Media's Anti-gun Narrative Destroyed By Justice Dept. Report

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

dmase:

MichiganMuscle77:

Ok, that comparison is ridiculous. Know why?

Cars are built safer now than ever before. What was a fatal collision in a car built in 1965 is now a collision you can walk away from in a car built in the 2000's.

Yes, laws require the manufacturers to build cars to a certain safety standard - but I'm curious, have traffic accidents altogether decreased because drivers are obeying more traffic laws, or are drivers simply surviving crashes thanks to the safer vehicle, and crashes haven't decreased in frequency at all?

I'm betting it's the latter.

No more comparisons between gun deaths and car crash deaths. That's a ridiculous comparison to make.

Who mandates these cars to be safer? The federal government, it requires manufactures to meet a minimum safety standard to sell they're car on the open market or drive on the roads and the fed also sets the standards for the roads and following laws.(National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 1966) Now the idea of a safer gun is irrelevant to the whole discussion on gun homicide, a safer gun simply mean the person shooting is less likely to get maimed or suffer accidental discharge. However more heavily regulating who it's sold to is how it could be controlled.

I'd also like to point some things that I didn't know. During the time illustrated on Nickolaz's graph there where huge regulations imposed on the most at risk populations including drunks, teenagers, and vehicles in relation to pedestrians along with vehicles requirements. These are all regulations that have reduced deaths by vehicles and an equal amount of regulation at least needs to be given for guns.

I mean how is it that we don't flinch at going to the DMV and signing your car up for registration that can be looked up by anybody but if there is talk of a national gun registry it's the federal government attempting to take away your gun and liberty.

When the government mandates bullets with crumple zones and airbags, then you'll have a comparison to make between gun deaths and car deaths.

Cars are designed safer. As time passes, older cars will be less common on the streets. People will upgrade to more modern vehicles and thereby be safer as they drive. Drunk driving accidents, texting accidents, etc - the effects of which are mitigated by the ever increasing safety of the modern automobile.

Making a law that says "No drinking and driving" has more of an effect on reducing the number of drunk driving deaths because MOST people aren't driving drunk with the intent to kill.

Making a law that says "No using guns to shoot people/steal things" has less of an effect because the type of people who would DO that sort of thing don't really give to flying fucks about the law in the first place.

Do you see why it's a bad comparison? There are better comparisons to make.

dmase:

Verbatim:

The background checks are not required because the state does not require them, it has nothing to do with gun shows.
If you are not a resident of that state then the laws of your own state apply to any legal gun buys, if you buying a gun out of state they'll ship it to your local dealer to finalize the paper work.
As for the FFL part, if they are not an FFL dealer they either cannot be trading in FFL regulated firearms, or each deal will have to go trough an FFL dealer in order to be legal.
You can't sell or transfer an FFL firearm to any one gun show or not, without some one filling the paper work and paying the tax.

As my first link said only FIVE states require background checks at gunshows.

"As for the FFL part, if they are not an FFL dealer they either cannot be trading in FFL regulated firearms, or each deal will have to go trough an FFL dealer in order to be legal."

This statement needs proof because I have yet find any.

Someone can buy guns at a dealer and then go to a gun show. The FFL aspect was done at the gun store there is no requirement at gun shows to do this sort of thing though, so once you are there with the weapons you intend to sell in at least 45 states you are not required to follow any background check or FFL laws since you are considered a private seller.

NFA regulated firearms require an FFL to submit paper work and tax, no matter if you are selling them. transferring them to your dog or even making them on your own. This has to be done every time the firearm is legally transferred from one owner to another.
There is no distinction between private sellers or dealers:

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 72nd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934, currently codified as amended as I.R.C. ch. 53, is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms.

If the firearm is not regulated by federal law, then the state and local laws apply.
There are no "loop holes" this is how the law works gun show or not.

psijac:

Illegally selling a gun is a poor business model. How much do you think a thug off the street is willing to pay for a gun. If I was to sell a used glock at a gunshow I would expect $400 cash. The illegal business man will want to markup his product by what $100? $200? a thousand? The common street criminal will probably want to pay a total of $200. I could be wrong, but person who specializes in buying from gun shows just to resell to criminals, if such a person exist will want to make some money at the end of the day. He is not going to buy a $500 gun sell it to a thug for $100 and says to himself, "Think of all the children this gun will harm, Muahahaha"

Double... roughly.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/interviews/wachtel.html

A 125 dollar gun would be resold on the street for 250 bucks. That enough of a profit ya think?

I have not heard that story, The last story I heard about someone sending guns across the border was Operation Fast and Furious and It was the Dept of Justice doing the sending not grannies

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/usa_082409.shtml

It's a new story from USA today

Do you have proof that these gun stores are not doing background checks? The ATF would like to have that proof as they would love to raid these places. It seems to me that these criminals buy the gun before they have a record or they simply lie on the form. You don't even have to give your Social Security Number or specify your ethnicity on these forms if you don't want to, thanks politically correct movement

The last time the numbers where ran, 20 years ago 40% of all gun sales where run without background checks. However NY police did an undercover operation at a local gun show and managed to get 19 of 30 sellers to give them a gun without a background check even though they said they probably couldn't pass one.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdf

We should not make this a law because we will not get the effect we want to have, a reduction in crime

Instead what will it do? Who will it hurt exactly?

