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

[Chaka]

So when you factor in all of these stolen weapons, all of the guns that are untraceable for the reasons above (and I assume most criminals remove the serial number), the fact that juvenile offenders were more than twice as likely to have a semiautomatic weapon at a crime scene than a adult offender (hint: they didn't legally acquire it) and the expected low compliance resulting from an attempted national registry and you are left with butkus. A national gun registry turns into a giant witch hunt, and an expensive one at that while doing nothing to curb gun violence.

This is just the height of illogical thinking. So much so that I have to wonder if it isn't deliberate.

How many thousands of hit and runs are there every year? Yet, according to this logic, we shouldn't force people to register their cars or have license plates, because (a) the people that hit and run are going to do it anyhow (b) it's therefore an added unnecessary burden on law abiding car owners, and © who knows? Someday the government might decide to seize all cars.

How many thousands of rapes are there every year in which the rapist gets away scot free? Yet, according to this logic, we shouldn't even investigate rapes; it's a waste of money because they'll never catch them anyhow, and it's a burden on law-abiding citizens.

You guys can produce all of the numbers you want. They mean absolutely nothing. I guarantee you that if we had a national database of all legally owned firearms in this country, gun crime would go down significantly. Period. Even having unified background checks WITHOUT the database, which is all the latest gun proposal tried to do, would cause a decrease in crime. But even that you guys were against, because you're still afraid of the big bad government. You can make all the reasonable sounding arguments you want, and produce all of the meaningless statistics you want, but it still in the end comes down to your paranoia.

This national database would only be as good as the data in it and the skills of the people maintaining and analyzing the data. As you know, there are more guns than people in the US so this would be a massive database, like Amazon.com big and would almost certainly cost billions to create, launch and maintain. Yet only a very small portion of that data might actually be useful to investigators.

Most guns used in a crime are 10 years old on average and so tens of millions of them wouldn't be in the database, nor would most of the names of the criminals. I think it would be difficult to come up with a more expensive and more useless collection of data to aid in the prevention of crime. Even Canada's much smaller national firearms registry cost them over $2 billion with huge cost overruns and it ultimately didn't work. This would be an extremely expensive and mostly ineffective electronic bridge to nowhere if the stated purpose was gun crime reduction. But you'd definitely know about all the law abiding gun owners and their weapons, whatever that's good for.

So I'm not against this because I'm some gun nut, I'm against this because it's a ####### stupid giant waste of money on the level of the Iraq war waste. The government would spend billions to create a giant haystack to find needles that weren't in the haystack. Brilliant!

This sounds like another case of allowing the perfect to interfere with the good. No system will be perfect but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Choose any law you support, is it perfect? Of course not but you still want it in place.

And I don't think it will be a logistically difficult as you are making it out to be. Amazon, your example, has to deal with transaction and distribution information this is merely a queryable database. That is not nearly on the same level.

And speaking to the point of how many guns there are in this country, we are probably the most well armed country that is not currently undergoing a civil war but we still have a serious problem with gun violence.

 

[Chaka]

So apparently we only have libertarian gun owners in these parts and none of the Fox and Friends gun toting masses who believe in suspension of Miranda Rights, elimination of due process, illegal search and seizure etc. etc. when it is used against people they don't like.

I applaud all the libertarian gun owners in this thread. I'm not sure I believe you all but I will try to accept it at face value.

And how many times do I need to say that I am a gun owning supporter of the second amendment before it sinks in? When the government comes to take my guns I will be in lock step with all of you to oppose them but taking measures to try to prevent the massive amount of gun violence in this country is not unreasonable.

 

[Chaka]

Question for [icon], 5 digit, Carolina and the like: Do you think there is a problem with gun violence in this country?

If so what would you do to try and reduce it? We're already incredibly well armed as a country, is more guns the solution? Do we give them to anyone who has the money to buy them? What was gun violence like back during the "old western" days? I really don't know and I don't want to quote Tombstone as my only source so I am open to your thoughts.

 

[Chaka]

Mr. Colion Noir's response for all of the angry anti-gunners after UBC failed:

Allow me to be the first to ask: Who the #### is Colion Noir?

 

[timschochet]

So apparently we only have libertarian gun owners in these parts and none of the Fox and Friends gun toting masses who believe in suspension of Miranda Rights, elimination of due process, illegal search and seizure etc. etc. when it is used against people they don't like.

I applaud all the libertarian gun owners in this thread. I'm not sure I believe you all but I will try to accept it at face value.

And how many times do I need to say that I am a gun owning supporter of the second amendment before it sinks in? When the government comes to take my guns I will be in lock step with all of you to oppose them but taking measures to try to prevent the massive amount of gun violence in this country is not unreasonable.

I really hate calling them libertarian. Let's see if they're in favor of open immigration, free trade and a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. If they're in favor of all that, then I'll be willing to grant them the title.

 

[timschochet]

So when you factor in all of these stolen weapons, all of the guns that are untraceable for the reasons above (and I assume most criminals remove the serial number), the fact that juvenile offenders were more than twice as likely to have a semiautomatic weapon at a crime scene than a adult offender (hint: they didn't legally acquire it) and the expected low compliance resulting from an attempted national registry and you are left with butkus. A national gun registry turns into a giant witch hunt, and an expensive one at that while doing nothing to curb gun violence.

This is just the height of illogical thinking. So much so that I have to wonder if it isn't deliberate.

