Your logical reaction to regulating firearms was that it doesn't matter what we do, some* people are bad and will kill someone with a different weapon. I find that to be a very lazy argument, especially if you are trying to apply it in such a narrow space. My question was obviously hyperbole, to see if your argument was that narrow.
*You actually said it wouldn't have much affect at all, so in this case I assume you mean the vast majority of people that might kill someone or multiple someones with a firearm are just as likely to do it (and as often) with any other weapon...
Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Well, by your own admission, you are treating any pro gun regulation argument as though the person making it wants to take your guns. So, you are apparently deliberately not responding to things we actually say - which makes debate impossible, because you are only debating the liberals in your head, not us.How have I not engaged in a fair debate?
That does, however, put a fresh spin on your tilting at windmills complaint. Makes more sense in the context of the book, too.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Read you own article at the top of the page, but swap our "liberal" for "Dan H" and you willI see what I mean.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Ironic, considering you guys have also ignored many of the questions I've posed to you.Ghost wrote:So, you are apparently deliberately not responding to things we actually say[/i]How have I not engaged in a fair debate?
By that same token it's pretty obvious that no argument would ever sway your position.
You did make a good point about liability for not securing weapons, but I think the infringement on right to privacy makes that a non-starter.
Another issue I have with creating new law is that more often not existing laws are not applied as they should be. How about we enforce existing law and see if that actually helps before throwing new law at the situation? Let's go after straw buyers, I'm all for that.
http://hamptonroads.com/2013/02/straw-m ... y-enforced
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
I don't complain when you ignore my questions, which happens frequently, because we are adults and have better stuff to do than be on here all the time. However, if you have any questions I haven't answered, refresh my memory. The only post of yours I can think of off hand that I didn't reply to was that 48 page study. Frankly, I don't have time to read it in depth, and from what I saw the statistics are beyond my ability to fully process. Also, you didn't ask a question, just posted the link.
Anyway, point is that grown ups like us won't always be able to reply here. But you are not only ignoring what we say, but actually replying as if we said something else.
BUT WAIT...
Wait, because I'm late for lunch. I shall finish in a bit.
Anyway, point is that grown ups like us won't always be able to reply here. But you are not only ignoring what we say, but actually replying as if we said something else.
BUT WAIT...
Wait, because I'm late for lunch. I shall finish in a bit.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Well, since a construction crew just wiped out our fiber optic line it looks I'm going to have plenty of free time for the rest of the day . . . don't take it personal if I don't spend it all here.
But you are not only ignoring what we say, but actually replying as if we said something else.
In what regard? Maybe there's some context I'm missing or not conveying. You said I'm acting like the article I posted, my main reason for posting it was the quote I made about being called rude when I've been getting knocked around like a pinata for 13 pages.
Maybe I'm being too harsh on you guys, but here's a small sampling of the folks who fall on your side of the debate. So perhaps that can help you understand why gun owners reflexively recoil from proposals of more laws when many of those who support those indicate they're doing it to ratchet towards confiscation.
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/ ... otherwise/
Feinstein's the one that really sticks in my craw, because the hypocritical POS has a California concealed-carry permit (which are essentially impossible to get unless you're connected in that state) for her own self-defense but she has no issue with trying to prevent my wife from having the same choice.
But you are not only ignoring what we say, but actually replying as if we said something else.
In what regard? Maybe there's some context I'm missing or not conveying. You said I'm acting like the article I posted, my main reason for posting it was the quote I made about being called rude when I've been getting knocked around like a pinata for 13 pages.
Maybe I'm being too harsh on you guys, but here's a small sampling of the folks who fall on your side of the debate. So perhaps that can help you understand why gun owners reflexively recoil from proposals of more laws when many of those who support those indicate they're doing it to ratchet towards confiscation.
