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

[ichris]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

I thought you said earlier you weren't in favor of laws that couldn't be enforced? Isn't that why you said you didn't think the 30 round mag ban would work?Canada shut down their gun registry because the compliance rate was abysmal. It wasn't worth the effort or the money. Canadians even like and trust big government. Do you think paranoid Americans will comply with a government run gun registry?

I'll have to read more about Canada. If what you write is true, then it might change my mind about a national database. I'd like to know all the factors. Perhaps they didn't spend enough money on it? I firmly believe, for the reasons I have stated, that background checks will make a difference. I am admittedly less certain about national registration, but at the moment I lean toward it being a good idea.

IIRC, they spent billions (with a B) on it over a 10 year period.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Universal background checks won't work unless you have registration.

Yes they will. They won't work quite as well, but they WILL work. The reason is because most people are honest. Most people who engage in private sales or transfers of firearms are not criminals, but are honest people who would not be involved in a crime if they knew about it. That is why this will make such a difference.

So explain again how you would enforce these laws?

I wouldn't. As I tried to explain in my example, they would enforce themselves to a large extent, because most people are honest. If you give most people new forms that they have to fill in, they will fill them in. Sure some will refuse because they are criminal, or because they resent or fear the government, but this is a small minority. Most will comply. Even if criminals don't, it will require two people breaking the law to complete an illegal sale, rather than one.

 

[tom22406]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Universal background checks won't work unless you have registration.

Yes they will. They won't work quite as well, but they WILL work. The reason is because most people are honest. Most people who engage in private sales or transfers of firearms are not criminals, but are honest people who would not be involved in a crime if they knew about it. That is why this will make such a difference.

So explain again how you would enforce these laws?

I wouldn't. As I tried to explain in my example, they would enforce themselves to a large extent, because most people are honest. If you give most people new forms that they have to fill in, they will fill them in. Sure some will refuse because they are criminal, or because they resent or fear the government, but this is a small minority. Most will comply. Even if criminals don't, it will require two people breaking the law to complete an illegal sale, rather than one.

So how about the people who don't care about laws?And I hope you're not serious with that post because that clearly is living in fantasy land.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Universal background checks won't work unless you have registration.

Yes they will. They won't work quite as well, but they WILL work. The reason is because most people are honest. Most people who engage in private sales or transfers of firearms are not criminals, but are honest people who would not be involved in a crime if they knew about it. That is why this will make such a difference.

So explain again how you would enforce these laws?

I wouldn't. As I tried to explain in my example, they would enforce themselves to a large extent, because most people are honest. If you give most people new forms that they have to fill in, they will fill them in. Sure some will refuse because they are criminal, or because they resent or fear the government, but this is a small minority. Most will comply. Even if criminals don't, it will require two people breaking the law to complete an illegal sale, rather than one.

So how about the people who don't care about laws?And I hope you're not serious with that post because that clearly is living in fantasy land.

I absolutely am serious and I am not living in fantasy land. To answer your question: those people who don't care about laws will still purchase guns illegally. But since this will involve two people willing to break the law rather than one (a buyer and a seller, rather than just a buyer) these transactions won't happen as often. Therefore the amount of illegal sales will go down.

 

[Rayderr]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Universal background checks won't work unless you have registration.

Yes they will. They won't work quite as well, but they WILL work. The reason is because most people are honest. Most people who engage in private sales or transfers of firearms are not criminals, but are honest people who would not be involved in a crime if they knew about it. That is why this will make such a difference.

So explain again how you would enforce these laws?

I wouldn't. As I tried to explain in my example, they would enforce themselves to a large extent, because most people are honest. If you give most people new forms that they have to fill in, they will fill them in. Sure some will refuse because they are criminal, or because they resent or fear the government, but this is a small minority. Most will comply. Even if criminals don't, it will require two people breaking the law to complete an illegal sale, rather than one.

So how about the people who don't care about laws?And I hope you're not serious with that post because that clearly is living in fantasy land.