How many thousands of hit and runs are there every year? Yet, according to this logic, we shouldn't force people to register their cars or have license plates, because (a) the people that hit and run are going to do it anyhow (b) it's therefore an added unnecessary burden on law abiding car owners, and © who knows? Someday the government might decide to seize all cars.

How many thousands of rapes are there every year in which the rapist gets away scot free? Yet, according to this logic, we shouldn't even investigate rapes; it's a waste of money because they'll never catch them anyhow, and it's a burden on law-abiding citizens.

You guys can produce all of the numbers you want. They mean absolutely nothing. I guarantee you that if we had a national database of all legally owned firearms in this country, gun crime would go down significantly. Period. Even having unified background checks WITHOUT the database, which is all the latest gun proposal tried to do, would cause a decrease in crime. But even that you guys were against, because you're still afraid of the big bad government. You can make all the reasonable sounding arguments you want, and produce all of the meaningless statistics you want, but it still in the end comes down to your paranoia.

This national database would only be as good as the data in it and the skills of the people maintaining and analyzing the data. As you know, there are more guns than people in the US so this would be a massive database, like Amazon.com big and would almost certainly cost billions to create, launch and maintain. Yet only a very small portion of that data might actually be useful to investigators.

Most guns used in a crime are 10 years old on average and so tens of millions of them wouldn't be in the database, nor would most of the names of the criminals. I think it would be difficult to come up with a more expensive and more useless collection of data to aid in the prevention of crime. Even Canada's much smaller national firearms registry cost them over $2 billion with huge cost overruns and it ultimately didn't work. This would be an extremely expensive and mostly ineffective electronic bridge to nowhere if the stated purpose was gun crime reduction. But you'd definitely know about all the law abiding gun owners and their weapons, whatever that's good for.

So I'm not against this because I'm some gun nut, I'm against this because it's a ####### stupid giant waste of money on the level of the Iraq war waste. The government would spend billions to create a giant haystack to find needles that weren't in the haystack. Brilliant!

This sounds like another case of allowing the perfect to interfere with the good. No system will be perfect but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Choose any law you support, is it perfect? Of course not but you still want it in place.

And I don't think it will be a logistically difficult as you are making it out to be. Amazon, your example, has to deal with transaction and distribution information this is merely a queryable database. That is not nearly on the same level.

And speaking to the point of how many guns there are in this country, we are probably the most well armed country that is not currently undergoing a civil war but we still have a serious problem with gun violence.

This is exactly right. The supposition that this will cost billions, in our internet age, is ridiculous. There are 300 million guns in this country. Listing them all on a database is a fairly easy and inexpensive proposition.

No matter what they tell you, their main reason for being opposed to this is a paranoid fear of the government.

 

[Chaka]

This is exactly right. The supposition that this will cost billions, in our internet age, is ridiculous. There are 300 million guns in this country. Listing them all on a database is a fairly easy and inexpensive proposition.

No matter what they tell you, their main reason for being opposed to this is a paranoid fear of the government.

While I agree that I am exactly right I do not think it will be easy and the start up cost will not be insignificant (depending on where you stand). There is also the issue of non-compliance, which I expect would be significant. The database will not capture all the guns that are out there already but it will capture many of them, perhaps most (perhaps not). But it's not like there aren't hundreds of guns (thousands?) manufactured and purchased every day and there is no reason (or excuse) to not collect the data on them.

Sorry gun guys, I have no problem with the government knowing when I purchase a new gun. And you shouldn't either. The American Government will never be able to make guns illegal (never, ever) so I have no concern about them coming to take my rifle, shotgun and handgun*. And, in my belief, unlike some of you I don't feel that I need an M1918 BAR and an RPG to feel safe in my home (or on the street).

I will leave this to the lawyers but is gun registration, limits on magazine size and background checks counter to the second amendment?

*If you're stockpiling weapons the, yeah, I might want an authority to check in on you to find out why you feel the need to have dozens of firearms. Your neighbors might want that too.

 

[Chaka]

BTW 5 digit, I stopped reading the congressional hearing transcript at page 40. Will you please tell me what their finding were?

And I am not saying the ATF is guilt free but what I see in that example that you provided is an demonstration of the fact that the ATF is held accountable for their actions, although I am not sure they really did anything wrong. Please give me the synopsis of the conclusions of the committee.

TIA

 

[tommyboy]

blah blah blah....
And how many times do I need to say that I am a gun owning supporter of the second amendment before it sinks in? blah blah blah...

you didn't even know automatic weapons have been outlawed for 80 years. So while you might own a gun, it doesn't necessarily mean you know much about the topic other than what your opinions are. And i'm fine with that, but you should probably understand that when people that really don't know what they are talking about start spouting off what we should do, the people that really do know what they are talking about when it comes to guns and gun laws probably won't take you all that seriously. This is a major problem with the current debate, where you have politicians that know less than nothing about guns making emotional appeals about how we need to do something. You can't expect people to take you seriously, for example if you think magazines and bullets are the same thing. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/03/co_democrat_doesnt_understand_high-capacity_magazines_can_be_reloaded.htm

 

[Chaka]

blah blah blah....
And how many times do I need to say that I am a gun owning supporter of the second amendment before it sinks in? blah blah blah...

you didn't even know automatic weapons have been outlawed for 80 years. So while you might own a gun, it doesn't necessarily mean you know much about the topic other than what your opinions are. And i'm fine with that, but you should probably understand that when people that really don't know what they are talking about start spouting off what we should do, the people that really do know what they are talking about when it comes to guns and gun laws probably won't take you all that seriously. This is a major problem with the current debate, where you have politicians that know less than nothing about guns making emotional appeals about how we need to do something. You can't expect people to take you seriously, for example if you think magazines and bullets are the same thing. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/03/co_democrat_doesnt_understand_high-capacity_magazines_can_be_reloaded.htm

Actually I did know that. I said that I support banning them, grenades and rocket launchers. Since you are playing semantics I apologize for not being more clear and saying that I support the existing ban on machine guns, grenades and rocket launchers.