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/ ... otherwise/
Feinstein's the one that really sticks in my craw, because the hypocritical POS has a California concealed-carry permit (which are essentially impossible to get unless you're connected in that state) for her own self-defense but she has no issue with trying to prevent my wife from having the same choice.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Maybe this is too harsh of me, but that is a such an ignorant take. Where do you find a common stance between those of us here arguing with you and the people on that list? Just that we disagree with you that no regulation is just as effective as some regulation?Maybe I'm being too harsh on you guys, but here's a small sampling of the folks who fall on your side of the debate.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
You're predisposed to want more gun control laws. Barbara Boxer, in particular, freely admits her aim is to enact more gun control laws until such a time as they can be confiscated. Your willingness to go along with her enables her to do so.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
You said yourself that this is not a binary issue. But by lumping us in with Barbara Boxer an Feinstein, you do ignore most of what we actually say, because you are reflexively reacting to their opinions, not ours.
I blame their type a lot for the fact that it is hard for us to have a reasonable debate. I understand your point of view, even though I think your judgment is a bit clouded by that more extreme view of theirs.
Back to my point before the lunch break I didn't get to take because of stupid people calling my phone, personal liability. Here, I'm not asking firfor anything but registration. In registering, you agree to keep your firearm secure, report if it is sold (like you do with a car), and report if it is stolen. There is no infringement on privacy. In fact, I'd support doing away with many of the current ineffective laws about guns if we could just do that. Guns do kill people, but only when other people shoot them. It's the people iI worry about.
Yes, that would involve background checks on all purchases, including private party. But I don't think that is a lot to ask.
You are right... Criminals are going to be criminals. But flooding the streets with more guns that cant be traced is not a viable solution. Imagine the bloodbath in auroraAurora if five people had stood up in that dark theater and started shooting... At the actual gunman, and then likely at each other. We may not be able to stop all gun violence, but we can curtail some of it. And we can do it in a way that respects the rights of responsible gun owners if we ateare not at each others throats all the time.
I blame their type a lot for the fact that it is hard for us to have a reasonable debate. I understand your point of view, even though I think your judgment is a bit clouded by that more extreme view of theirs.
Back to my point before the lunch break I didn't get to take because of stupid people calling my phone, personal liability. Here, I'm not asking firfor anything but registration. In registering, you agree to keep your firearm secure, report if it is sold (like you do with a car), and report if it is stolen. There is no infringement on privacy. In fact, I'd support doing away with many of the current ineffective laws about guns if we could just do that. Guns do kill people, but only when other people shoot them. It's the people iI worry about.
Yes, that would involve background checks on all purchases, including private party. But I don't think that is a lot to ask.
You are right... Criminals are going to be criminals. But flooding the streets with more guns that cant be traced is not a viable solution. Imagine the bloodbath in auroraAurora if five people had stood up in that dark theater and started shooting... At the actual gunman, and then likely at each other. We may not be able to stop all gun violence, but we can curtail some of it. And we can do it in a way that respects the rights of responsible gun owners if we ateare not at each others throats all the time.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Ugh, I hate typing on my phone in here. It somehow makes autocorrect worse.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Yes, that would involve background checks on all purchases, including private party. But I don't think that is a lot to ask.
One issue with that. The way things work now, let's say I buy a weapon off of Gunbroker.com. It's kind of like EBay for gun stuff. Unless I'm a Federally-licensed firearms dealer, the gun has to be shipped to someone with a license, who will then run the NICS check through ATF. Most dealers, since you're not buying it directly from them, will generally charge $25-$75 for this. So in a sense you've just instituted a tax that applies to used property.
But okay, I'll compromise on the issue. What are you giving me in return? How about this . . .
Suppressors (fun historical fact, 'silencers' were invented by Hiram Maxim, who also invented the modern automobile muffler) are currently listed as an NFA, or National Firearms Act of 1934 item. This means you have to pass an enhanced NICS check, get local law-enforcement sign off, and pay a $200 tax. In the parts of Europe which allow civilian ownership, suppressors are required at shooting ranges for politeness reasons and can be bought over the counter with no other requirements. Would you find it reasonable to remove suppressors from NFA?
