Background check gun bill is dead

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

itsthesheppy:
You know there's something wrong with your country's psychology when twenty dead children on the floor of a suburban classroom isn't sufficient for anything to be done.

Considering the only things that could have been done which would have avoided or mitigated the damage would have been to massively overhaul the current mental health system or train a random number of teachers in each school to carry concealed and repeal the victim disarmament zone legislation, what exactly would you suggest?

evilneko:
Dafuq is wrong with these people? 72% think ZOMG THE EVUL LIBRUL PREZ IS COMIN FER OUR GUNZ!!!!

What it asks is whether he wishes to confiscate many guns that are currently legal. Given the fact that Obama supports the AWB, which might have excluded the grandfathering provision if Feinstein had her way, his statements back up the assertion.

And then there's this gem attributed to 79% of respondents:

Some (Other) people say regardless of President Obama's recent comments of pursuing a
balanced approach his real goal is to pass sweeping gun control regulation that will take away
our 2nd Amendment rights.

Banning a massive swath of firearms that are owned by Americans (2.5 million AR15s alone) sounds like a big infringement on the right to keep and bear arms to me (and the Supreme Court agrees).

Well at least 9 out of 10 of 'em support "Reforming our mental health laws to help keep firearms out of the hands of people with mental illness." Though I'm not sure quite how that'll work without ZOMG MOAR REGULATIONZ.

Since when do the majority of NRA members not like regulations?

ravenshrike:

itsthesheppy:
You know there's something wrong with your country's psychology when twenty dead children on the floor of a suburban classroom isn't sufficient for anything to be done.

Considering the only things that could have been done which would have avoided or mitigated the damage would have been to massively overhaul the current mental health system or train a random number of teachers in each school to carry concealed and repeal the victim disarmament zone legislation, what exactly would you suggest?

Yes. The only two options presented to us were either...

a) Comprehensive reform of our entire mental health system

Or,

b) The Thunderdome.

Those are literally our only two options. There are no other suggestions on the table. No other countries with superior models we could emulate. It's either mental health care reform or Escape From New York.

itsthesheppy:
You know there's something wrong with your country's psychology when twenty dead children on the floor of a suburban classroom isn't sufficient for anything to be done.

Twenty dead kids does not constitute a massive change in law, ever.

I'd be inclined to agree with you when roughly 1% (3,150,000) of the US population is killed by firearm related homicide every year instead of the rough 0.000003% (8-11,000) in reality.

Smagmuck_:

itsthesheppy:
You know there's something wrong with your country's psychology when twenty dead children on the floor of a suburban classroom isn't sufficient for anything to be done.

Twenty dead kids does not constitute a massive change in law, ever.

I'd be inclined to agree with you when roughly 1% (3,150,000) of the US population is killed by firearm related homicide every year instead of the rough 0.000003% (8-11,000) in reality.

1. I'm not sure where you got 'massive change'. I said anything. As in, absolutely nothing seems to be on the table for change.

2. Out of pure macabre curiosity, about how many dead kindergartners would it take for you to be on board with some policy change regarding our firearm laws?

ravenshrike:
Considering the only things that could have been done which would have avoided or mitigated the damage would have been to massively overhaul the current mental health system or train a random number of teachers in each school to carry concealed and repeal the victim disarmament zone legislation, what exactly would you suggest?

Should not the mental health system be overhauled regardless? Not because the mentally ill are a threat to society, but to reduce the threats to the mentally ill.

farson135:
Banning a massive swath of firearms that are owned by Americans (2.5 million AR15s alone) sounds like a big infringement on the right to keep and bear arms to me (and the Supreme Court agrees).

Why doesn't that apply to assault rifles, though? Surely the restrictions on those should count as well, as well as sticking foregrips on pistols, short barrel shotguns etc

thaluikhain:
Why doesn't that apply to assault rifles, though? Surely the restrictions on those should count as well, as well as sticking foregrips on pistols, short barrel shotguns etc

I would say that it does but as far as I am aware Obama is not doing anything in regards to machine guns in either direction. So I decided to mention a major issue that he was actually dealing with.

thaluikhain:

farson135:
Banning a massive swath of firearms that are owned by Americans (2.5 million AR15s alone) sounds like a big infringement on the right to keep and bear arms to me (and the Supreme Court agrees).

Why doesn't that apply to assault rifles, though? Surely the restrictions on those should count as well, as well as sticking foregrips on pistols, short barrel shotguns etc

The problem is that the original National Firearms Act was held up by the Supreme Court, even if it isn't the most iron clad of rulings (the person making the appeal was to poor to hire a lawyer or even go to DC).

Also, it isn't directly banned, just highly regulated.

itsthesheppy:

Smagmuck_:

itsthesheppy:
You know there's something wrong with your country's psychology when twenty dead children on the floor of a suburban classroom isn't sufficient for anything to be done.

Twenty dead kids does not constitute a massive change in law, ever.

I'd be inclined to agree with you when roughly 1% (3,150,000) of the US population is killed by firearm related homicide every year instead of the rough 0.000003% (8-11,000) in reality.

1. I'm not sure where you got 'massive change'. I said anything. As in, absolutely nothing seems to be on the table for change.

2. Out of pure macabre curiosity, about how many dead kindergartners would it take for you to be on board with some policy change regarding our firearm laws?

Using a loaded question is pretty low brow, broski.

amuasyeas:

itsthesheppy:

Smagmuck_:

Twenty dead kids does not constitute a massive change in law, ever.

I'd be inclined to agree with you when roughly 1% (3,150,000) of the US population is killed by firearm related homicide every year instead of the rough 0.000003% (8-11,000) in reality.

1. I'm not sure where you got 'massive change'. I said anything. As in, absolutely nothing seems to be on the table for change.