I absolutely am serious and I am not living in fantasy land. To answer your question: those people who don't care about laws will still purchase guns illegally. But since this will involve two people willing to break the law rather than one (a buyer and a seller, rather than just a buyer) these transactions won't happen as often. Therefore the amount of illegal sales will go down.

Best case scenario is that people steal more guns to sell on the black market.

 

[ATC1]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Universal background checks won't work unless you have registration.

Yes they will. They won't work quite as well, but they WILL work. The reason is because most people are honest. Most people who engage in private sales or transfers of firearms are not criminals, but are honest people who would not be involved in a crime if they knew about it. That is why this will make such a difference.

So explain again how you would enforce these laws?

I wouldn't. As I tried to explain in my example, they would enforce themselves to a large extent, because most people are honest. If you give most people new forms that they have to fill in, they will fill them in. Sure some will refuse because they are criminal, or because they resent or fear the government, but this is a small minority. Most will comply. Even if criminals don't, it will require two people breaking the law to complete an illegal sale, rather than one.

So how about the people who don't care about laws?And I hope you're not serious with that post because that clearly is living in fantasy land.

I absolutely am serious and I am not living in fantasy land. To answer your question: those people who don't care about laws will still purchase guns illegally. But since this will involve two people willing to break the law rather than one (a buyer and a seller, rather than just a buyer) these transactions won't happen as often. Therefore the amount of illegal sales will go down.

Not to mention that if a small number of people will sell to criminals. Once in jail they won't be able to sell to the next criminal. Why do we need a national registry? All licensed transfers should be recorded. Gun was initially sold by this distributor. Mr. X sold to Mr. Y through a licensed dealer who is required perform back ground checks and to maintain proof of the transaction. Eventually it will get in the hands of a criminal. The owner that sold it to that criminal commits a felony and thus can not own a weapon. In before someone says, "What if the gun is stolen?" If the gun is stolen then that person is required to report it. In doing so would be a misdemeanor and fine. However, not doing so and the gun is in a crime, it will result in a felony. See if people start locking up their firearms better.

 

[tom22406]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Universal background checks won't work unless you have registration.

Yes they will. They won't work quite as well, but they WILL work. The reason is because most people are honest. Most people who engage in private sales or transfers of firearms are not criminals, but are honest people who would not be involved in a crime if they knew about it. That is why this will make such a difference.

So explain again how you would enforce these laws?

I wouldn't. As I tried to explain in my example, they would enforce themselves to a large extent, because most people are honest. If you give most people new forms that they have to fill in, they will fill them in. Sure some will refuse because they are criminal, or because they resent or fear the government, but this is a small minority. Most will comply. Even if criminals don't, it will require two people breaking the law to complete an illegal sale, rather than one.

So how about the people who don't care about laws?And I hope you're not serious with that post because that clearly is living in fantasy land.

I absolutely am serious and I am not living in fantasy land. To answer your question: those people who don't care about laws will still purchase guns illegally. But since this will involve two people willing to break the law rather than one (a buyer and a seller, rather than just a buyer) these transactions won't happen as often. Therefore the amount of illegal sales will go down.

Not to mention that if a small number of people will sell to criminals. Once in jail they won't be able to sell to the next criminal.

This is what I want to know.How would they be in jail if Tim isn't gonna enforce a law and have Joe Public use the honesty system?We turn them in for a reward like in NY and the "assault weapons" program for $500?

 

[ATC1]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Universal background checks won't work unless you have registration.

Yes they will. They won't work quite as well, but they WILL work. The reason is because most people are honest. Most people who engage in private sales or transfers of firearms are not criminals, but are honest people who would not be involved in a crime if they knew about it. That is why this will make such a difference.

So explain again how you would enforce these laws?

I wouldn't. As I tried to explain in my example, they would enforce themselves to a large extent, because most people are honest. If you give most people new forms that they have to fill in, they will fill them in. Sure some will refuse because they are criminal, or because they resent or fear the government, but this is a small minority. Most will comply. Even if criminals don't, it will require two people breaking the law to complete an illegal sale, rather than one.