Yeesh.

 

[Chaka]

blah blah blah....
And how many times do I need to say that I am a gun owning supporter of the second amendment before it sinks in? blah blah blah...

you didn't even know automatic weapons have been outlawed for 80 years. So while you might own a gun, it doesn't necessarily mean you know much about the topic other than what your opinions are. And i'm fine with that, but you should probably understand that when people that really don't know what they are talking about start spouting off what we should do, the people that really do know what they are talking about when it comes to guns and gun laws probably won't take you all that seriously. This is a major problem with the current debate, where you have politicians that know less than nothing about guns making emotional appeals about how we need to do something. You can't expect people to take you seriously, for example if you think magazines and bullets are the same thing. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/03/co_democrat_doesnt_understand_high-capacity_magazines_can_be_reloaded.htm

Your link is broken but I don't see why you would think I don't understand the difference between magazines and bullets. I have stated repeated that breaks in fire provide opportunities for escape. Do you disagree?

 

[timschochet]

blah blah blah....
And how many times do I need to say that I am a gun owning supporter of the second amendment before it sinks in? blah blah blah...

you didn't even know automatic weapons have been outlawed for 80 years. So while you might own a gun, it doesn't necessarily mean you know much about the topic other than what your opinions are. And i'm fine with that, but you should probably understand that when people that really don't know what they are talking about start spouting off what we should do, the people that really do know what they are talking about when it comes to guns and gun laws probably won't take you all that seriously. This is a major problem with the current debate, where you have politicians that know less than nothing about guns making emotional appeals about how we need to do something. You can't expect people to take you seriously, for example if you think magazines and bullets are the same thing. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/03/co_democrat_doesnt_understand_high-capacity_magazines_can_be_reloaded.htm

Your link is broken but I don't see why you would think I don't understand the difference between magazines and bullets. I have stated repeated that breaks in fire provide opportunities for escape. Do you disagree?

Forget it. It's become part of the conservative meme- accuse anyone in favor of any gun restrictions at all of ignorance. NRA supporters are the only ones who know anything about guns, and everyone else is completely uninformed.

 

[Chaka]

blah blah blah....
And how many times do I need to say that I am a gun owning supporter of the second amendment before it sinks in? blah blah blah...

you didn't even know automatic weapons have been outlawed for 80 years. So while you might own a gun, it doesn't necessarily mean you know much about the topic other than what your opinions are. And i'm fine with that, but you should probably understand that when people that really don't know what they are talking about start spouting off what we should do, the people that really do know what they are talking about when it comes to guns and gun laws probably won't take you all that seriously. This is a major problem with the current debate, where you have politicians that know less than nothing about guns making emotional appeals about how we need to do something. You can't expect people to take you seriously, for example if you think magazines and bullets are the same thing. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/03/co_democrat_doesnt_understand_high-capacity_magazines_can_be_reloaded.htm

Your link is broken but I don't see why you would think I don't understand the difference between magazines and bullets. I have stated repeated that breaks in fire provide opportunities for escape. Do you disagree?

Forget it. It's become part of the conservative meme- accuse anyone in favor of any gun restrictions at all of ignorance. NRA supporters are the only ones who know anything about guns, and everyone else is completely uninformed.

That's actually why I brought up machine guns and rocket launchers in the first place. Sometimes I think that some of these people won't be happy until they can own anything, and everything, short of ICBMs (are those currently illegal?).

I love my guns but I understand their purpose is protection, hunting and entertainment. And, IMO, in no case does the notion of high capacity magazines, gun registration and background checks interfere with that.

 

[TwinTurbo]

So when you factor in all of these stolen weapons, all of the guns that are untraceable for the reasons above (and I assume most criminals remove the serial number), the fact that juvenile offenders were more than twice as likely to have a semiautomatic weapon at a crime scene than a adult offender (hint: they didn't legally acquire it) and the expected low compliance resulting from an attempted national registry and you are left with butkus. A national gun registry turns into a giant witch hunt, and an expensive one at that while doing nothing to curb gun violence.

This is just the height of illogical thinking. So much so that I have to wonder if it isn't deliberate.

How many thousands of hit and runs are there every year? Yet, according to this logic, we shouldn't force people to register their cars or have license plates, because (a) the people that hit and run are going to do it anyhow (b) it's therefore an added unnecessary burden on law abiding car owners, and © who knows? Someday the government might decide to seize all cars.

How many thousands of rapes are there every year in which the rapist gets away scot free? Yet, according to this logic, we shouldn't even investigate rapes; it's a waste of money because they'll never catch them anyhow, and it's a burden on law-abiding citizens.

You guys can produce all of the numbers you want. They mean absolutely nothing. I guarantee you that if we had a national database of all legally owned firearms in this country, gun crime would go down significantly. Period. Even having unified background checks WITHOUT the database, which is all the latest gun proposal tried to do, would cause a decrease in crime. But even that you guys were against, because you're still afraid of the big bad government. You can make all the reasonable sounding arguments you want, and produce all of the meaningless statistics you want, but it still in the end comes down to your paranoia.