2. Out of pure macabre curiosity, about how many dead kindergartners would it take for you to be on board with some policy change regarding our firearm laws?

Using a loaded question is pretty low brow, broski.

He opened the door, brohirrim. He's the one that mentioned that it would take 3.15 million people dying to firearms annually for him to be on board with policy change. I'm just curious to know out of those 3 million-a-year dead bodies, how many kindergartners is too much? Presumably some of those 3 million he introduced to the conversation are under the age of 6. I'm just prying for details.

If it's not classy to ask him about such things, maybe he shouldn't go introducing the concepts in the first place?

itsthesheppy:

amuasyeas:

itsthesheppy:

1. I'm not sure where you got 'massive change'. I said anything. As in, absolutely nothing seems to be on the table for change.

2. Out of pure macabre curiosity, about how many dead kindergartners would it take for you to be on board with some policy change regarding our firearm laws?

Using a loaded question is pretty low brow, broski.

He opened the door, brohirrim. He's the one that mentioned that it would take 3.15 million people dying to firearms annually for him to be on board with policy change. I'm just curious to know out of those 3 million-a-year dead bodies, how many kindergartners is too much? Presumably some of those 3 million he introduced to the conversation are under the age of 6. I'm just prying for details.

If it's not classy to ask him about such things, maybe he shouldn't go introducing the concepts in the first place?

actually, you introduced kindergartners first. Just saying.

Ryotknife:

itsthesheppy:

amuasyeas:

Using a loaded question is pretty low brow, broski.

He opened the door, brohirrim. He's the one that mentioned that it would take 3.15 million people dying to firearms annually for him to be on board with policy change. I'm just curious to know out of those 3 million-a-year dead bodies, how many kindergartners is too much? Presumably some of those 3 million he introduced to the conversation are under the age of 6. I'm just prying for details.

If it's not classy to ask him about such things, maybe he shouldn't go introducing the concepts in the first place?

actually, you introduced kindergartners first. Just saying.

He brought up the counterpoint that his bodycount threshold was different from mine, introducing the element of contrast and comparison. I was continuing the conversation along those lines. Just saiyan.

Come one, come all. I can do this all day. Or until I get bored. It's a nice view from my moral high ground but my ass starts getting numb if I sit up here too long.

itsthesheppy:

Ryotknife:

itsthesheppy:

He opened the door, brohirrim. He's the one that mentioned that it would take 3.15 million people dying to firearms annually for him to be on board with policy change. I'm just curious to know out of those 3 million-a-year dead bodies, how many kindergartners is too much? Presumably some of those 3 million he introduced to the conversation are under the age of 6. I'm just prying for details.

If it's not classy to ask him about such things, maybe he shouldn't go introducing the concepts in the first place?

actually, you introduced kindergartners first. Just saying.

He brought up the counterpoint that his bodycount threshold was different from mine, introducing the element of contrast and comparison. I was continuing the conversation along those lines. Just saiyan.

Come one, come all. I can do this all day. Or until I get bored. It's a nice view from my moral high ground but my ass starts getting numb if I sit up here too long.

Okay...but you still brought it up first, rendering your "he started it" line of debate completely false

Ryotknife:

itsthesheppy:

Ryotknife:

actually, you introduced kindergartners first. Just saying.

He brought up the counterpoint that his bodycount threshold was different from mine, introducing the element of contrast and comparison. I was continuing the conversation along those lines. Just saiyan.

Come one, come all. I can do this all day. Or until I get bored. It's a nice view from my moral high ground but my ass starts getting numb if I sit up here too long.

Okay...but you still brought it up first, rendering your "he started it" line of debate completely false

I never said he started it. You can put quotes around those words as much as you like and they won't become something I said. I said he opened the door. I knocked, he answered and let me in.

Seriously. All day I can do this.

itsthesheppy:

1. I'm not sure where you got 'massive change'. I said anything. As in, absolutely nothing seems to be on the table for change.

2. Out of pure macabre curiosity, about how many dead kindergartners would it take for you to be on board with some policy change regarding our firearm laws?

I pointed it out earlier in this thread and I'll try to make it clear, once again.

We "gun nuts" are not against "some policy change regarding our firearm laws". We are against the bills that have been brought up, because they were blatant infringement on our rights and wholly ineffectual knee-jerk reaction based bills that anyone with a brain in their head can see would NOT have had an affect on reducing gun crime/violence. Even the VICE PRESIDENT has admitted that.

What we "gun nuts" instead want is for action to be taken in the areas where the problems occur in the first place. For example, the revolving doors of the justice system where a violent offender can be in and out of jail multiple times.

What do I mean? Let me clarify.

Guy rapes some woman. Brutally beats her. He didn't KILL her, so he's not sentenced to life in prison. He's on parole, gets out. Find some other woman and rapes and kills her.

Don't say "that's a stupid scenario" because it FUCKING HAPPENS ALL OF THE TIME.

But no. We feel bad for the murderers and want to reform them. Instead, let's make it harder for LAW ABIDING citizens to own guns! Yeah! That'll work!

itsthesheppy:

Seriously. All day I can do this.

Oh? Really? That doesn't contribute to the discussion much. In fact it would quickly approach "Low Content" and possible "baiting" if you kept going back and forth that way. I checked the CoC. Please don't let it come to that.

OT: I've heard variations on the presentation of the bill. I remember going over a step-by-step explanation of how the registry for used firearms was specifically designed to protect gun buyers from being used for a "national registry". The opponents of the bill lied blatantly on specifics involved.

No surprise, that, but it annoys me when people in the government get away with outright lies. And yes, there are plenty of folks who tell the truth. As one congressman said in the 50's or 60's "90% of the politicians give the other 10% a bad name."