So how about the people who don't care about laws?And I hope you're not serious with that post because that clearly is living in fantasy land.

I absolutely am serious and I am not living in fantasy land. To answer your question: those people who don't care about laws will still purchase guns illegally. But since this will involve two people willing to break the law rather than one (a buyer and a seller, rather than just a buyer) these transactions won't happen as often. Therefore the amount of illegal sales will go down.

Not to mention that if a small number of people will sell to criminals. Once in jail they won't be able to sell to the next criminal.

This is what I want to know.How would they be in jail if Tim isn't gonna enforce a law and have Joe Public use the honesty system?We turn them in for a reward like in NY and the "assault weapons" program for $500?

Enforce what law? That all sales need to go through a licensed transfer that includes a background check? Only enforceable really if another crime is committed by that weapon. Then the paper trail should easily lead to a previous owner. Reward systems are abused and banning certain guns is not the best way to get things accomplished. Make gun owners reliable for themselves.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

If you take away guns in America then we as a society will evolve like the Japanese and find other ways to cause mayhem.

 

[tom22406]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Universal background checks won't work unless you have registration.

Yes they will. They won't work quite as well, but they WILL work. The reason is because most people are honest. Most people who engage in private sales or transfers of firearms are not criminals, but are honest people who would not be involved in a crime if they knew about it. That is why this will make such a difference.

So explain again how you would enforce these laws?

I wouldn't. As I tried to explain in my example, they would enforce themselves to a large extent, because most people are honest. If you give most people new forms that they have to fill in, they will fill them in. Sure some will refuse because they are criminal, or because they resent or fear the government, but this is a small minority. Most will comply. Even if criminals don't, it will require two people breaking the law to complete an illegal sale, rather than one.

So how about the people who don't care about laws?And I hope you're not serious with that post because that clearly is living in fantasy land.

I absolutely am serious and I am not living in fantasy land. To answer your question: those people who don't care about laws will still purchase guns illegally. But since this will involve two people willing to break the law rather than one (a buyer and a seller, rather than just a buyer) these transactions won't happen as often. Therefore the amount of illegal sales will go down.

Not to mention that if a small number of people will sell to criminals. Once in jail they won't be able to sell to the next criminal.

This is what I want to know.How would they be in jail if Tim isn't gonna enforce a law and have Joe Public use the honesty system?We turn them in for a reward like in NY and the "assault weapons" program for $500?

Enforce what law? That all sales need to go through a licensed transfer that includes a background check? Only enforceable really if another crime is committed by that weapon. Then the paper trail should easily lead to a previous owner. Reward systems are abused and banning certain guns is not the best way to get things accomplished. Make gun owners reliable for themselves.

If you have no database already in place wouldn't this require all owned guns to be put in?I get that moving forward it would work with new purchases.

 

[ATC1]

Enforce what law? That all sales need to go through a licensed transfer that includes a background check? Only enforceable really if another crime is committed by that weapon. Then the paper trail should easily lead to a previous owner. Reward systems are abused and banning certain guns is not the best way to get things accomplished. Make gun owners reliable for themselves.

If you have no database already in place wouldn't this require all owned guns to be put in?I get that moving forward it would work with new purchases.

If a criminal commits a crime using a pre-owned gun from a private seller before the law is in effect there is little you can do. I don't know I would go so far and to require everyone with a pre-owned gun make sure they have the gun checked at a licensed dealer. However, after the law passes, sellers of pre-owned guns will pay much closer attention to who they sell it too and the best way to do that by law is through a licensed transfer for a back ground check. Once that happens that pre-owned gun will start having a transfer paper trail.

 

[[icon]]

We're gonna make new laws but we're not going to actually enforce em. We're just going to trust everything to work out.

REALLY?

This is the master plan?