This national database would only be as good as the data in it and the skills of the people maintaining and analyzing the data. As you know, there are more guns than people in the US so this would be a massive database, like Amazon.com big and would almost certainly cost billions to create, launch and maintain. Yet only a very small portion of that data might actually be useful to investigators.

Most guns used in a crime are 10 years old on average and so tens of millions of them wouldn't be in the database, nor would most of the names of the criminals. I think it would be difficult to come up with a more expensive and more useless collection of data to aid in the prevention of crime. Even Canada's much smaller national firearms registry cost them over $2 billion with huge cost overruns and it ultimately didn't work. This would be an extremely expensive and mostly ineffective electronic bridge to nowhere if the stated purpose was gun crime reduction. But you'd definitely know about all the law abiding gun owners and their weapons, whatever that's good for.

So I'm not against this because I'm some gun nut, I'm against this because it's a ####### stupid giant waste of money on the level of the Iraq war waste. The government would spend billions to create a giant haystack to find needles that weren't in the haystack. Brilliant!

This sounds like another case of allowing the perfect to interfere with the good. No system will be perfect but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Choose any law you support, is it perfect? Of course not but you still want it in place.

And I don't think it will be a logistically difficult as you are making it out to be. Amazon, your example, has to deal with transaction and distribution information this is merely a queryable database. That is not nearly on the same level.

And speaking to the point of how many guns there are in this country, we are probably the most well armed country that is not currently undergoing a civil war but we still have a serious problem with gun violence.

This is exactly right. The supposition that this will cost billions, in our internet age, is ridiculous. There are 300 million guns in this country. Listing them all on a database is a fairly easy and inexpensive proposition.

No matter what they tell you, their main reason for being opposed to this is a paranoid fear of the government.

Any notion that it would be easy and inexpensive to do this is beyond laughable. It would without question turn into an extremely costly project. I already pointed out that Canada incurred huge cost overruns on a similar failed initiative that doesn't even touch the scale of what the US would need to do. Companies like Oracle didn't reach a $150 billion market cap by giving it away for free. There would be many challenges, not the least of which would be the cost of enforcement and compliance. And even if you had 95% compliance (which would NEVER happen), there would still be millions of unregistered guns. The fundamental issue is that most of the guns that you would most want to find would not be registered in the database.

 

[timschochet]

I doubt it will cost more than a few billion. Maybe not that much. But even if it did, it would be well worth it.

Anyhow, since I don't own any guns, I wouldn't have to pay for it.

 

[Chaka]

Why let the ideal of perfection interfere with the good?

For example there seem to be plenty of second amendment lovers who are married to the war on drugs, which has been nothing short of a colossal failure (drugs are cheaper, more abundant, more potent and more accessible than ever before) but they would never dream of supporting decriminalization.

If a gun registry is a colossal failure I will the first person to lead the charge to end the boondoggle, but to not even try while tens of thousands of Americans die every year from gun violence (not an exaggeration) is beyond sad.

But the arguments against any sort of gun reform are entirely based on doomsday scenarios (despite the reality of those tens of thousands of gun deaths every year). Are we really basing policy on highly unlikely, potential outcomes over the reality of what is happening every day?

No gun registry because the government may one day decide to take our guns.

No limit on magazine size because, apparently I have such an amazing and publicized stockpile of resources, I might have to fight off an angry, organized horde of looters (or zombies) who absolutely will not be deterred.

No background checks because...I have no idea. Why the hell wouldn't you do extensive background checks for people who want to purchase guns?

 

[Chaka]

A gun registry wouldn't be cheap but I don't think it would be a backbreaker on any level. Here's a thought, end the failed war on drugs and put the money towards a national gun database.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

A gun registry wouldn't be cheap but I don't think it would be a backbreaker on any level. Here's a thought, end the failed war on drugs and put the money towards a national gun database.

Implement big fines for those who have and sell unregistered guns. As well as the basic registration fee. Would pay for itself.

 

[TwinTurbo]

A gun registry wouldn't be cheap but I don't think it would be a backbreaker on any level. Here's a thought, end the failed war on drugs and put the money towards a national gun database.

I'm not against background checks. But a national gun registry, where criminals and millions of gun owners would not register, would be another giant waste of money just like the war on drugs. It's not about perfection, rather about effectiveness or the complete lack thereof in this case. Again this is all about money and effectiveness to me, not about fear of government taking my guns since I'm not a gun owner at this time. People that don't have guns would also foot the bill for this as it would be funded by federal tax dollars. And if you tried to fund it with fees only from gun owners, that would further discourage compliance.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

A gun registry wouldn't be cheap but I don't think it would be a backbreaker on any level. Here's a thought, end the failed war on drugs and put the money towards a national gun database.

I'm not against background checks. But a national gun registry, where criminals and millions of gun owners would not register, would be another giant waste of money just like the war on drugs. It's not about perfection, rather about effectiveness or the complete lack thereof in this case. Again this is all about money and effectiveness to me, not about fear of government taking my guns since I'm not a gun owner at this time. People that don't have guns would also foot the bill for this as it would be funded by federal tax dollars. And if you tried to fund it with fees only from gun owners, that would further discourage compliance.

I thought we were being told that 99% of gun owners were responsible owners. Cant be both, which is it?

Better yet, what % of gun owners wont register in your estimation? Because they would all be irresponsible.