MichiganMuscle77:

When the government mandates bullets with crumple zones and airbags, then you'll have a comparison to make between gun deaths and car deaths.

Cars are designed safer. As time passes, older cars will be less common on the streets. People will upgrade to more modern vehicles and thereby be safer as they drive. Drunk driving accidents, texting accidents, etc - the effects of which are mitigated by the ever increasing safety of the modern automobile.

Making a law that says "No drinking and driving" has more of an effect on reducing the number of drunk driving deaths because MOST people aren't driving drunk with the intent to kill.

Making a law that says "No using guns to shoot people/steal things" has less of an effect because the type of people who would DO that sort of thing don't really give to flying fucks about the law in the first place.

Do you see why it's a bad comparison? There are better comparisons to make.

Just because you don't like to make the comparison because it hurts your argument doesn't mean it's not an accurate one.

Making a law that stops criminals from owning a weapon. Making a law to stop drunks from driving a car. What's the difference between being a drunk and a criminal? Well about 8 to 12 hours that person is no longer drunk but in 12 hours a criminal will still be a criminal.

The FFL dealers and sellers who do give a damn about the law will follow these rules though or be shut down. They are the gate keepers for these weapons, just as the DMV is the gate keeper for your right to drive. A person can go driving with a vehicle they buy without a license but it's illegal, buying a weapon when you shouldn't have one is also illegal.

You are getting far to hung up on a metaphor, gun regulation would prevent gun violence the only problem is we barely ever implement it in a systematic way and instead leave it up to the states.

Verbatim:

dmase:

Verbatim:

The background checks are not required because the state does not require them, it has nothing to do with gun shows.
If you are not a resident of that state then the laws of your own state apply to any legal gun buys, if you buying a gun out of state they'll ship it to your local dealer to finalize the paper work.
As for the FFL part, if they are not an FFL dealer they either cannot be trading in FFL regulated firearms, or each deal will have to go trough an FFL dealer in order to be legal.
You can't sell or transfer an FFL firearm to any one gun show or not, without some one filling the paper work and paying the tax.

As my first link said only FIVE states require background checks at gunshows.

"As for the FFL part, if they are not an FFL dealer they either cannot be trading in FFL regulated firearms, or each deal will have to go trough an FFL dealer in order to be legal."

This statement needs proof because I have yet find any.

Someone can buy guns at a dealer and then go to a gun show. The FFL aspect was done at the gun store there is no requirement at gun shows to do this sort of thing though, so once you are there with the weapons you intend to sell in at least 45 states you are not required to follow any background check or FFL laws since you are considered a private seller.

NFA regulated firearms require an FFL to submit paper work and tax, no matter if you are selling them. transferring them to your dog or even making them on your own. This has to be done every time the firearm is legally transferred from one owner to another.
There is no distinction between private sellers or dealers:

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 72nd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934, currently codified as amended as I.R.C. ch. 53, is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms.

If the firearm is not regulated by federal law, then the state and local laws apply.
There are no "loop holes" this is how the law works gun show or not.

*facepalm*

NFA weapons aren't what you think they are if we're talking about the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Registration.2C_purchases.2C_taxes_and_transfers

Look under categories of firearms regulated. These are considered gangster weapons and most aren't even in modern day use. Hell snub nose revolvers wouldn't even classify as an NFA even though they probably should.

MichiganMuscle77:
Do you see why it's a bad comparison? There are better comparisons to make.

I see a whole lot of mental gymnastics to try and justify your belief that the comparison doesn't work.

Here's the thing though, when used irresponsibly, motor vehicles are extremely dangerous. Not surprisingly, when used irresponsibly, guns are also extremely dangerous.

The difference between the two is that one is designed to be a lethal weapon while the other isn't. And only one of these is heavily regulated and requires any sort of testing/training and insurance to be able to own and use them. Strangely enough, it's the lethal weapon that is less regulated and in the hands of all kinds of people. Most of them complete morons who are statistically more likely to shoot a family member than a criminal.

And you want to sit there and whine about the comparison being bad? Give me a break. The comparison is, if anything, made more effective when you consider how utterly ridiculous it is that something designed to kill people is less regulated than something designed to get you to the grocery store. Both are deadly, but it's the actual weapon that's easier to get your hands on, even when you know absolutely nothing about how to use it safely.

dmase:

Verbatim:

dmase:

As my first link said only FIVE states require background checks at gunshows.

"As for the FFL part, if they are not an FFL dealer they either cannot be trading in FFL regulated firearms, or each deal will have to go trough an FFL dealer in order to be legal."