Jesus christ.. tim say hey to bigfoot and Nessie for me.

 

[Politician Spock]

Any time money is involved, honesty is a matter of degrees.

 

[[icon]]

Any time money is involved, honesty is a matter of degrees.

Not in tims magical universe where everyones a good guy or bad guy and once we get all the bad guys locked up we get to live happily ever after in Candyland!

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

If Tim was really serious about preventing gun violence he would stop posting.

 

[mad sweeney]

They are literally saying "please don't filibuster because of the children."

How long are they going to use this strategy to advance their agenda?!

Only while there are children that we need to think of.

Weren't ALL guns already banned in schools? Criminals and looney's don't follow those rules but somehow it's expected that they will stop bringing guns into schools, where they are already banned, if we ban certain types of guns and clips outside of schools..

You seriously gonna post in here again after you flopped straight on your face? Man up or get out.

 

[mad sweeney]

This is why private gun sales should have to go through a licensed dealer. Huge problem.

Yes I can see it now:SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: (In shock) Wait! Really? I don't know I could just give it to you here.

FELON: Woman! Get ahold of yourself! That #### would be ILLEGAL!

ACCOMPLICE: Well... but...

FELON: I'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT. Plan foiled. (Shakes Fist at Sky) Damn you Government! I woulda gotten away with it if it wasn't for your pesky newfangled transfer law!!!

(CURTAINS)

Stupid.

I agree, the idea that gun transfer legislation will stop criminals from obtaining guns is stupid..

The idea that any laws will stop criminals from breaking them must be true. We shouldn't have any laws at all! It's not like laws against rape stop a rapist. Btw, man up or get out.

 

[[icon]]

The idea that any laws will stop criminals from breaking them must be true. We shouldn't have any laws at all! It's not like laws against rape stop a rapist. Btw, man up or get out.

YEs this is an excellent analogy because I was actually just coming in here to talk about the tens of millions of americans who safely and responsibly rape for sport on a regular basis... also those who rape for food. People I never want in position of writing legislature:1) Timmay2) Mad Sweeney

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

The idea that any laws will stop criminals from breaking them must be true. We shouldn't have any laws at all! It's not like laws against rape stop a rapist. Btw, man up or get out.

YEs this is an excellent analogy because I was actually just coming in here to talk about the tens of millions of americans who safely and responsibly rape for sport on a regular basis... also those who rape for food. People I never want in position of writing legislature:1) Timmay2) Mad Sweeney

:goodposting & Those guys over there are breaking the law. We should make more laws for them to break all while infringing on the privacy and pocketbooks of the people who follow the laws.

 

[mad sweeney]

The idea that any laws will stop criminals from breaking them must be true. We shouldn't have any laws at all! It's not like laws against rape stop a rapist. Btw, man up or get out.

YEs this is an excellent analogy because I was actually just coming in here to talk about the tens of millions of americans who safely and responsibly rape for sport on a regular basis... also those who rape for food. People I never want in position of writing legislature:1) Timmay2) Mad Sweeney

:goodposting & Those guys over there are breaking the law. We should make more laws for them to break all while infringing on the privacy and pocketbooks of the people who follow the laws.

That was an extreme example. There are thousands of laws that inconvenience law abiding citizens. The point was to show how stupid the "criminals won't obey the law anyway" argument is.

 

[Novice2]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Universal background checks won't work unless you have registration.

Yes they will. They won't work quite as well, but they WILL work. The reason is because most people are honest. Most people who engage in private sales or transfers of firearms are not criminals, but are honest people who would not be involved in a crime if they knew about it. That is why this will make such a difference.

So explain again how you would enforce these laws?

I wouldn't. As I tried to explain in my example, they would enforce themselves to a large extent, because most people are honest. If you give most people new forms that they have to fill in, they will fill them in. Sure some will refuse because they are criminal, or because they resent or fear the government, but this is a small minority. Most will comply. Even if criminals don't, it will require two people breaking the law to complete an illegal sale, rather than one.