Mostly I find it annoying that people jump on the bandwagon that "the gubermint" is out to take folks guns from them. That's pretty much impossible, no matter what people say.

It's a given that there are elected anti-gun idiots and nuts who have wet dreams about a gun free America--just look at how they outlawed firearms in DC to the point that only the criminals were the ones with firearms--but examples like DC (the explosion of crime that resulted from people not being allowed firearms to protect themselves) don't get forgotten by most people--just the anti-gun zealots.

As I said elsewhere I inherited a closet full of firearms and I'm not the least bit concerned that they'll "be taken away". But that doesn't stop fear mongers from howling to the moon to rile people up.

itsthesheppy:
1. I'm not sure where you got 'massive change'. I said anything. As in, absolutely nothing seems to be on the table for change.

The NICS system we have in place now does the same thing this bill would have done.

The NICS system is fine.

2. Out of pure macabre curiosity, about how many dead kindergartners would it take for you to be on board with some policy change regarding our firearm laws?

10% of the US Population (31,500,000) would constitute as a "Gun Violence Problem". And maybe I'd be on board.

But I highly doubt it would get that bad in my lifetime.

Copper Zen:
I've heard variations on the presentation of the bill. I remember going over a step-by-step explanation of how the registry for used firearms was specifically designed to protect gun buyers from being used for a "national registry". The opponents of the bill lied blatantly on specifics involved.

Citation? I know that many people believe that the bill will LEAD to a national registry. The reason they think it will lead to a registry is because under the law I could sell a firearm illegally and it is nearly impossible to prove that I even owned the firearm to begin with. In other words the law is toothless and the only logical reason to make it is to make way for the inevitable cries of, it didn't work because we did not go far enough. However, I have not heard anyone state that the bill itself includes a registry (unless you mean the mights that were discussed before the bill was published).

Mostly I find it annoying that people jump on the bandwagon that "the gubermint" is out to take folks guns from them. That's pretty much impossible, no matter what people say.

Excuse me? You do realize that the government has done exactly that to individuals for years. Haven't you ever heard about the mass disarmaments that occurred during Katrina? Hell, there are innumerable stories about police confiscating firearms and refusing to give them back. And currently there are plenty of calls throughout the US to copy the Australian and UK examples and have a mandatory buyback. Will they do it? Probably not. But that does not prevent the constant attacks on the Second Amendment by low level people in the government. My firearms could be confiscated at any point if some ATF agent gets it into their head that I am smuggling guns to the cartels.

As I said elsewhere I inherited a closet full of firearms and I'm not the least bit concerned that they'll "be taken away". But that doesn't stop fear mongers from howling to the moon to rile people up.

Tell that to me after the ATF inspects your home (as they have mine).

farson135:

Citation?

I first heard it on NPR (diring an interview with a pro-gun advocate running through the safeguards, interestingly enough) and then followed a suggested link on the internet. I'll try to find it but I wrote the link on a receipt and I think I threw it away. I take anything I read on the internet with a grain of salt--except for Wikipedia, of course--but the information jived with other things I'd picked up.

farson135:

However, I have not heard anyone state that the bill itself includes a registry (unless you mean the mights that were discussed before the bill was published).

I ran across that in the news. Can't produce a citation but yeah, there were folks saying the bill contained stuff for building a national registry. Combined with the pro-gun fellow I spoke of above who was clarifying details it's clear there were real lies being told by some of the bill's opponents.

Liars in Washington?!? Shock!!!

farson135:

Excuse me? You do realize that the government has done exactly that to individuals for years. Haven't you ever heard about the mass disarmaments that occurred during Katrina? Hell, there are innumerable stories about police confiscating firearms and refusing to give them back. And currently there are plenty of calls throughout the US to copy the Australian and UK examples and have a mandatory buyback. Will they do it? Probably not. But that does not prevent the constant attacks on the Second Amendment by low level people in the government. My firearms could be confiscated at any point if some ATF agent gets it into their head that I am smuggling guns to the cartels.

1) Katrina? Not surprised that they confiscated every weapon they could and used the hurricane as an excuse to do it--New Orleans is one of the "murder capitals" of America, if you listen to some people.

2) I know a few police officers. I'm not the least bit surprised that many confiscate weapons without any intention of giving them back. It's mostly WHO they take them from, though. My mother's a little old lady. She's someone the very same cops urge to get herself a simple revolver to protect herself in case anyone tries to break into her house.

3) Yup, plenty of idiots calling for America to follow the Aussie and UK paths. Won't happen. Let's leave it at that and agree to disagree on this point.

4) ATF?

farson135:

Tell that to me after the ATF inspects your home (as they have mine).

ATF? How'd you get on their radar?

Copper Zen:
I ran across that in the news. Can't produce a citation but yeah, there were folks saying the bill contained stuff for building a national registry. Combined with the pro-gun fellow I spoke of above who was clarifying details it's clear there were real lies being told by some of the bill's opponents.

Sorry but some random guy does not seem relevant to me.

I know a few police officers. I'm not the least bit surprised that many confiscate weapons without any intention of giving them back. It's mostly WHO they take them from, though. My mother's a little old lady. She's someone the very same cops urge to get herself a simple revolver to protect herself in case anyone tries to break into her house.

Ok, a CHL uses their firearm in self defense. The cops arrest them, figure out that the CHL was in the right, they releases him, and the LEOs keep the firearm. How about that?

Or how about the soldier who was traveling through D.C. and had his firearms confiscated because he stopped at a hospital in the city?

These kinds of cases go on. Partially they are simple bureaucratic incompetence. Partially it is the fact that many officers do not understand the law and take the confiscate first and ask questions later approach.