This statement needs proof because I have yet find any.

Someone can buy guns at a dealer and then go to a gun show. The FFL aspect was done at the gun store there is no requirement at gun shows to do this sort of thing though, so once you are there with the weapons you intend to sell in at least 45 states you are not required to follow any background check or FFL laws since you are considered a private seller.

NFA regulated firearms require an FFL to submit paper work and tax, no matter if you are selling them. transferring them to your dog or even making them on your own. This has to be done every time the firearm is legally transferred from one owner to another.
There is no distinction between private sellers or dealers:

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 72nd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934, currently codified as amended as I.R.C. ch. 53, is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms.

If the firearm is not regulated by federal law, then the state and local laws apply.
There are no "loop holes" this is how the law works gun show or not.

*facepalm*

NFA weapons aren't what you think they are if we're talking about the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Registration.2C_purchases.2C_taxes_and_transfers

Look under categories of firearms regulated. These are considered gangster weapons and most aren't even in modern day use. Hell snub nose revolvers wouldn't even classify as an NFA even though they probably should.

*facepalm*
Other than title 2 fire arms, there are not federal regulations that affect normal people
So what are you looking for? regulations that do not exist?
Yes here's a loop hole, you live in a country where it's legal for you to buy a .50cal rifle and not register it.

Verbatim:

dmase:

Verbatim:

NFA regulated firearms require an FFL to submit paper work and tax, no matter if you are selling them. transferring them to your dog or even making them on your own. This has to be done every time the firearm is legally transferred from one owner to another.
There is no distinction between private sellers or dealers:

If the firearm is not regulated by federal law, then the state and local laws apply.
There are no "loop holes" this is how the law works gun show or not.

*facepalm*

NFA weapons aren't what you think they are if we're talking about the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Registration.2C_purchases.2C_taxes_and_transfers

Look under categories of firearms regulated. These are considered gangster weapons and most aren't even in modern day use. Hell snub nose revolvers wouldn't even classify as an NFA even though they probably should.

*facepalm*
Other than title 2 fire arms, there are not federal regulations that affect normal people
So what are you looking for? regulations that do not exist?
Yes here's a loop hole, you live in a country where it's legal for you to buy a .50cal rifle and not register it.

All I want at the moment are required background checks for gun shows, gun shows that sell your average glock. This does not happen all the time. What I'd prefer are laws that require registration through all 50 states and permitting to buy a weapon. I personally think that Weapons sold under the NFA are fine and perfectly regulated all other weapons that people actually use to commit crimes need to be more heavily regulated. You know the point of this thread, as far as I'm aware, has been about your average guns at your average gun show not specially designed cane guns or machine guns which is why I was talking about these weapons and why I was so confused when you said NFA weapons.

dmase:

Verbatim:

dmase:

*facepalm*

NFA weapons aren't what you think they are if we're talking about the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Registration.2C_purchases.2C_taxes_and_transfers

Look under categories of firearms regulated. These are considered gangster weapons and most aren't even in modern day use. Hell snub nose revolvers wouldn't even classify as an NFA even though they probably should.

*facepalm*
Other than title 2 fire arms, there are not federal regulations that affect normal people
So what are you looking for? regulations that do not exist?
Yes here's a loop hole, you live in a country where it's legal for you to buy a .50cal rifle and not register it.

All I want at the moment are required background checks for gun shows, gun shows that sell your average glock. This does not happen all the time. What I'd prefer are laws that require registration through all 50 states and permitting to buy a weapon. I personally think that Weapons sold under the NFA are fine and perfectly regulated all other weapons that people actually use to commit crimes need to be more heavily regulated. You know the point of this thread, as far as I'm aware, has been about your average guns at your average gun show not specially designed cane guns or machine guns which is why I was talking about these weapons and why I was so confused when you said NFA weapons.

Enough with the gun shows already, if a background check is not required in that state gun show or not it wont happen, if it does it will happen in a gun show too. Even private individuals require to run a background check if they transfer a firearm in a state that requires it.

Verbatim:

dmase:

Verbatim:

*facepalm*
Other than title 2 fire arms, there are not federal regulations that affect normal people
So what are you looking for? regulations that do not exist?
Yes here's a loop hole, you live in a country where it's legal for you to buy a .50cal rifle and not register it.

All I want at the moment are required background checks for gun shows, gun shows that sell your average glock. This does not happen all the time. What I'd prefer are laws that require registration through all 50 states and permitting to buy a weapon. I personally think that Weapons sold under the NFA are fine and perfectly regulated all other weapons that people actually use to commit crimes need to be more heavily regulated. You know the point of this thread, as far as I'm aware, has been about your average guns at your average gun show not specially designed cane guns or machine guns which is why I was talking about these weapons and why I was so confused when you said NFA weapons.

Enough with the gun shows already, if a background check is not required in that state gun show or not it wont happen, if it does it will happen in a gun show too. Even private individuals require to run a background check if they transfer a firearm in a state that requires it.