 

[TwinTurbo]

A gun registry wouldn't be cheap but I don't think it would be a backbreaker on any level. Here's a thought, end the failed war on drugs and put the money towards a national gun database.

I'm not against background checks. But a national gun registry, where criminals and millions of gun owners would not register, would be another giant waste of money just like the war on drugs. It's not about perfection, rather about effectiveness or the complete lack thereof in this case. Again this is all about money and effectiveness to me, not about fear of government taking my guns since I'm not a gun owner at this time. People that don't have guns would also foot the bill for this as it would be funded by federal tax dollars. And if you tried to fund it with fees only from gun owners, that would further discourage compliance.

I thought we were being told that 99% of gun owners were responsible owners. Cant be both, which is it? Better yet, what % of gun owners wont register in your estimation? Because they would all be irresponsible.

Well if New York and California are any indication, there would be massive non-compliance. Canada also had significant compliance issues. And again even if you somehow had 99% registered, there would still be millions of unregistered guns. That's how many guns there are in the US.

 

[MaxThreshold]

A gun registry wouldn't be cheap but I don't think it would be a backbreaker on any level. Here's a thought, end the failed war on drugs and put the money towards a national gun database.

I'm not against background checks. But a national gun registry, where criminals and millions of gun owners would not register, would be another giant waste of money just like the war on drugs. It's not about perfection, rather about effectiveness or the complete lack thereof in this case. Again this is all about money and effectiveness to me, not about fear of government taking my guns since I'm not a gun owner at this time. People that don't have guns would also foot the bill for this as it would be funded by federal tax dollars. And if you tried to fund it with fees only from gun owners, that would further discourage compliance.

I thought we were being told that 99% of gun owners were responsible owners. Cant be both, which is it?

Better yet, what % of gun owners wont register in your estimation? Because they would all be irresponsible.

Hilarious...someone's a criminal and irresponsible because you feel insecure.

People not subverting their freedom for platitudes and "feel good" nonsense IS the hallmark of responsibility. Just because they don't conform to your BS doesn't make them criminals.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

A gun registry wouldn't be cheap but I don't think it would be a backbreaker on any level. Here's a thought, end the failed war on drugs and put the money towards a national gun database.

I'm not against background checks. But a national gun registry, where criminals and millions of gun owners would not register, would be another giant waste of money just like the war on drugs. It's not about perfection, rather about effectiveness or the complete lack thereof in this case. Again this is all about money and effectiveness to me, not about fear of government taking my guns since I'm not a gun owner at this time. People that don't have guns would also foot the bill for this as it would be funded by federal tax dollars. And if you tried to fund it with fees only from gun owners, that would further discourage compliance.

I thought we were being told that 99% of gun owners were responsible owners. Cant be both, which is it?

Better yet, what % of gun owners wont register in your estimation? Because they would all be irresponsible.

Hilarious...someone's a criminal and irresponsible because you feel insecure.

People not subverting their freedom for platitudes and "feel good" nonsense IS the hallmark of responsibility. Just because they don't conform to your BS doesn't make them criminals.

No, they would be criminal if they didnt adhere to the laws and regulations.

As far as who is insecure? Look no further then who's got the gun. All the Zimmerman types, and everyone knows it.

 

[Chaka]

A gun registry wouldn't be cheap but I don't think it would be a backbreaker on any level. Here's a thought, end the failed war on drugs and put the money towards a national gun database.

I'm not against background checks. But a national gun registry, where criminals and millions of gun owners would not register, would be another giant waste of money just like the war on drugs. It's not about perfection, rather about effectiveness or the complete lack thereof in this case. Again this is all about money and effectiveness to me, not about fear of government taking my guns since I'm not a gun owner at this time. People that don't have guns would also foot the bill for this as it would be funded by federal tax dollars. And if you tried to fund it with fees only from gun owners, that would further discourage compliance.

I can appreciate the financial argument more than some of the fear based ones. And you may be correct but I am not certain that the status quo makes doing nothing a viable strategy.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What 5 Digit Know Nothing is trying to say is: guns don't kill people, blacks kill people.

I wonder which he and Hustler would support more:

1. Banning blacks from having guns; or

2. Making it mandatory for blacks to have guns, so more of them would kill each other.

Nice try.. you won't find 1 racist post by me in this thread.. reading comprehension down?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Question for [icon], 5 digit, Carolina and the like: Do you think there is a problem with gun violence in this country?

If so what would you do to try and reduce it? We're already incredibly well armed as a country, is more guns the solution? Do we give them to anyone who has the money to buy them? What was gun violence like back during the "old western" days? I really don't know and I don't want to quote Tombstone as my only source so I am open to your thoughts.

I think we have a problem with laws that create a black market, that create a necessity for a market that is governed by violence since it can not be governed legally..

Remove guns from that situation, and there will still be a need for criminals to police criminals with violence. They will just use another method.

Most gangs and criminal activity are fueled by an illegal market (drugs). Adding another illegal market to that is not the answer... A lot of current gun violence is a product of current laws.. End the war on drugs, that will end more gun violence then a gun registration..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So apparently we only have libertarian gun owners in these parts and none of the Fox and Friends gun toting masses who believe in suspension of Miranda Rights, elimination of due process, illegal search and seizure etc. etc. when it is used against people they don't like.

I applaud all the libertarian gun owners in this thread. I'm not sure I believe you all but I will try to accept it at face value.

And how many times do I need to say that I am a gun owning supporter of the second amendment before it sinks in? When the government comes to take my guns I will be in lock step with all of you to oppose them but taking measures to try to prevent the massive amount of gun violence in this country is not unreasonable.

I really hate calling them libertarian. Let's see if they're in favor of open immigration, free trade and a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. If they're in favor of all that, then I'll be willing to grant them the title.

Not all libertarians are ok with killing babies..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So when you factor in all of these stolen weapons, all of the guns that are untraceable for the reasons above (and I assume most criminals remove the serial number), the fact that juvenile offenders were more than twice as likely to have a semiautomatic weapon at a crime scene than a adult offender (hint: they didn't legally acquire it) and the expected low compliance resulting from an attempted national registry and you are left with butkus. A national gun registry turns into a giant witch hunt, and an expensive one at that while doing nothing to curb gun violence.

This is just the height of illogical thinking. So much so that I have to wonder if it isn't deliberate.

How many thousands of hit and runs are there every year? Yet, according to this logic, we shouldn't force people to register their cars or have license plates, because (a) the people that hit and run are going to do it anyhow (b) it's therefore an added unnecessary burden on law abiding car owners, and © who knows? Someday the government might decide to seize all cars.

How many thousands of rapes are there every year in which the rapist gets away scot free? Yet, according to this logic, we shouldn't even investigate rapes; it's a waste of money because they'll never catch them anyhow, and it's a burden on law-abiding citizens.

You guys can produce all of the numbers you want. They mean absolutely nothing. I guarantee you that if we had a national database of all legally owned firearms in this country, gun crime would go down significantly. Period. Even having unified background checks WITHOUT the database, which is all the latest gun proposal tried to do, would cause a decrease in crime. But even that you guys were against, because you're still afraid of the big bad government. You can make all the reasonable sounding arguments you want, and produce all of the meaningless statistics you want, but it still in the end comes down to your paranoia.

This national database would only be as good as the data in it and the skills of the people maintaining and analyzing the data. As you know, there are more guns than people in the US so this would be a massive database, like Amazon.com big and would almost certainly cost billions to create, launch and maintain. Yet only a very small portion of that data might actually be useful to investigators.

Most guns used in a crime are 10 years old on average and so tens of millions of them wouldn't be in the database, nor would most of the names of the criminals. I think it would be difficult to come up with a more expensive and more useless collection of data to aid in the prevention of crime. Even Canada's much smaller national firearms registry cost them over $2 billion with huge cost overruns and it ultimately didn't work. This would be an extremely expensive and mostly ineffective electronic bridge to nowhere if the stated purpose was gun crime reduction. But you'd definitely know about all the law abiding gun owners and their weapons, whatever that's good for.

So I'm not against this because I'm some gun nut, I'm against this because it's a ####### stupid giant waste of money on the level of the Iraq war waste. The government would spend billions to create a giant haystack to find needles that weren't in the haystack. Brilliant!

This sounds like another case of allowing the perfect to interfere with the good. No system will be perfect but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Choose any law you support, is it perfect? Of course not but you still want it in place.

And I don't think it will be a logistically difficult as you are making it out to be. Amazon, your example, has to deal with transaction and distribution information this is merely a queryable database. That is not nearly on the same level.

And speaking to the point of how many guns there are in this country, we are probably the most well armed country that is not currently undergoing a civil war but we still have a serious problem with gun violence.

This is exactly right. The supposition that this will cost billions, in our internet age, is ridiculous. There are 300 million guns in this country. Listing them all on a database is a fairly easy and inexpensive proposition.

No matter what they tell you, their main reason for being opposed to this is a paranoid fear of the government.

now I know for certain you're disconnected..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

A gun registry wouldn't be cheap but I don't think it would be a backbreaker on any level. Here's a thought, end the failed war on drugs and put the money towards a national gun database.

I'm not against background checks. But a national gun registry, where criminals and millions of gun owners would not register, would be another giant waste of money just like the war on drugs. It's not about perfection, rather about effectiveness or the complete lack thereof in this case. Again this is all about money and effectiveness to me, not about fear of government taking my guns since I'm not a gun owner at this time. People that don't have guns would also foot the bill for this as it would be funded by federal tax dollars. And if you tried to fund it with fees only from gun owners, that would further discourage compliance.

I thought we were being told that 99% of gun owners were responsible owners. Cant be both, which is it?

Better yet, what % of gun owners wont register in your estimation? Because they would all be irresponsible.

You can look at any other countries registration program to see that what you are insinuating here as a non-issue, is a real issue..

 

[Chaka]

Question for [icon], 5 digit, Carolina and the like: Do you think there is a problem with gun violence in this country?

If so what would you do to try and reduce it? We're already incredibly well armed as a country, is more guns the solution? Do we give them to anyone who has the money to buy them? What was gun violence like back during the "old western" days? I really don't know and I don't want to quote Tombstone as my only source so I am open to your thoughts.

I think we have a problem with laws that create a black market, that create a necessity for a market that is governed by violence since it can not be governed legally..

Remove guns from that situation, and there will still be a need for criminals to police criminals with violence. They will just use another method.

Most gangs and criminal activity are fueled by an illegal market (drugs). Adding another illegal market to that is not the answer... A lot of current gun violence is a product of current laws.. End the war on drugs, that will end more gun violence then a gun registration..

Now that is the most well considered and insightful argument that someone from "your side" has made since I joined this thread.