Currently suppressors, fully-automatic weapons built before 1986, short-barreled rifles, and sawed-off shotguns are NFA items. The tax was not indexed for inflation, and when set at $200 in 1934 was actually more money most of the items it was attempting to regulate. I'd like to remove the 1986 cap all together, but we're taking baby steps here. The cap artificially limits the supply and thus drives the prices sky-high. A WW2 Thompson submachine gun goes for about $25,000, by way of example. My grandpa actually had one back in the day and traded it off before the 1968 amnesty program. (Yeah, they passed the law and people basically blew it for 34 years. Somehow the world didn't end.)
You are right... Criminals are going to be criminals. But flooding the streets with more guns that cant be traced is not a viable solution.
If that were going to be a problem, it would be a problem now. A semi-skilled machinist can put together an AK out of steel plates in very little time at all. Mechanically speaking, fully automatic weapons are actually easier to put together because they can be made with simpler designs and fewer parts. No joke.
Criminals mainly get their guns through theft and straw purchases. I've already said I think the government should go harder after straw purchases; at this point in time despite being illegal it's something they hardly ever convict for. Possibly because it's difficult to prove, but honestly the conviction numbers are so low I wonder if they even bother to investigate many of them.
One issue with that. The way things work now, let's say I buy a weapon off of Gunbroker.com. It's kind of like EBay for gun stuff. Unless I'm a Federally-licensed firearms dealer, the gun has to be shipped to someone with a license, who will then run the NICS check through ATF. Most dealers, since you're not buying it directly from them, will generally charge $25-$75 for this. So in a sense you've just instituted a tax that applies to used property.
But okay, I'll compromise on the issue. What are you giving me in return? How about this . . .
Suppressors (fun historical fact, 'silencers' were invented by Hiram Maxim, who also invented the modern automobile muffler) are currently listed as an NFA, or National Firearms Act of 1934 item. This means you have to pass an enhanced NICS check, get local law-enforcement sign off, and pay a $200 tax. In the parts of Europe which allow civilian ownership, suppressors are required at shooting ranges for politeness reasons and can be bought over the counter with no other requirements. Would you find it reasonable to remove suppressors from NFA?
Currently suppressors, fully-automatic weapons built before 1986, short-barreled rifles, and sawed-off shotguns are NFA items. The tax was not indexed for inflation, and when set at $200 in 1934 was actually more money most of the items it was attempting to regulate. I'd like to remove the 1986 cap all together, but we're taking baby steps here. The cap artificially limits the supply and thus drives the prices sky-high. A WW2 Thompson submachine gun goes for about $25,000, by way of example. My grandpa actually had one back in the day and traded it off before the 1968 amnesty program. (Yeah, they passed the law and people basically blew it for 34 years. Somehow the world didn't end.)
You are right... Criminals are going to be criminals. But flooding the streets with more guns that cant be traced is not a viable solution.
If that were going to be a problem, it would be a problem now. A semi-skilled machinist can put together an AK out of steel plates in very little time at all. Mechanically speaking, fully automatic weapons are actually easier to put together because they can be made with simpler designs and fewer parts. No joke.
Criminals mainly get their guns through theft and straw purchases. I've already said I think the government should go harder after straw purchases; at this point in time despite being illegal it's something they hardly ever convict for. Possibly because it's difficult to prove, but honestly the conviction numbers are so low I wonder if they even bother to investigate many of them.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Semi-OT, but Today show segment from this morning:
http://videodelivery.nbcnews.com/now/by ... p4?sid=131
http://videodelivery.nbcnews.com/now/by ... p4?sid=131
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
You may be surprised to discover that I would be perfectly fine with that. Regulating suppressors does not offer any real benefit to the public. I imagine Hollywood is to blame for the idea that they turn us into stone cold assassins who can sneak around killing in absolute silence, but of course that is not how they work at all. So yes, deregulate them.
Regarding the "tax" you refer to, there are probably all sorts of gun laws that could be scrapped or simplified while still accomplishing what we are talking about. And while I would not say we should scrap them indiscriminately, there is no reason to keep a law which provides no benefit. For example, changing the law on sawed off shotguns would make me pretty uncomfortable.
I am with you on going after the straw purchases. That seems like a fairly easy Avenue to pursue, and it would be a lot easier to discuss real policy changes if things like that were being enforced.
Regarding the "tax" you refer to, there are probably all sorts of gun laws that could be scrapped or simplified while still accomplishing what we are talking about. And while I would not say we should scrap them indiscriminately, there is no reason to keep a law which provides no benefit. For example, changing the law on sawed off shotguns would make me pretty uncomfortable.
I am with you on going after the straw purchases. That seems like a fairly easy Avenue to pursue, and it would be a lot easier to discuss real policy changes if things like that were being enforced.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
You may be surprised to discover that I would be perfectly fine with that. Regulating suppressors does not offer any real benefit to the public. I imagine Hollywood is to blame for the idea that they turn us into stone cold assassins who can sneak around killing in absolute silence, but of course that is not how they work at all. So yes, deregulate them.
Actually, funny story . . . short-barreled shotguns and fully-automatic weapons were banned as a result of the persona of the Prohibition era gangs like Capone and Dillinger. During the Depression, poaching in national parks was a huge problem, so suppressors were added to the list at the request of the Department of the Interior.
Actually, funny story . . . short-barreled shotguns and fully-automatic weapons were banned as a result of the persona of the Prohibition era gangs like Capone and Dillinger. During the Depression, poaching in national parks was a huge problem, so suppressors were added to the list at the request of the Department of the Interior.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Oh my . . .
http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-c ... he-fck-up/
I wonder why she no longer works for CNN.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-c ... he-fck-up/
I wonder why she no longer works for CNN.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Dan H wrote:Oh my . . .
http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-c ... he-fck-up/
I wonder why she no longer works for CNN.
Because after 18 years with the network, she quit way back in 2001 to take care of her very ill husband at the time.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Well thankfully he's healthy enough to protect himself and his wife. Where'd you see that he was ill? It's not on his Wiki page. Guy worked on Quantum Leap, no wonder he's awesome.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
It's not her current husband, but I saw it on her page.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Again, she left back in 2001, so lots of time to find a new soul mate.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Back on straw purchases:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
Relevant info on pages 4 & 5.
Raw numbers . . . 6 million NICS checks in 2010, 72,000 denials.
Of those 72,000, 4732 were referred to local ATF offices for further investigation. 71,000+ were disregarded as either false positives or were 'overturned or canceled.'
Pages 6 & 7 further break down the investigations . . . in the end, 62 were referred to prosecution. It looks like in a quite a few cases the firearm may have been confiscated without charges, and in several cases they found that an initially denied check was incorrect and the person was not prohibited.
All in all I may have to reassess my thinking that they weren't going after straw purchases hard enough. It looks like they're sifting through a lot of chaff to get the ones they get.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
Relevant info on pages 4 & 5.
Raw numbers . . . 6 million NICS checks in 2010, 72,000 denials.
Of those 72,000, 4732 were referred to local ATF offices for further investigation. 71,000+ were disregarded as either false positives or were 'overturned or canceled.'
Pages 6 & 7 further break down the investigations . . . in the end, 62 were referred to prosecution. It looks like in a quite a few cases the firearm may have been confiscated without charges, and in several cases they found that an initially denied check was incorrect and the person was not prohibited.
All in all I may have to reassess my thinking that they weren't going after straw purchases hard enough. It looks like they're sifting through a lot of chaff to get the ones they get.