There is a federal requirement for FFL sellers to run background checks this is not the case for gun shows thus gun show loophole. Only FIVE states require that gunshows also run background checks, there should be a federal law mandating all gunshows in every state do this.

dmase:

Verbatim:

dmase:

All I want at the moment are required background checks for gun shows, gun shows that sell your average glock. This does not happen all the time. What I'd prefer are laws that require registration through all 50 states and permitting to buy a weapon. I personally think that Weapons sold under the NFA are fine and perfectly regulated all other weapons that people actually use to commit crimes need to be more heavily regulated. You know the point of this thread, as far as I'm aware, has been about your average guns at your average gun show not specially designed cane guns or machine guns which is why I was talking about these weapons and why I was so confused when you said NFA weapons.

Enough with the gun shows already, if a background check is not required in that state gun show or not it wont happen, if it does it will happen in a gun show too. Even private individuals require to run a background check if they transfer a firearm in a state that requires it.

There is a federal requirement for FFL sellers to run background checks this is not the case for gun shows thus gun show loophole. Only FIVE states require that gunshows also run background checks, there should be a federal law mandating all gunshows in every state do this.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is applicable to sales from federally licensed dealers. Sales of firearms by private sellers are allowed to proceed without a background check unless required by state law. These regulations remain in place at gun shows, where no special leniency is granted to licensed sellers, and no additional requirements are placed upon private sellers.

If you want a gun with out an background check get one off craigs list there is no special loop hole for gun shows, the law works as it supposed to be.
If you want more checks pass a universal background check law either on a state or federal level.

dmase:

Double... roughly.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/interviews/wachtel.html

A 125 dollar gun would be resold on the street for 250 bucks. That enough of a profit ya think?

Someone could probably make better margin dealing drugs. I can honestly say that I haven't seen a Locin pistol at any gunshow I have been to. Gunbroker.com and gunsamerica.com show a grand total of 8 for sale. In 1996 Locin Filed for bankruptcy so this problem of cheap easy to turn illegal pistols might just solve itself. THe pbs article you referanced did not show date of interview

I have not heard that story, The last story I heard about someone sending guns across the border was Operation Fast and Furious and It was the Dept of Justice doing the sending not grannies

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/usa_082409.shtml

It's a new story from USA today

its a story from 2009 with no follow up. is the trend continuing is it decreasing? was this just a one ring that has been busted and dismanted? This was also the same year the Gunwalker program restarted under the name "Operation Fast and Furious" so it could have totally gotten lost in flood. I think this could be a legit issue but if it was it would have been brought up somewhere sometime after sandy hook.

Do you have proof that these gun stores are not doing background checks? The ATF would like to have that proof as they would love to raid these places. It seems to me that these criminals buy the gun before they have a record or they simply lie on the form. You don't even have to give your Social Security Number or specify your ethnicity on these forms if you don't want to, thanks politically correct movement

The last time the numbers where ran, 20 years ago 40% of all gun sales where run without background checks. However NY police did an undercover operation at a local gun show and managed to get 19 of 30 sellers to give them a gun without a background check even though they said they probably couldn't pass one.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html

that 40% number is bullshit, that number was generated from a survey asking only 251 people, at a year when the background check were first started, the percent of responses that were "yes and "probably" added up to 35.7% if you are going to round up to 40% you could just as easily round down to 30%

As we noted before, the White House said the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago.
This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases dating as far back as 1991, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 - meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.
Digging deeper, we found that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.
Moreover, when asked whether the respondent bought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included "probably was/think so" and "probably not," leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken. (The "probably not" answers were counted as "no.")
When all of the "yes" and "probably was" answers were added together, that left 35.7 percent of respondents indicating they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, although as we noted before, the survey sample is so small it could also be rounded down to 30 percent.

Did you even read the report? These are not local gun shows NYP had to leave the state of New York to find these gunshows Ohio, Tennesse and even as far as Nevada. Guess how many arrest were made by the NYP. None they had no jurisdiction, they were essential jacking off to their anti gun fantasy using tax dollars from the people of New York

We should not make this a law because we will not get the effect we want to have, a reduction in crime

Instead what will it do? Who will it hurt exactly?[/quote]

Depends on how it is worded. What is and is not a transfer. If you ask someone to house sit for month is that a transfer without a background check? Do you have to do a background check to leave your guns to your children in your will? Can a background check system effectively be enforced without it turning into another war on drugs?

Verbatim:

dmase:

There is a federal requirement for FFL sellers to run background checks this is not the case for gun shows thus gun show loophole. Only FIVE states require that gunshows also run background checks, there should be a federal law mandating all gunshows in every state do this.

If you want a gun with out an background check get one off craigs list there is no special loop hole for gun shows, the law works as it supposed to be.
If you want more checks pass a universal background check law either on a state or federal level.