I can completely get behind that logic and absolutely agree. If we could end the War on Drugs I would likely be happy to drop my support for most, if not all, of the gun reform legislation we have been talking about.

Unfortunately I am not sure that the average Red State, Fox watching gun owner would ever get behind something like that. However I do see national attitudes changing, ever so slowly, on the marijuana front so there is hope that we can end the War on Drugs sometime in my lifetime (slim hope, but hope).

 

[Chaka]

So apparently we only have libertarian gun owners in these parts and none of the Fox and Friends gun toting masses who believe in suspension of Miranda Rights, elimination of due process, illegal search and seizure etc. etc. when it is used against people they don't like.

I applaud all the libertarian gun owners in this thread. I'm not sure I believe you all but I will try to accept it at face value.

And how many times do I need to say that I am a gun owning supporter of the second amendment before it sinks in? When the government comes to take my guns I will be in lock step with all of you to oppose them but taking measures to try to prevent the massive amount of gun violence in this country is not unreasonable.

I really hate calling them libertarian. Let's see if they're in favor of open immigration, free trade and a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. If they're in favor of all that, then I'll be willing to grant them the title.

Not all libertarians are ok with killing babies..

I don't think someone has to adopt every idea of a movement to be considered part of that movement either. But I still think that a significant number of the gun lobby types are happy to disregard other Constitutional Amendments if they consider it expedient to their cause and that is where I was going with my comment.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So apparently we only have libertarian gun owners in these parts and none of the Fox and Friends gun toting masses who believe in suspension of Miranda Rights, elimination of due process, illegal search and seizure etc. etc. when it is used against people they don't like.

I applaud all the libertarian gun owners in this thread. I'm not sure I believe you all but I will try to accept it at face value.

And how many times do I need to say that I am a gun owning supporter of the second amendment before it sinks in? When the government comes to take my guns I will be in lock step with all of you to oppose them but taking measures to try to prevent the massive amount of gun violence in this country is not unreasonable.

I really hate calling them libertarian. Let's see if they're in favor of open immigration, free trade and a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. If they're in favor of all that, then I'll be willing to grant them the title.

Not all libertarians are ok with killing babies..

I don't think someone has to adopt every idea of a movement to be considered part of that movement either. But I still think that a significant number of the gun lobby types are happy to disregard other Constitutional Amendments if they consider it expedient to their cause and that is where I was going with my comment.

All lives have rights.. whether they are dependent on another human being or not.. The state should recognize this, sadly they do not..

Not a topic for this thread, but I do not think the constitution allows for us to kill babies... Now, call them something other than living human babies, and you will likely have a loophole there..

The hipocracy is glaring here.. The children of sandy hook need to be protected, but not our unborn children..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I doubt it will cost more than a few billion. Maybe not that much. But even if it did, it would be well worth it. Anyhow, since I don't own any guns, I wouldn't have to pay for it.

Tax or Take?Tim chooses tax

 

[5 digit know nothing]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

They don't care about causes.

 

[Chaka]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

Guns account for over 800 accidental deaths every year.

They also enable suicide and crimes of passion.

 

[Chaka]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

They don't care about causes.

That is a stupid comment.

What are your solutions? You gonna jump on Carolina's insight or throw out something else?

Actually I have not seen you even comment about whether you even think there is a problem to begin with.

 

[Chaka]

And I'm still waiting for your synopsis of the Congressional Committee meeting regarding perceived ATF abuses.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

They don't care about causes.

That is a stupid comment.

What are your solutions? You gonna jump on Carolina's insight or throw out something else?

Actually I have not seen you even comment about whether you even think there is a problem to begin with.

You have offered zero solutions. If you don't understand what the causes are you can't come up with a viable solution.

 

[timschochet]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

They don't care about causes.

That is a stupid comment.

What are your solutions? You gonna jump on Carolina's insight or throw out something else?

Actually I have not seen you even comment about whether you even think there is a problem to begin with.

You have offered zero solutions. If you don't understand what the causes are you can't come up with a viable solution.

At this point, the main cause is opposition by people like you to reasonable gun control measures.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

And I'm still waiting for your synopsis of the Congressional Committee meeting regarding perceived ATF abuses.

You must have missed it, here it is for you again, do not ask again.

In hearings before ATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of ATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations

 

[5 digit know nothing]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

They don't care about causes.

That is a stupid comment.

What are your solutions? You gonna jump on Carolina's insight or throw out something else?

Actually I have not seen you even comment about whether you even think there is a problem to begin with.

You have offered zero solutions. If you don't understand what the causes are you can't come up with a viable solution.

At this point, the main cause is opposition by people like you to reasonable gun control measures.

Your solution to stopping kids drowning is banning and regulating who gets to have a pool. Yes I am standing in the way of your nonsense approach.

 

[Chaka]

And I'm still waiting for your synopsis of the Congressional Committee meeting regarding perceived ATF abuses.

You must have missed it, here it is for you again, do not ask again.

In hearings before ATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of ATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations

You're kidding, right? Submission is not a demonstration of fact.

What was the conclusion of the committee hearing? Did they find the ATF at fault?

Or you can just admit that you didn't read it.

 

[Chaka]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

They don't care about causes.

That is a stupid comment.

What are your solutions? You gonna jump on Carolina's insight or throw out something else?

Actually I have not seen you even comment about whether you even think there is a problem to begin with.

You have offered zero solutions. If you don't understand what the causes are you can't come up with a viable solution.

Actually I have offered plenty of solutions. And I applauded Carolina for his excellent comments on some of the root causes of violent crime.