So how about the people who don't care about laws?And I hope you're not serious with that post because that clearly is living in fantasy land.

I absolutely am serious and I am not living in fantasy land. To answer your question: those people who don't care about laws will still purchase guns illegally. But since this will involve two people willing to break the law rather than one (a buyer and a seller, rather than just a buyer) these transactions won't happen as often. Therefore the amount of illegal sales will go down.

Not to mention that if a small number of people will sell to criminals. Once in jail they won't be able to sell to the next criminal. Why do we need a national registry? All licensed transfers should be recorded. Gun was initially sold by this distributor. Mr. X sold to Mr. Y through a licensed dealer who is required perform back ground checks and to maintain proof of the transaction. Eventually it will get in the hands of a criminal. The owner that sold it to that criminal commits a felony and thus can not own a weapon. In before someone says, "What if the gun is stolen?" If the gun is stolen then that person is required to report it. In doing so would be a misdemeanor and fine. However, not doing so and the gun is in a crime, it will result in a felony. See if people start locking up their firearms better.

You have lost your mind. You want to give victims of a crime a criminal record and fine? Liberals are bat#### crazy.

 

[timschochet]

The idea that any laws will stop criminals from breaking them must be true. We shouldn't have any laws at all! It's not like laws against rape stop a rapist. Btw, man up or get out.

YEs this is an excellent analogy because I was actually just coming in here to talk about the tens of millions of americans who safely and responsibly rape for sport on a regular basis... also those who rape for food. People I never want in position of writing legislature:1) Timmay2) Mad Sweeney

:goodposting & Those guys over there are breaking the law. We should make more laws for them to break all while infringing on the privacy and pocketbooks of the people who follow the laws.

That was an extreme example. There are thousands of laws that inconvenience law abiding citizens. The point was to show how stupid the "criminals won't obey the law anyway" argument is.

Don't waste your valuable time Sweeney. Theyre fanatical paranoid delusional gun nuts and nothing you say will ever convince them.

 

[timschochet]

Vunce ve haff ze background checks, it will be far easier to seize all of your guns!!!! Zen Obama becomes der Fuhrer!!!

 

[mad sweeney]

The idea that any laws will stop criminals from breaking them must be true. We shouldn't have any laws at all! It's not like laws against rape stop a rapist. Btw, man up or get out.

YEs this is an excellent analogy because I was actually just coming in here to talk about the tens of millions of americans who safely and responsibly rape for sport on a regular basis... also those who rape for food. People I never want in position of writing legislature:1) Timmay2) Mad Sweeney

:goodposting & Those guys over there are breaking the law. We should make more laws for them to break all while infringing on the privacy and pocketbooks of the people who follow the laws.

That was an extreme example. There are thousands of laws that inconvenience law abiding citizens. The point was to show how stupid the "criminals won't obey the law anyway" argument is.

Don't waste your valuable time Sweeney. Theyre fanatical paranoid delusional gun nuts and nothing you say will ever convince them.

Meh, my time isn't that valuable.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

The idea that any laws will stop criminals from breaking them must be true. We shouldn't have any laws at all! It's not like laws against rape stop a rapist. Btw, man up or get out.

YEs this is an excellent analogy because I was actually just coming in here to talk about the tens of millions of americans who safely and responsibly rape for sport on a regular basis... also those who rape for food. People I never want in position of writing legislature:1) Timmay2) Mad Sweeney

:goodposting & Those guys over there are breaking the law. We should make more laws for them to break all while infringing on the privacy and pocketbooks of the people who follow the laws.

That was an extreme example. There are thousands of laws that inconvenience law abiding citizens. The point was to show how stupid the "criminals won't obey the law anyway" argument is.

Don't waste your valuable time Sweeney. Theyre fanatical paranoid delusional gun nuts and nothing you say will ever convince them.