Verbatim:In exactly the same words as were used originally

Guess your username is meant to be a warning.

image
one more for effect
image

psijac:

Someone could probably make better margin dealing drugs. I can honestly say that I haven't seen a Locin pistol at any gunshow I have been to. Gunbroker.com and gunsamerica.com show a grand total of 8 for sale. In 1996 Locin Filed for bankruptcy so this problem of cheap easy to turn illegal pistols might just solve itself. THe pbs article you referanced did not show date of interview

So you think that in 10 or 20 years the profit margin of a gun sold on the street will go down so substantially as to not make gun trafficking profitable... that is a terrible argument. It's simple supply and demand people only want so many drugs until they have to use weapons to... you know defend their business of drug dealing or whatever use they have for one. Anything that people can't get their hands on through normal channels is profitable. It's like your imagining a problem doesn't exist even though it's evident by how often a convicted convict can get his hands on a weapon that there is a problem for "black market" guns.

its a story from 2009 with no follow up. is the trend continuing is it decreasing? was this just a one ring that has been busted and dismanted? This was also the same year the Gunwalker program restarted under the name "Operation Fast and Furious" so it could have totally gotten lost in flood. I think this could be a legit issue but if it was it would have been brought up somewhere sometime after sandy hook.

Dude why the fuck do you think people where pushing for the universal background check bill even though conceivably it would have had nothing to do with preventing what happened at sandy hook? Also a 3 year old news story no longer relevant... there have no major changes in gun regulation or enforcement in the past 10 years how the hell would this trend change? The ATF has been looking into gun smuggling rings like this all along the southern states and smaller instances occur throughout the country, that one was just so large because they where working for mexican cartels. Others are more isolated for small communities and gangs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html

that 40% number is kinda bullshit

Kinda bullshit isn't complete bullshit. As the author of the original article points out the gun market hasn't changed substantially so the numbers could very well still be accurate. Also interesting why there hasn't been a new more thorough study, explanation? well the government decided to stop funding gun related health studies, including background check stuff. So our government has been basically saying there isn't a problem here because it can't be proven but we can't prove it because we won't allow it to be proven.

But the evidence can be seen by how many times people have proven on news channels and other places how you can go to gun shows and not get a background check or even show proof of residency(which is universally required).

Wow the washington post needs to get their shit together. The question was, was the person selling you the weapon a licensed FFL dealer. So the brandy hand gun bill is irrelevant to this discussion since only licensed dealers have to run background checks. Also 30% is not a low number, if 30% of the US was smoking crack would you consider that small problem?(hyperbole used for effect) I imagine there are more holes in the post's story but I don't care enough to make an account just to download a ASCII data sheet.

Did you even read the report? These are not local gun shows NYP had to leave the state of New York to find these gunshows Ohio, Tennesse and even as far as Nevada. Guess how many arrest were made by the NYP. None they had no jurisdiction, they were essential jacking off to their anti gun fantasy using tax dollars from the people of New York

3 states only, 47 gun shows. These states have the same gun show laws as many other states that does not make anything in their study invalid. In fact it would be invalid if they went to one gunshow in one area.

Also there is a disconnect you don't seem to be making these sellers did nothing illegal. Proving that someone new another was a felon or a straw purchaser is next to impossible and duh they have no jurisdiction to arrest anybody... does that make their study invalid?

Depends on how it is worded. What is and is not a transfer. If you ask someone to house sit for month is that a transfer without a background check? Do you have to do a background check to leave your guns to your children in your will? Can a background check system effectively be enforced without it turning into another war on drugs?

Read the universal background check bill that toomey and manchin tried to pass that is how it would be worded and would no way do any of the shit your saying. However the NRA has everybody's head so far up their ass they won't bother looking at it. Hell the bill says explicitly that all firearms transfers are allowed in families and friends multiple times in the same bill. Explain to me how this would turn into another war on drugs.

MichiganMuscle77:
Ok, that comparison is ridiculous. Know why?

Cars are built safer now than ever before. What was a fatal collision in a car built in 1965 is now a collision you can walk away from in a car built in the 2000's.

Forget about safer cars. What about the price of gas? What about total miles driven year over year? What about the great recession? What about the demographics? What about aging baby boomers who are bankrupt, homes dropping in value? What about the study showing the 40% increase in suicide amongst middle aged over the past years?

Disputing the significance of a graph that lumps gun suicides together with homicides is mostly a waste of time. And even if you are able to provide the context as to where the numbers come from, what does it prove? Things like that are just a distraction.

psijac:

Your chart is intellectually dishonest it tells you USA is king in gun violence of all the Developed nations that is not true. I could totally accept your rationalization if someone had not tried to pull the wool over my eyes. I am obligated to point that out. Here is a chart with Mexico included.

What that chart lists are more strictly the members of the OECD, not developed countries. Mexico is not usually considered a developed country by most measures (although the boundaries may vary by organisation).

Mexico generally fits into a bracket of countries close to developed status, comparable to the likes of Russia, Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil, several eastern European countries and so on, plenty of which are rather wealthier (GDP per capita) than Mexico.

psijac:
[snip]

As already shown, you picked 1993 because it was the peak of firearm violence in the US.

From 1994 firearm deaths in the US declined until the turn of the century.

Guess what laws were enacted in the US in 1993 and 1994?

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act 1993.
The Federal Assault Weapon Ban 1994. It lasted for 10 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

BTW The US legal definition of 'assault weapon' includes not just rifles, but handguns and shotguns as well.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Democrats depend on the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate. Republicans count on the wisdom of the electorate.

Republicans count on you being white, rich, straight, Christian, and male.

Democrats count on you being everyone else, which apparently is a lot of people.

Are we talking the wisdom of Todd Akin?

The wisdom of Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?

The wisdom of Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain?

Because judging by those, I'm not seeing a great deal of "wisdom"

EDIT: Also, since I know your post was made to be as deliberately inflammatory as possible...

image

Really because that's funny as I am not White, rich, and Christian. Stop stereotyping. I also would hate to learn from the wisdom of Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, or Mark Begich who wanted 200 million from taxpayers for Alaskan Fisheries taking advantage of the Hurricane Sandy crisis to do so. Then we have Hillary who let two Americans die under her watch in an embassy.

Gergar12:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Democrats depend on the ignorance and short-term memory of the electorate. Republicans count on the wisdom of the electorate.

Republicans count on you being white, rich, straight, Christian, and male.

Democrats count on you being everyone else, which apparently is a lot of people.

Are we talking the wisdom of Todd Akin?

The wisdom of Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?

The wisdom of Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain?

Because judging by those, I'm not seeing a great deal of "wisdom"

EDIT: Also, since I know your post was made to be as deliberately inflammatory as possible...

image

Really because that's funny as I am not White, rich, and Christian. Stop stereotyping. I also would hate to learn from the wisdom of Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, or Mark Begich who wanted 200 million from taxpayers for Alaskan Fisheries taking advantage of the Hurricane Sandy crisis to do so. Then we have Hillary who let two Americans die under her watch in an embassy.

You realize that the second post was done in the same style as the first post, right? A massive generalization, except this time done on purpose.

Frission:

Gergar12:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Republicans count on you being white, rich, straight, Christian, and male.

Democrats count on you being everyone else, which apparently is a lot of people.

Are we talking the wisdom of Todd Akin?

The wisdom of Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?

The wisdom of Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain?

Because judging by those, I'm not seeing a great deal of "wisdom"

EDIT: Also, since I know your post was made to be as deliberately inflammatory as possible...

image

Really because that's funny as I am not White, rich, and Christian. Stop stereotyping. I also would hate to learn from the wisdom of Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, or Mark Begich who wanted 200 million from taxpayers for Alaskan Fisheries taking advantage of the Hurricane Sandy crisis to do so. Then we have Hillary who let two Americans die under her watch in an embassy.

You realize that the second post was done in the same style as the first post, right? A massive generalization, except this time done on purpose.

No, a massive generalization designed to piss people off vs. one that simply sounds inflammatory. One that comes off as ignorant as the person thinks his intended targets are vs. one that just pisses off the right people (I love that phrase, by the way.)

TechNoFear:
As already shown, you picked 1993 because it was the peak of firearm violence in the US.

From 1994 firearm deaths in the US declined until the turn of the century.

Guess what laws were enacted in the US in 1993 and 1994?

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act 1993.
The Federal Assault Weapon Ban 1994. It lasted for 10 years.

First, AWB returned inconclusive results. Statistics improve despite its expiration, too. That's because so little violence is actually perpetrated with "assault weapons" (they're unnecessary, risky and illogical for the most part).

Anyway, the problem with citing legislation is that it's like saying dips and rises in the economy correlate to Presidential terms (and crediting success/downfall to respective policies). It's not even remotely that simple; the above bills can't be significantly linked to annual crime rates.

For decades there has been one strong reason violence has been an issue: the explosion of organized gang lands. Illegal drug businesses turned gangs from street thugs to deadly armies that poison communities. It was a nightmare from the 80s and deep into the 90s; it took years of ground work and riding through the dark years, like when crack cocaine hit the streets, which was a nightmare for law enforcement.

Such a narrow view of gun violence and believing it can be controlled from Washington, well, is a symptom of the people that spend too much time there. The federal government doesn't have a clue and can't address the problem with any degree of accuracy, which is why it comes up with such ridiculous ideas like bans and magazine restrictions.

dmase:

Verbatim:

dmase:

All I want at the moment are required background checks for gun shows, gun shows that sell your average glock. This does not happen all the time. What I'd prefer are laws that require registration through all 50 states and permitting to buy a weapon. I personally think that Weapons sold under the NFA are fine and perfectly regulated all other weapons that people actually use to commit crimes need to be more heavily regulated. You know the point of this thread, as far as I'm aware, has been about your average guns at your average gun show not specially designed cane guns or machine guns which is why I was talking about these weapons and why I was so confused when you said NFA weapons.

Enough with the gun shows already, if a background check is not required in that state gun show or not it wont happen, if it does it will happen in a gun show too. Even private individuals require to run a background check if they transfer a firearm in a state that requires it.

There is a federal requirement for FFL sellers to run background checks this is not the case for gun shows thus gun show loophole. Only FIVE states require that gunshows also run background checks, there should be a federal law mandating all gunshows in every state do this.

Federal law states that FFL must do background checks everywhere they operate including gun shows. A state can pass a law to include private sellers, but to call it a loop-hole would be stupid. There's no loop-hole, just one not liking private sales being done with out background checks.

dmase:
snip

At least have the courtesy to read the links I provided you clearly did not or you have the reading comprehension of new born kitten Guns rust and breakdown over time given long enough there will be no more $100 Lorcin pistols to even buy. It was a terrible built pistol in the first place, how much quality can you crank out of $100 worth of gun?

I don't believe one story is indicators of a rampant trend. The ATF loves to too their own horn and will do so every chance they get. just because it is in one newspaper and one progun control site. That story didn't even register on huffpo. why not cite infowars.com next?

250 people is not an accurate sampling size if you believe that why not just 100 people why not just 10?

The toomey-Manchin bill is dead and probably won't come back. A new background check law could be presented, but we don't know how it will be written or what could be in it, the sky is the limit, they could ban gun show all together. Which might be a ban on the right to peaceably assemble but whatever floats your boat.

TechNoFear:

psijac:
[snip]

As already shown, you picked 1993 because it was the peak of firearm violence in the US.

From 1994 firearm deaths in the US declined until the turn of the century.

Guess what laws were enacted in the US in 1993 and 1994?

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act 1993.
The Federal Assault Weapon Ban 1994. It lasted for 10 years.

The murder trend began going down before the 1994 assault weapons ban. And the trend continued even after the assault weapons ban expired. Studies show the AWB had no significant effect on crime, because crime are committed with handguns not rifle class weapons. While gun violence has gone up slightly murder is still trending downward.

psijac:

Your chart is intellectually dishonest it tells you USA is king in gun violence of all the Developed nations that is not true. I could totally accept your rationalization if someone had not tried to pull the wool over my eyes. I am obligated to point that out. Here is a chart with Mexico included
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22122000/Capture.PNG

So you are comparing gun deaths in 3rd world country with a gruop of 1st world countries, of which USA is in far lead, and claim moral highground on gun violence being low in USA and then you still tell him he is intellectually dishonest?
Gota love those gun apologist, will do anything to ignore the facts.

psijac:
My take aways are; the most common weapon for crime is a handgun

Thats because a handgun is the easiest weapon to obtain and conceal.

I'd just like to point out how hilarious it is that gun rights opponents gleefully point out that Mexico has a way higher gun death rate then the United States.

Mexico is barely a country. I've driven through it. Parts of that nation are more Mad Max than metropolitan. Entire regions are almost wholly controlled by criminal cartels. That's setting the bar a little low, don't you think?

Oy, vey!

We're the embarrassment of the western world. We're a first-world country that competed with third-world countries when it comes to gun deaths. Shame on us, and shame on you for holding that up like its an accomplishment.

itsthesheppy:

We're the embarrassment of the western world. We're a first-world country that competed with third-world countries when it comes to gun deaths. Shame on us, and shame on you for holding that up like its an accomplishment.

Most gun deaths are suicides, and the ones that aren't occur in shitholes like Detroit. I forget the name of the three cities, but apparently if you don't count three of them in the statistics, then the US actually has a low homicide rate. Detroit was one of the three for sure, though.

Kopikatsu:

itsthesheppy:

We're the embarrassment of the western world. We're a first-world country that competed with third-world countries when it comes to gun deaths. Shame on us, and shame on you for holding that up like its an accomplishment.

Most gun deaths are suicides, and the ones that aren't occur in shitholes like Detroit. I forget the name of the three cities, but apparently if you don't count three of them in the statistics, then the US actually has a low homicide rate. Detroit was one of the three for sure, though.

Oh! Well, of course suicides don't count. I mean, sure, it's a dead human body, but it just doesn't have the same value, so sure, let's strike those.

And Detroit? Well, shit, that's not Real America. Forget I said anything.

itsthesheppy:

Kopikatsu:

itsthesheppy:

We're the embarrassment of the western world. We're a first-world country that competed with third-world countries when it comes to gun deaths. Shame on us, and shame on you for holding that up like its an accomplishment.

Most gun deaths are suicides, and the ones that aren't occur in shitholes like Detroit. I forget the name of the three cities, but apparently if you don't count three of them in the statistics, then the US actually has a low homicide rate. Detroit was one of the three for sure, though.

Oh! Well, of course suicides don't count. I mean, sure, it's a dead human body, but it just doesn't have the same value, so sure, let's strike those.

And Detroit? Well, shit, that's not Real America. Forget I said anything.

Suicides and homicides aren't comparable for a number of reasons. The closest you could get is that both are a symptom of social problems (Poverty and such).

And the point is that most violent homicides are gang related, which are concentrated in a few major areas/cities. If you ignore the gang violence, homicides are actually very low.

Kopikatsu:

itsthesheppy:

Kopikatsu:

Most gun deaths are suicides, and the ones that aren't occur in shitholes like Detroit. I forget the name of the three cities, but apparently if you don't count three of them in the statistics, then the US actually has a low homicide rate. Detroit was one of the three for sure, though.

Oh! Well, of course suicides don't count. I mean, sure, it's a dead human body, but it just doesn't have the same value, so sure, let's strike those.

And Detroit? Well, shit, that's not Real America. Forget I said anything.

Suicides and homicides aren't comparable for a number of reasons. The closest you could get is that both are a symptom of social problems (Poverty and such).

And the point is that most violent homicides are gang related, which are concentrated in a few major areas/cities. If you ignore the gang violence, homicides are actually very low.

If you ignore rapes committed by people connected to the victim and just focus on stranger-danger sexual assaults, then rape cases are pretty low. If you ignore convicts who are in jail for drug-related charges, our nationwide incarcerations are really low, too. Ignoring relevant portions of a statistic is a faulty way of getting around to making a problem look like not so bad a problem.

Having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of there being a suicide, especially a suicide by firearm. It's one of those 'no duh' statistics, but it's no less meaningful for the obviousness of it.

Is this really the path you want to take? "Oh, those murders don't count, those guys are gang members." Why don't they count? Are they not quite as much of a person as you are? Maybe they deserved it, you think? Should police expend resources on investigating gang-related homicides, in your opinion? That cracking sound you hear is the ice you're standing on. Might be a little thin. Perhaps you should wander a little closer to shore, for safety.

Kopikatsu:

itsthesheppy:

We're the embarrassment of the western world. We're a first-world country that competed with third-world countries when it comes to gun deaths. Shame on us, and shame on you for holding that up like its an accomplishment.

Most gun deaths are suicides, and the ones that aren't occur in shitholes like Detroit. I forget the name of the three cities, but apparently if you don't count three of them in the statistics, then the US actually has a low homicide rate. Detroit was one of the three for sure, though.

And if you don't count Auschwitz or Bergen-Belsen, the amount of Jews killed in World War 2 is really low as well. Funny how omitting large portions of relevant stats can change how things look...

itsthesheppy:
snip

NameIsRobertPaulson:
snip

You're both completely missing his point and interjecting emotional strawmen in its place. He's arguing that the rate of gun death fatalities in America is not universal and fluctuates wildly across the country while assuming the availability of guns is close to constant. If three places have a gun death rate that are such significant outliers that is pulls the statistic a certain way, then it's likely there is much more at play here than simply gun availability.

At least I think that's what he's saying.

LetalisK:

itsthesheppy:
snip

NameIsRobertPaulson:
snip

You're both completely missing his point and interjecting emotional strawmen in its place. He's arguing that the rate of gun death fatalities in America is not universal and fluctuates wildly across the country while assuming the availability of guns is close to constant. If three places have a gun death rate that are such significant outliers that is pulls the statistic a certain way, then it's likely there is much more at play here than simply gun availability.

At least I think that's what he's saying.

A shame he can't make his point as well as you can.

I would be profoundly surprised to find that three particular cities had any major effect on statistics that are being gleaned across fifty states populated by 315 million people. Also, it's a little unfair to say that clearly the problem is Detroit and not, say, East Bumfuck, Idaho, because you have to take into account population density.

I feel like we're playing silly buggers with the statistics. Fact: England, Australia, Germany, and numerous other western nations have significantly lower gun violence than the united states, adjusted for population. Fact: Australia and England saw a significant decrease in gun violence since implementing strict gun control.

America's love affair with guns and the fantasies gun owners enjoy is a national problem that costs over ten thousand lives per year, and that's not even counting suicides. It should be unacceptable, but people seem content to say, well at least we're not Mexico, amirite?

Way to aim for the stars.

LetalisK:

itsthesheppy:
snip

NameIsRobertPaulson:
snip

You're both completely missing his point and interjecting emotional strawmen in its place. He's arguing that the rate of gun death fatalities in America is not universal and fluctuates wildly across the country while assuming the availability of guns is close to constant. If three places have a gun death rate that are such significant outliers that is pulls the statistic a certain way, then it's likely there is much more at play here than simply gun availability.

At least I think that's what he's saying.

More or less. ~200,000 people die from medical errors a year in the US.. In most places in the US, you're actually far over seven times as likely to die from a hospital visit than you are roaming the street in a bad neighborhood (The statistics can't accurately be compared this way, but still.)

The government has limited resources, limited time, and can only push certain issues so far. Any attempt at curtailing gun violence (which will fail) would be better spent elsewhere.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked