in 2009 and found that 30 percent of them were bought in a different state than where the crime occurred.

It doesn't have to be a majority of the product to represent a legitimate government interest.

 

[Chaos Commish]

It was in the first two sentences. Hard to miss.

I agree. The number of subway deaths is insignificant. I don't need to show up with that number because I already submit that it is insignificant. But no more insignificant than those caused by "assualt rifles", the kind of gun that is proposed (and likely going) to be banned. That is the simple hypocrisy. You want to talk specifically about homicides when it relates to things like the subway, but quickly expand it to all firearm deaths when talking about guns. If you want to consider the cost and benefits of solutions, I think you are severely underestimating the economic cost and overestimating the benefits of a gun (I'm not sure whether to say assault rifles, assault weapons, or firearms - they get interchanged so frequently) ban.

I had a long post written, but after reading it again, it was starting to sound redundant and truthfully, a little bit nutty. The funny thing is that two months ago, I would have been indifferent to this discussion. But after hearing the ridiculous proposals being passed off as solutions, it's clear that the most of control side doesn't really care about solving the problem, but rather pushing a preconceived agenda. Any rational person with any logical ability can look at most the proposals and see they won't have any affect at all. It's all just window dressing.

You and others keep srepeating this, and I continue disagree. There are well- reasoned arguments as to why removing the private sales loophole and limiting magazines will both make a significant difference. I have repeated some of these arguments here; for me they are highly persuasive. You also fall into the trap of assigning motivations to the other side that doesn't exist.

100+ pages and still spouting the same nonsense. Excellent work timothy.

I'd approve a ban on semi automatic posters with high capacity keyboards.