If you ever once in your life made a valid/rational point, w/o submarine-ing it a paragraph later, we could actually listen to your drivel. Instead, you bombard this message board with completely ignorant posts and stat your opinion as fact.Here's a little factoid for you: You're a pretentious know it all, and there is YEARS of evidence to prove it.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Don't waste your valuable time Sweeney. Theyre fanatical paranoid delusional gun nuts and nothing you say will ever convince them.

Who posted in: ***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE***Member name Posts

timschochet 730

5 digit know nothing 437

Henry Ford 328

Otis 309

Apple Jack 284

 

[MaxThreshold]

Vunce ve haff ze background checks, it will be far easier to seize all of your guns!!!! Zen Obama becomes der Fuhrer!!!

I'd say you've instantly lost any credibility by invoking Nazi's, but you long ago lost any credibility.

(also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an observation made by Mike Godwinin 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitlerapproaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.[/FONT][/SIZE]

Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[4] the law is now often applied to any threaded online discussion, such as forums, chat rooms and blog comment threads, and has been invoked for the inappropriate use of Nazi analogies in articles or speeches.[5]

 

[timschochet]

The idea that any laws will stop criminals from breaking them must be true. We shouldn't have any laws at all! It's not like laws against rape stop a rapist. Btw, man up or get out.

YEs this is an excellent analogy because I was actually just coming in here to talk about the tens of millions of americans who safely and responsibly rape for sport on a regular basis... also those who rape for food. People I never want in position of writing legislature:1) Timmay2) Mad Sweeney

:goodposting & Those guys over there are breaking the law. We should make more laws for them to break all while infringing on the privacy and pocketbooks of the people who follow the laws.

That was an extreme example. There are thousands of laws that inconvenience law abiding citizens. The point was to show how stupid the "criminals won't obey the law anyway" argument is.

Don't waste your valuable time Sweeney. Theyre fanatical paranoid delusional gun nuts and nothing you say will ever convince them.

If you ever once in your life made a valid/rational point, w/o submarine-ing it a paragraph later, we could actually listen to your drivel. Instead, you bombard this message board with completely ignorant posts and stat your opinion as fact.Here's a little factoid for you: You're a pretentious know it all, and there is YEARS of evidence to prove it.

You seem upset.

 

[timschochet]

Vunce ve haff ze background checks, it will be far easier to seize all of your guns!!!! Zen Obama becomes der Fuhrer!!!

I'd say you've instantly lost any credibility by invoking Nazi's, but you long ago lost any credibility.

(also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an observation made by Mike Godwinin 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitlerapproaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.[/FONT][/SIZE]

Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[4] the law is now often applied to any threaded online discussion, such as forums, chat rooms and blog comment threads, and has been invoked for the inappropriate use of Nazi analogies in articles or speeches.[5]

I was not the first to mention Nazis.

 

[timschochet]

Don't waste your valuable time Sweeney. Theyre fanatical paranoid delusional gun nuts and nothing you say will ever convince them.

Who posted in: ***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE***Member name Posts

timschochet 730

5 digit know nothing 437

Henry Ford 328

Otis 309

Apple Jack 284

I choose to waste my own time. I'm addicted to combatting absurdity. I don't recommend it to others.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

The idea that any laws will stop criminals from breaking them must be true. We shouldn't have any laws at all! It's not like laws against rape stop a rapist. Btw, man up or get out.

YEs this is an excellent analogy because I was actually just coming in here to talk about the tens of millions of americans who safely and responsibly rape for sport on a regular basis... also those who rape for food. People I never want in position of writing legislature:1) Timmay2) Mad Sweeney

:goodposting & Those guys over there are breaking the law. We should make more laws for them to break all while infringing on the privacy and pocketbooks of the people who follow the laws.

That was an extreme example. There are thousands of laws that inconvenience law abiding citizens. The point was to show how stupid the "criminals won't obey the law anyway" argument is.

Don't waste your valuable time Sweeney. Theyre fanatical paranoid delusional gun nuts and nothing you say will ever convince them.