ATF? How'd you get on their radar?

I have two FFLs and a shit ton of NFA tax stamps. However, the reason they got on my case was because I purchased 5 stripped receivers. Gee, I wonder what a gunsmith would be doing with stripped receivers. Plus, you have to wonder how many cartel members are buying stripped receivers. Fucking idiots. But because of them I had to take out all of my records and allow them to inspect my home.

Copper Zen:

2) I know a few police officers. I'm not the least bit surprised that many confiscate weapons without any intention of giving them back. It's mostly WHO they take them from, though. My mother's a little old lady. She's someone the very same cops urge to get herself a simple revolver to protect herself in case anyone tries to break into her house.

Problem is that goes direct agains the fourteenth amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It doesn't matter the reason, it doesn't matter "who it was," unless a person is convicted by a jury of their peers can property be confiscated without any intention of giving it back.

farson135:
You STILL have not explained why NRA members keep voting for board members that do not support what they support.

Some people do cease their support. I'm sure you've already heard of this story of a former NRA board member resigning because of that exact lack of representation. Let's hope many others follow:

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/376098/3/KSDK-Exclusive-Adolphus-Busch-IV-resigns-NRA-membership-

"...One only has to ask why the NRA reversed its original position on background checks. Was it not the NRA position to support background checks when Mr. LaPierre himself stated in 1999 that NRA saw checks as 'reasonable'?"

"...I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable," Busch writes.

[...]

"Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."

"One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners."

---

How about this, show the damn polls. I showed you the CBS poll (that was referred to in your source) and it DID NOT discuss UNIVERSAL background checks but instead only background checks. The closest you get is the PEW poll but that also mentions Gun Shows and that skews the result because we already have background checks at gun shows.

So that you don't whine (well you will anyway but at least this way I can call you out for it) here is another source that actually includes direct links to the polls- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/

Gee, but those polls are about universal background checks. At least these clearly state they are:

The CBS poll linked in your source:
"On gun policy, there continues to be broad support for universal background checks(90% favor), but the public is divided on banning semi-automatic weapons."
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/132495181?access_key=key-k62k9rxtcut2v7lia80

The Quinnipiac poll linked in your source:
"American voters say 48 - 38 percent that the government could use the information from universal background checks to confiscate legally-owned guns, but voters still support universal gun background checks 91 - 8 percent, including 88 - 11 percent among voters in households with guns, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today."
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes--centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1877

And I'm not sure why you feel it's appropriate to disregard polls that mention gun show sales and the like, considering that's a major defining aspect to universal background checks: The need for federal standards on such sales.

"The "universal background checks" now being pushed by some gun control supporters is code for closing federal loopholes on such checks at gun shows and other private sales.
U.S. law requires background checks for all people who try to buy firearms from federally licensed dealers. But federal law does not require background checks for "private transactions," like sales at gun shows. Many states have their own statutes requiring such checks for private sales.
The issue has risen high in the national conversation after the shock ignited by December's mass shooting of six adults and 20 children at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut.
Expanded background checks now enjoy the support of mayors in some of the largest cities in America. The idea has been embraced by gun violence survivor Gabrielle Giffords, a self-described gun owner. It's also being considered for possible legislation by a White House task force led by Vice President Joe Biden. The task force is expected to include universal background checks as part of its recommended legislation."
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/14/us/universal-background-checks

So if you apply that, even the rest of them are quite clear:

Q: Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?
86% in favour.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/national-postabc-poll-april-1114-2013/2013/04/16/e33bddb0-a681-11e2-9e1c-bb0fb0c2edd9_page.html

"Some proposals would require a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony or has a mental health problem. Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for a prospective gun buyer under each of the following circumstances. [See below.]"
"If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun at a gun show"
83 to 87% in favour.
"If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns one or more guns and wants to sell one of them"
70 to 75% in favour.
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Even if we accept the "expansion" idea we still have the problem that I support expanding it by actually prosecuting people for breaking the law (which we do not do now AND the NRA supports us actually prosecuting those people).

You'll never hear me claim that lack of proper enforcement isn't also a problem, don't worry.

However, I fully expect you to ignore this.

Nah. I took the time to look at the linked polls. Two of them literally contradict your claim, two do in their content, although admittedly they don't use the term "universal".

Have I? Shall I talk about the number of times that I have stated to the effect that, "there are very sensible and level headed anti-gunners out there"? I have stated that several times on this forum. Of course not to you. After all, you do not back up your claims. I would be more than happy to show you exactly where I said that, but I know that you do not give a shit. After all, I need to be that biased in order for your worldview to remain intact. Just like how I need to be a shill for the NRA despite the lack of evidence.

Yeah, and this is the point where I say "later, dude", because I've invested far too much time already in this pointless debate. I hope you are satisfied with my pointing out your self-defeating argumentation above, because I won't bother to do the same for anything else you'll bring up on this. I said I wouldn't get roped into something like this and I don't intend to, but I at least had to point out those polls you think contradict my points when they clearly don't.

MichiganMuscle77:

itsthesheppy:

1. I'm not sure where you got 'massive change'. I said anything. As in, absolutely nothing seems to be on the table for change.

2. Out of pure macabre curiosity, about how many dead kindergartners would it take for you to be on board with some policy change regarding our firearm laws?

I pointed it out earlier in this thread and I'll try to make it clear, once again.

We "gun nuts" are not against "some policy change regarding our firearm laws". We are against the bills that have been brought up, because they were blatant infringement on our rights and wholly ineffectual knee-jerk reaction based bills that anyone with a brain in their head can see would NOT have had an affect on reducing gun crime/violence. Even the VICE PRESIDENT has admitted that.