Since I started posting in this thread you have not even acknowledged that there is a problem let alone offered any solutions.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."
Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"
John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."
Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."
Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."
Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes
interview.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."
Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."
Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."
William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, andeventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."
U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,
1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."
Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October
1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."
Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil
Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."
Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."
Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."
U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."
U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."
Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."
President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times
12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."
The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."
USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns," Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

" 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."
Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013 And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013

"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla)2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to includeALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 wouldban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes.Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated.("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's--AK pattern rifles--or 60's--AR pattern rifles.)

“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it...We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”
Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed." Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed? "Final Solution" anyone?)
(Emphasis added in the above).

But nobody wants to take our guns?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Chaka, on 28 Apr 2013 - 16:07, said:

5 digit know nothing, on 28 Apr 2013 - 15:37, said:

Chaka, on 28 Apr 2013 - 13:35, said:

And I'm still waiting for your synopsis of the Congressional Committee meeting regarding perceived ATF abuses.

You must have missed it, here it is for you again, do not ask again.In hearings before ATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of ATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations

You're kidding, right? Submission is not a demonstration of fact.What was the conclusion of the committee hearing? Did they find the ATF at fault?

Or you can just admit that you didn't read it.

I'm the one that linked it you rube.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives#History_of_controversy

Always Think Forfeiture

 

[Chaka]

Chaka, on 28 Apr 2013 - 16:07, said:

5 digit know nothing, on 28 Apr 2013 - 15:37, said:

Chaka, on 28 Apr 2013 - 13:35, said:

And I'm still waiting for your synopsis of the Congressional Committee meeting regarding perceived ATF abuses.

You must have missed it, here it is for you again, do not ask again.In hearings before ATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of ATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations

You're kidding, right? Submission is not a demonstration of fact.What was the conclusion of the committee hearing? Did they find the ATF at fault?

Or you can just admit that you didn't read it.

I'm the one that linked it you rube.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives#History_of_controversy

Always Think Forfeiture

I know you linked it, that is why I have asked a half a dozen times for you to tell me what the conclusions of the committee were. The fact that you linked it and can't tell me the conclusions of the committee (i,e, whether the ATF was found to be at fault or not) makes me think you linked something you didn't bother to thoroughly read (if you read it at all).

 

[jonessed]

Chaka, on 28 Apr 2013 - 16:07, said:

5 digit know nothing, on 28 Apr 2013 - 15:37, said:

Chaka, on 28 Apr 2013 - 13:35, said:

And I'm still waiting for your synopsis of the Congressional Committee meeting regarding perceived ATF abuses.

You must have missed it, here it is for you again, do not ask again.In hearings before ATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of ATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations

You're kidding, right? Submission is not a demonstration of fact.What was the conclusion of the committee hearing? Did they find the ATF at fault?

Or you can just admit that you didn't read it.

I'm the one that linked it you rube.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives#History_of_controversy

Always Think Forfeiture

I know you linked it, that is why I have asked a half a dozen times for you to tell me what the conclusions of the committee were. The fact that you linked it and can't tell me the conclusions of the committee (i,e, whether the ATF was found to be at fault or not) makes me think you linked something you didn't bother to thoroughly read (if you read it at all).

Why don't you read it for yourself instead of #####ing and moaning that people won't spoon feed you the cliff notes.

 

[FootballDummy]

Chaka, on 28 Apr 2013 - 16:07, said:

5 digit know nothing, on 28 Apr 2013 - 15:37, said:

Chaka, on 28 Apr 2013 - 13:35, said:

And I'm still waiting for your synopsis of the Congressional Committee meeting regarding perceived ATF abuses.

You must have missed it, here it is for you again, do not ask again.In hearings before ATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of ATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations

You're kidding, right? Submission is not a demonstration of fact.What was the conclusion of the committee hearing? Did they find the ATF at fault?

Or you can just admit that you didn't read it.

I'm the one that linked it you rube.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives#History_of_controversy

Always Think Forfeiture

I know you linked it, that is why I have asked a half a dozen times for you to tell me what the conclusions of the committee were. The fact that you linked it and can't tell me the conclusions of the committee (i,e, whether the ATF was found to be at fault or not) makes me think you linked something you didn't bother to thoroughly read (if you read it at all).

Why are you guys arguing about something that happened 1986? For what it's worth, I read it, and unless the guy who runs the mindspring site he's posting it on is making up a lot of stuff, it appears that Know Nothing is right about the conclusions against the ATF. Not like that's the only time they've screwed up.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Question for [icon], 5 digit, Carolina and the like: Do you think there is a problem with gun violence in this country?

If so what would you do to try and reduce it? We're already incredibly well armed as a country, is more guns the solution? Do we give them to anyone who has the money to buy them? What was gun violence like back during the "old western" days? I really don't know and I don't want to quote Tombstone as my only source so I am open to your thoughts.

I think we have a problem with laws that create a black market, that create a necessity for a market that is governed by violence since it can not be governed legally..

Remove guns from that situation, and there will still be a need for criminals to police criminals with violence. They will just use another method.

Most gangs and criminal activity are fueled by an illegal market (drugs). Adding another illegal market to that is not the answer... A lot of current gun violence is a product of current laws.. End the war on drugs, that will end more gun violence then a gun registration..

This is a great point. And aside from the war on drugs, any war on guns is going to create a bigger black market for guns and ammunition. It will provide another market for criminal enterprises to profit.