If you ever once in your life made a valid/rational point, w/o submarine-ing it a paragraph later, we could actually listen to your drivel. Instead, you bombard this message board with completely ignorant posts and stat your opinion as fact.Here's a little factoid for you: You're a pretentious know it all, and there is YEARS of evidence to prove it.

You seem upset.

Not even the slightest. I did notice you didn't disagree with anything I posted. Considering you're obviously blind to any and all truths, the text is probably invisible to you. Have a great season, guy.

 

[mad sweeney]

The idea that any laws will stop criminals from breaking them must be true. We shouldn't have any laws at all! It's not like laws against rape stop a rapist. Btw, man up or get out.

YEs this is an excellent analogy because I was actually just coming in here to talk about the tens of millions of americans who safely and responsibly rape for sport on a regular basis... also those who rape for food. People I never want in position of writing legislature:1) Timmay2) Mad Sweeney

:goodposting & Those guys over there are breaking the law. We should make more laws for them to break all while infringing on the privacy and pocketbooks of the people who follow the laws.

That was an extreme example. There are thousands of laws that inconvenience law abiding citizens. The point was to show how stupid the "criminals won't obey the law anyway" argument is.

Don't waste your valuable time Sweeney. Theyre fanatical paranoid delusional gun nuts and nothing you say will ever convince them.

If you ever once in your life made a valid/rational point, w/o submarine-ing it a paragraph later, we could actually listen to your drivel. Instead, you bombard this message board with completely ignorant posts and stat your opinion as fact.Here's a little factoid for you: You're a pretentious know it all, and there is YEARS of evidence to prove it.

You seem upset.

Not even the slightest. I did notice you didn't disagree with anything I posted. Considering you're obviously blind to any and all truths, the text is probably invisible to you. Have a great season, guy.

Have a well regulated season guy!

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Support expanded background checks or no more money to your campaign

 

[Sabertooth]

Is it true that almost 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides?

 

[mad sweeney]

Support expanded background checks or no more money to your campaign

Yeah, no Republican groups have ever threatened (or followed through on the threat) to stop supporting someone that doesn't agree with them. It certainly hasn't even happened as recently as a gay marriage opponent that changed his mind.

 

[FBG26]

Is it true that almost 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides?

Yes. From the CDC (for 2010):11,078 Firearm Homicides

19,392 Firearm Suicides

 

[MaxThreshold]

Is it true that almost 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides?

Yes. From the CDC (for 2010):11,078 Firearm Homicides

19,392 Firearm Suicides

Anyone see this?

The districts that contain Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City ranked last in terms of federal gun law enforcement in 2012, according to a new report from Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which tracks federal data.

...These cities also have some of the nation's most restrictive gun laws, as well as the most active mayors in championing gun control.

Yeah, let's put some more laws on the books because the current ones are being enforced so well.

 

[Glass Joe]

Saw a story on straw purchasers on the news tonight. Often straw purchasers who give away a gun used in a murder are given a year in prison. Why is this not considered an accessory to the murder?

Another question - apparently there's a move in the senate to up the penalties against straw purchasers in this situation. But, they said, it may not make it out of the senate. Who would be lobbying against this?

 

[FootballDummy]

Saw a story on straw purchasers on the news tonight. Often straw purchasers who give away a gun used in a murder are given a year in prison. Why is this not considered an accessory to the murder? Another question - apparently there's a move in the senate to up the penalties against straw purchasers in this situation. But, they said, it may not make it out of the senate. Who would be lobbying against this?

The NRA, probably. Let them buy guns for anybody they want.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm addicted to combatting absurdly.

Yes, yes you are.

 

[timschochet]

President Obama made a very moving speech today. Public opinion is definitely moving in his direction, and the gun nuts are becoming a minority, though loud and crazed.

The NRA is running robocalls and ads in Newtown, Connecticut, which is really disgusting and tasteless, but that's typical for them.