What we "gun nuts" instead want is for action to be taken in the areas where the problems occur in the first place. For example, the revolving doors of the justice system where a violent offender can be in and out of jail multiple times.

What do I mean? Let me clarify.

Guy rapes some woman. Brutally beats her. He didn't KILL her, so he's not sentenced to life in prison. He's on parole, gets out. Find some other woman and rapes and kills her.

Don't say "that's a stupid scenario" because it FUCKING HAPPENS ALL OF THE TIME.

But no. We feel bad for the murderers and want to reform them. Instead, let's make it harder for LAW ABIDING citizens to own guns! Yeah! That'll work!

No need to shout.

Also, who's talking about rape? Also, the guy who did the rampage that kicked off this whole conversation, was he an ex-con? How would your proposed changed have worked to prevent a massacre of that proportion of happening again? From what I can tell what got struck down was an already limp-wristed background check bill. That's too much? What's on the table then? Warning labels on guns that say "pretty please don't wander into a mall and massacre people with this"?

Copper Zen:

itsthesheppy:

Seriously. All day I can do this.

Oh? Really? That doesn't contribute to the discussion much. In fact it would quickly approach "Low Content" and possible "baiting" if you kept going back and forth that way. I checked the CoC. Please don't let it come to that.

Please don't threaten me with your mod powers just because you don't happen to agree with the content of my posts. The content, by the way, which in no way comes close to the "low content" ruling because each response has been multiple sentences carefully outlining my disagreement. If anything, the post that got me started (the one calling me lowbrow, broski) is much closer to that than mine.

In regards to baiting, what, I can't say something like "I can do this all day" when responding to multiple repeated single-sentence objections to my posts, objections that rather than addressing the content of my question or points (however value-less my detractors may perceive them to be) with what amounts to repeated 'nuh-uh's?

Smagmuck_:

itsthesheppy:
1. I'm not sure where you got 'massive change'. I said anything. As in, absolutely nothing seems to be on the table for change.

The NICS system we have in place now does the same thing this bill would have done.

The NICS system is fine.

In what way is the "fine" system we have now stopping these murderous rampages? The guys who blew up the Boston Marathon had guns. We're just lucky they opted not to wander into a crowded cafe or fast food joint with them. The NICS system seems about as effective as airing 'The More You Know' TV spots politely asking people not to go on murder sprees.

2. Out of pure macabre curiosity, about how many dead kindergartners would it take for you to be on board with some policy change regarding our firearm laws?

10% of the US Population (31,500,000) would constitute as a "Gun Violence Problem". And maybe I'd be on board.

But I highly doubt it would get that bad in my lifetime.

So 31 million dead bodies would be sufficient for you? Anything less and you're not entirely sure yet whether or not there's a problem that needs to be worked on?

I need say nothing more. The prosecution rests, your honor.

Skeleon:

farson135:
You STILL have not explained why NRA members keep voting for board members that do not support what they support.

Some people do cease their support. I'm sure you've already heard of this story of a former NRA board member resigning because of that exact lack of representation. Let's hope many others follow:

The NRA might well be a pretty homogenous organisation precisely for the reason that dissenters have absented themselves from it. This might explain why whilst around third of Americans have a gun in their household (some 100 million people), just 3 million people (approximately) are NRA members. Although to be kind, we could assume many non-members are sympathetic but just can't be bothered stumping up the membership fee.

Interestingly, about NRA membership numbers:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/nra-membership-numbers

At any rate, the point being that there is no guarantee whatsoever that the NRA is usefully representative of US gun owners, never mind the wider population. If that is the case, whether its board accurately represents its membership is pretty trivial in the bigger picture.

Copper Zen:

farson135:

Citation?

I first heard it on NPR (diring an interview with a pro-gun advocate running through the safeguards, interestingly enough) and then followed a suggested link on the internet. I'll try to find it but I wrote the link on a receipt and I think I threw it away. I take anything I read on the internet with a grain of salt--except for Wikipedia, of course--but the information jived with other things I'd picked up.

farson135:

However, I have not heard anyone state that the bill itself includes a registry (unless you mean the mights that were discussed before the bill was published).

I ran across that in the news. Can't produce a citation but yeah, there were folks saying the bill contained stuff for building a national registry. Combined with the pro-gun fellow I spoke of above who was clarifying details it's clear there were real lies being told by some of the bill's opponents.

What was actually being said was that given the way the bill was worded, it allowed individual alphabet agencies to build their own internal registries and for the Att. Gen. to build a registry of all records from gun stores that went out of business.

Agema:
At any rate, the point being that there is no guarantee whatsoever that the NRA is usefully representative of US gun owners, never mind the wider population. If that is the case, whether its board accurately represents its membership is pretty trivial in the bigger picture.

Very interesting read, thanks. Although I must say Mother Jones is not considered neutral by a long shot, so it has to be taken with grains of salt. The testimonies and inconsistent numbers reported are intriguing regardless.

That said, I disagree with your assessment. Yes, even if their real numbers are much lower than they say, their board still claims to represent whatever true number of active members they do have. And as the article states, too, those claims are very important for the clout they have in Washington D. C., so pointing out their behaviour is important even if they exaggerate the actual number of people they claim to represent.

Of course, that doesn't mean both can't be pointed out. Having undue influence because they fail to represent their members and further having undue influence because their membership is smaller than they claim it to be complement each other quite well.

Skeleon:
Some people do cease their support.

Some, but not nearly enough to back up your claim that the NRA is not supporting what the majority of members want.

I'm sure you've already heard of this story of a former NRA board member resigning because of that exact lack of representation.

What in the fuck are you talking about? That guy is not a board member.