If the Dems are willing to separate the bills being voted on, then I really believe we might get something done- particularly the background checks. The public has had enough of the NRA extremists.

 

[FootballDummy]

Can we just rename this thread as Dumb and Dumber? Tim vs the gun nuts, you pick which position they are.

 

[Sabertooth]

Is it true that almost 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides?

Yes. From the CDC (for 2010):11,078 Firearm Homicides

19,392 Firearm Suicides

So restricting access to guns might actually reduce suicide then, correct? Tough to blow your brains out when you can't get a gun.

 

[Rayderr]

Is it true that almost 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides?

Yes. From the CDC (for 2010):11,078 Firearm Homicides

19,392 Firearm Suicides

So restricting access to guns might actually reduce suicide then, correct? Tough to blow your brains out when you can't get a gun.

Rope sales are going to go through the roof!

 

[[icon]]

Is it true that almost 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides?

Yes. From the CDC (for 2010):11,078 Firearm Homicides

19,392 Firearm Suicides

So restricting access to guns might actually reduce suicide then, correct? Tough to blow your brains out when you can't get a gun.

I am assuming this is a joke.

 

[Sabertooth]

Is it true that almost 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides?

Yes. From the CDC (for 2010):11,078 Firearm Homicides

19,392 Firearm Suicides

So restricting access to guns might actually reduce suicide then, correct? Tough to blow your brains out when you can't get a gun.

I am assuming this is a joke.

No, it's actually pretty logical.

 

[FBG26]

Is it true that almost 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides?

Yes. From the CDC (for 2010):11,078 Firearm Homicides

19,392 Firearm Suicides

So restricting access to guns might actually reduce suicide then, correct? Tough to blow your brains out when you can't get a gun.

That might help. I'm not taking any position here on guns, just presenting some stats I found. In 2005, just over 50% of suicides were from firearms.

Anecdotally, of the suicides that have impacted my extended family or friends, the guys who used guns used long guns while the women went for their wrists.

 

[Sabertooth]

From personal experience I knew two people who committed suicide. Both were under 20, both were by firearm. I would never joke about suicide.

 

[timschochet]

President Obama made a very moving speech today. Public opinion is definitely moving in his direction, and the gun nuts are becoming a minority, though loud and crazed. The NRA is running robocalls and ads in Newtown, Connecticut, which is really disgusting and tasteless, but that's typical for them. If the Dems are willing to separate the bills being voted on, then I really believe we might get something done- particularly the background checks. The public has had enough of the NRA extremists.

Where do you get this stuff? Public support for new gun control legislation is flagging as we get further and further away from Newtown, hence the need for Obama to make a speech to try to revive the issue. The only way they get anything done is if they separate the bills, yes. This is not a sign of the public having enough of the NRA extremists. It means their position is weakening (which disappoints me).I'm not a Tim-hater by any means but you're coming off very poorly in this thread.

Public support for the gun control that I want (background checks) is still very high-91% at last count. If you had read my previous posts about pluralism, you would understand that it's not public support that is flagging but rather the attention span- a reluctant Congress is more concerned with a loud minority than a quiet majority, no matter how big that majority is. That's why Obama spoke- to energize the already existing large majority of Americans who agree with him on this issue.

 

[[icon]]

Is it true that almost 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides?

Yes. From the CDC (for 2010):11,078 Firearm Homicides

19,392 Firearm Suicides

So restricting access to guns might actually reduce suicide then, correct? Tough to blow your brains out when you can't get a gun.

I am assuming this is a joke.

No, it's actually pretty logical.

So someone has come to the tremendous decision of deciding to end their life and you guys think that they will be deterred by inability to locate a firearm? (which is a stretch as it is, since there will be an even more massive black market for guns that will surface as soon as they're illegal) We going to make tylenol illegal too? Razor blades? You guys ever played whac-a-mole? That is kinda how this sort of thing works.

Cmon.... you guys gotta turn your brains ON if we're going actually discuss this stuff.