Edit, Ok I get it now. You did not read the correction. A 10 second look at the NRAs list of board members would have told you that the story was wrong. I could forgive it if not for the knowledge that you will just ignore what I say anyway. Look at the bottom of the page-

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story stated incorrectly that Adolphus Busch IV had resigned his membership on the NRA board. Busch was not a member of the board.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/adolphus-busch-iv-nra_n_3112750.html

Gee, but those polls are about universal background checks. At least these clearly state they are:

No they do not, at least not in the questions-

Washington Post-ABC News poll- Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?

CNN/Opinion Research Corp- "Do you favor or oppose expanding background checks on gun buyers?"

Quinnipiac University poll- Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

Not a mention of universal in the QUESTIONS. THAT is a problem when you are adding in interpretations.

And I'm not sure why you feel it's appropriate to disregard polls that mention gun show sales and the like, considering that's a major defining aspect to universal background checks: The need for federal standards on such sales.

Because there are already regulations dealing with background checks at gun show and by adding that modifier you are confusing people.

"The "universal background checks" now being pushed by some gun control supporters is code for closing federal loopholes on such checks at gun shows and other private sales.

Which the law does not do. It regulates internet advertising and says that you can sell your firearm privately but you cannot do it at a gun show. And because the "gun show loophole" includes more than just gun shows it would not have been closed by the bill.

So if you apply that, even the rest of them are quite clear

No it is not. Why? Because the VAST majority of gun deals at gun shows are done through companies NOT private sales. Once again, you are confusing people.

Nah. I took the time to look at the linked polls. Two of them literally contradict your claim, two do in their content, although admittedly they don't use the term "universal".

None of the linked polls QUESTIONS contradict what I said. Their interpretations of the polls do but I have already said that that was a problem.

Agema:
The NRA might well be a pretty homogenous organisation precisely for the reason that dissenters have absented themselves from it. This might explain why whilst around third of Americans have a gun in their household (some 100 million people), just 3 million people (approximately) are NRA members. Although to be kind, we could assume many non-members are sympathetic but just can't be bothered stumping up the membership fee.

The NRA is viewed in two lights, as a lobbying organization and as a sporting organization. If you do not care about the politics of gun ownership you are not going to get involved, if you do not care about the sporting side of the NRA you are not going to get involved. Or, if you do not care about the national sporting side and would prefer to concentrate on local sporting organizations (like the Texas State Rifle Association or the New York Rifle and Pistol Shooting Association) then you would not bother with the NRA. Or, if you want an extreme pro-gun organization you would not go with the NRA but instead the Gun Owners of America or Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, etc.

In other words, the NRA is not the only game in town. In addition, your average gun owner is not going to care about the political and sporting side of the NRA. Your average gun owner either has a firearm for general self defense, a family heirloom, or is a hunter. The NRA is primarily about sports shooting and training. Its political side is a recent invention and has garnered even more members. Your average American in any cultural subgroup is not going to care about similar organizations.

BTW the membership numbers are 4.5 million not three.

Interestingly, about NRA membership numbers:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/nra-membership-numbers

Really? That is your source? They barely provide a hint of evidence. For the love of god, all three magazines can be had in electronic format. I get my magazines in electronic format, so why in the hell wouldn't other NRA members? In addition, the variances that they are referring to in individual years are the differences between life and general membership. As for the rest of their "evidence" it is simply the word of former members or random people and general recruiting stuff. Virtually all organizations seek to expand their numbers. Why is the NRA so weird for doing it? All the NRA does is try and make it extremely easy to become a member. Lots of people are kind of on the fence or do not really care. This is a common tactic. For the love of Christ do you know how many letters from the AARP my mother has received? Yet of course since it is the NRA there is something nefarious going on.

You want evidence that the NRA has closer to 4 million than 3 million? The NRA brings in about $110 million in membership dues. A one year membership due is $30. So if every member (4.3 million) has a one year membership that is about $130 million. THEN you subtract the life and endowment membership numbers which lowers the membership dues because those members do not pay membership dues (unless they space out their life membership payment). There are around 1.3 million life and endowment members in the NRA. That brings the general number down to about 3 million (coincidence?) but once again, life members and endowment members can space out their payments and new life and endowment members are added every year. So, your general membership guys pay around $90-$100 million and the life and endowment members pay about $10-$20 million. But if your numbers are correct then the general membership guys would only be paying around 60 million and the life and endowment members would have to pay almost 50 million. Given the fact that life and endowment members effectively only have to pay once that doesn't make much sense now does it?

Wow, people are going to put out that 90% for quite some time, even though the stat has changed, and is dropping off at a fast rate. Here is the current stats, though it might have dropped again.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/22/usa-today-poll-finds-support-for-gun-control-ebbs-backing-for-immigration-bill-strong/2103419/

Dumbasses wasn't paying attention to the battlefield. So I am not surprise that the gun rights group won. In case you didn't know, America is now more gun rights prior to Newtown. This was a fucking loss, to the point that the President lost his shit, cried like a little bitch, and threw a tantrum, making it the funniest shit I have ever saw. Stupid fucker's forget that there is a time limit for gun control groups to enact policies before America emotion's run through, if you don't enact any change, if the gun control opposition shows up, you are pretty much fuck, and that what happen to the dems. They ran out of time, they were getting there asses handed to them on the state level, and now they throw a bitch fit because of stats on February.

Truth is America doesn't care about the gun debate, it likes the status quo, but change could happen and not a shit would be given whether there is gun control or not. Gun control groups are weak though, and they don't come out in numbers that he gun rights group comes in. It takes them effort to even call up legislators, or protest, or rally. As much as the dems, and some on the left would like to think that Democracy failed because of a public opinion poll of that moment in time. The truth is that two things happen. America was mostly gun right and the poll was just that of the group that was picked, or the poll was correct and democracy rule of in order to get a voice you have to show up, applied and the "silent majority" didn't show up. Thus the gun rights won by being the only one's to show up.

Smagmuck_:

The NICS system we have in place now does the same thing this bill would have done.

The NICS system is fine.

10% of the US Population (31,500,000) would constitute as a "Gun Violence Problem". And maybe I'd be on board.

But I highly doubt it would get that bad in my lifetime.

You don't seem to have the slightest grasp of the numbers you're using.

The average annual number of deaths in the US is around 2.5 million, an order of magnitude lower than your gun violence figure. Apparently death is not an issue in the United States.

Of that 2.5 million (~800 death / 100,000 pop) less than a percent, around 15,000 is homicide. As you noted, around 10,000 or over two-thirds of that is gun violence. Clearly not a problem.

During World War II, the deadliest military conflict in history, "only" ~10-14 million was killed annually, on average. That includes those killed by military action (civilians included), crimes against humanity, war related diseases and famine on all sides of the war. Still less than half of your figure.

I'm not sure whether you are making a joke of a serious issue or simply lack the competence to comprehend the related statistics.
Either way, please stop embarrassing yourself and others on these forums by posting such nonsense.

farson135:
Really? That is your source? They barely provide a hint of evidence.

Skeleon:
I realize I shouldn't bother wasting too much time looking for sources you'll dismiss, anyway.

Mm. I wonder why Skeleon said that?

Although also,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/does-the-nra-really-have-more-than-45-million-members/2013/02/07/06047c10-7164-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_blog.html

You want evidence that the NRA has closer to 4 million than 3 million? The NRA brings in about $110 million...

Sure. Because a random guy on the internet chucking some back-of-a-beermat numbers around is so much of an improvement.

A one year membership due is $30.

$35 actually, according to their website.

* * *

Being skeptical, the NRA would have reason to overstate their membership figures, and their political opponents to understate them. But as I don't really care, I'm happy to accept "up to 4.5 million". Either way, it's a tiny minority of US gun owners.

MichiganMuscle77:
We "gun nuts" are not against "some policy change regarding our firearm laws". We are against the bills that have been brought up, because they were blatant infringement on our rights and wholly ineffectual knee-jerk reaction based bills that anyone with a brain in their head can see would NOT have had an affect on reducing gun crime/violence. Even the VICE PRESIDENT has admitted that.

So what policy change regarding gun laws would you be in favor of?

MichiganMuscle77:
-snip-

I would love to see some prison reform. A bigger focus on rehabilitation, with education and the goal of societal reintegration heavily stressed would be great. More in the way of fines and less in the way of jail time for less serious drug charges, comprehnsive excon outreach programs especially in areas of employment, nonprivatization of prisons, and abolishing the death penalty would all be fantastic improvements to our penal system.

Agema:
Mm. I wonder why Skeleon said that?

You know damn well that if I posted a statistic from a source like that you would attack me to no end, so do not give me your shit. But what else should I expect from you.

Although also,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/does-the-nra-really-have-more-than-45-million-members/2013/02/07/06047c10-7164-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_blog.html

That is a decent source. It still uses that stupid metric (you know, the one you failed to address) but it is better than your first source. Why didn't you use that one to begin with? Why not use a source from a trustworthy site? What, did you want me to call you out on it so that you can attack me? Or do you honestly think that Motherjones is an acceptable source?

Sure. Because a random guy on the internet chucking some back-of-a-beermat numbers around is so much of an improvement.

Can you prove that my numbers are wrong? After all, the official number submitted by the NRA fluctuates somewhere around 100-110 million, although a few years ago it was as high as $120 million.

$35 actually, according to their website.

Actually according to their website it is $25 as of right now. The NRA changes the price on a regular basis in order to increase recruitment. Usually it is $30 with the marketing advantage of saying, "now $5 cheaper". But it still varies and my point (you know, you one you failed to address) still stands.

Being skeptical, the NRA would have reason to overstate their membership figures, and their political opponents to understate them.

But you have no real proof. The "proof" you provided is so questionable that you cannot even defend it. Maybe, does not justify attacking an organization for lying. Once again, you know damn well that you would attack me to no end for doing EXACTLY what you are doing now.

But as I don't really care, I'm happy to accept "up to 4.5 million". Either way, it's a tiny minority of US gun owners.

Around 6% is not tiny. What's more, it is the largest of the pro-gun groups by a huge margin.

The point is that the NRA speaks for its members. It is a huge lobbying group and exerts a comparable level of influence.

farson135:
Can you prove
...
But you have no real proof. The "proof"...

You say "proof/prove" a lot in such situations. I am unclear as to whether you do not actually understand what it means, as you seem to use it in place of the appropriate word, "evidence". Sometimes, you seem to be making a fundamental logical error - starting with a premise that your belief is objectively true and can only be wrong if proven otherwise (which is of course erroneous because you do not have independent proof either to have such a premise). I guess a third possibility is a subjective level where you think the requirement of other people in debate is to change your mind, thus a demand for disproof (of your existing belief) has some validity. On the other hand, to people like me who don't think that fulfilling such a role for those others is the function (or primary function) of debate it's meaningless.

One way or another, I find all your talk about "proof" bemusingly nonsensical or irrelevant. It's about things like balances of evidence, degrees of trust, and approximations with margins of error. And hence me stating an answer I think expresses appropriate uncertainty about the objective reality.

So, I'm really not interested in you straw-manning me about my evidence, nor fulfilling an impossible requirement of proving what cannot be proven, nor being dragged into an absurd 40-comment ding-dong that will really be nothing more than an exercise in trivial obstinacy peppered with ill-feeling. And for the record if I wanted to engage with you or even piss you off, I'd reply directly to your own comments; I didn't, so I don't. I made it quite clear last time I'm done with this shit, and I say so again.

Agema:
Snip

In other words you do not have the ability to show that your assertions have any level of validity and instead you are just going to insult me. Typical but not unexpected from you. After all, you are the guy who decides to make entire topics to air out your inherent bias against a group containing hundreds of thousands of people. Then of course there are your posts whose sole and only content is insults directed at said group or members of said group.

Agema, if your assertions have no evidence even on a philosophical level then don't say anything. You make yourself look foolish whenever you fail to provide even the most basic kind of evidence. And you also make yourself look hypocritical and incredibly prejudiced when you insult people for doing one thing and then do exactly what you just attacked them for doing.

How about this, just stop. There is absolutely no reason you have to act this way other than pure spite. Just cut the shit. You know damn well that you are in the wrong so why do you feel the need to compound your mistakes? Just fucking stop. YOU attack me on a regular basis WHEN I AM JUST TRYING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOU (in case you cannot tell YES I am shouting this time). Christ, why do you have to act like this? I understand that you hate everything I stand for but you do not have to act like this. Put me on ignore, but STOP pretending like I am the bad guy when you start attacking me for no reason. Give me one goddamn fucking good reason you had to start attacking me in this topic. The closest I can see is the fact that I did not like your source but that is something that ANYONE should be able to say. Fuck it. This was probably a wasted effort. Goddamn this is probably the fifth time I have asked you to stop acting this way but you refuse to fucking stop. To think that I ever had the slightest bit of respect for you. Fuck it.

Jux:

So what policy change regarding gun laws would you be in favor of?

Well, first of all, keep the back ground checks. I have problem with them.

But instead of forcing EVERYONE to go through back ground checks for each firearms purchase (because it makes no sense, if I already own two semi automatic rifles, 3 shotguns and 4 handguns... what good would a back ground check do at that point), issue a "proof of ownership" card or something similar for current gun owners to bypass back ground checks.

Technically, I already have one of those - it's called a Concealed Pistol License, which is taken away from me the moment I commit any type of crime (besides minor traffic infractions). I can walk into a gun store, hand them cash, fill out paper work, and walk out with a gun in 15 minutes. Why shouldn't I be able to? If I had committed a crime since being issued my CPL, I'd have lost it. The CPL acts as my back ground check. There should be something similar available for those who don't wish to carry concealed.

Second, you can't regulate insanity - so stop trying. Guns have been widely available in this country for decades, and only since we have started trying to crack down on their availability have these mass shootings started to become more frequent. Instead of trying to create MORE useless laws, let's investigate that issue.

What is a gun law that would actually help prevent these shootings? Well, there isn't one. If someone wants a gun bad enough, they can get one, no matter the law. You don't think criminals get theirs through legal means, do you? So, a gun law that MIGHT help to prevent, deter or mitigate these mass shootings is... drum roll please...

Allowing armed guards/concealed carry in "Gun Free Zones".

GASP

It blows me away how people can be so frightened by the concept of a trained person in possession of a gun. Who is the first person you call when you're in danger? The guy with the gun, right? So why not have one already on the property?

Will it DEFINITELY stop mass shootings? No. But it's the only thing that actually makes sense for combating these lunatics who commit these acts.

"Allowing people to carry guns in schools is RIDICULOUS"... is it? Why?

First of all, my concealed carry license ALLOWS ME to carry a gun in schools. The law states that a CPL holder may OPEN carry a gun inside of a school, but not carry concealed (meaning the gun can be on my hip but not covered by my shirt). What fucking logic is that? You'd rather have the gun visible than concealed?

Let me tell you something... If someone wants to shoot up a school, they will carry concealed if they need to, even if they don't have a license. What fucking good does this stupid rule do? None. None at all. It just wants us good guys to carry our guns on our hips so that it scares everyone who sees us.

Let us carry concealed in schools, hospitals, etc. Then maybe we can respond to an attack and maybe save some lives. And before you say "or kill more people in the cross fire", BEFORE you say that, find me one instance of bystanders being shot by a CPL holder acting in defense of a bad guy with a gun.

Jux:

I would love to see some prison reform. A bigger focus on rehabilitation, with education and the goal of societal reintegration heavily stressed would be great. More in the way of fines and less in the way of jail time for less serious drug charges, comprehnsive excon outreach programs especially in areas of employment, nonprivatization of prisons, and abolishing the death penalty would all be fantastic improvements to our penal system.

I completely disagree with this. This is PRECISELY the problem - we think everyone can be rehabilitated. Not everyone can. When people released from prison on parole kill someone, who is held accountable for that?

I think that the parole board should be held 100% accountable when a parolee commits a violent act after being released.

itsthesheppy:
who's talking about rape? Also, the guy who did the rampage that kicked off this whole conversation, was he an ex-con? How would your proposed changed have worked to prevent a massacre of that proportion of happening again? From what I can tell what got struck down was an already limp-wristed background check bill. That's too much? What's on the table then? Warning labels on guns that say "pretty please don't wander into a mall and massacre people with this"?

You think that's all that stops people from being violent murders? Maybe you, but not me. What stops me is my own moral compass. I don't WANT to kill anybody, and I never WILL as long as I can avoid it. But for someone who wants to, do you seriously think any laws or "Gun Free Zone" signs or warnings will stop them? Do you? If you do, I am very sorry to inform you that, well, they DON'T, so you might want to change your mind on that.

How about this.

Hypothetical.

You and I are in a large room, full of people. We're in the corner, at a table together.

I take out my pistol and set it on the table in front of you. (I would never do this, but hypothetical).

Do you pick it up and start killing people?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked