gun-control logic applied in auto-reverse

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
A gun is a tool designed specifically to kill or cause serious injury. A car is a tool designed to get you from one place to another as safely as possible. Combining the two into one conversation doesn't make sense on any level.


I think the main premise of the caparison was to show that no matter what the "tool" as ultimately designed for, if someone is crazy enough they will figure out how to make almost anything a weapon for killing.

 

[BRZED]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: dishdude
A gun is a tool designed specifically to kill or cause serious injury. A car is a tool designed to get you from one place to another as safely as possible. Combining the two into one conversation doesn't make sense on any level.


I think the main premise of the caparison was to show that no matter what the "tool" as ultimately designed for, if someone is crazy enough they will figure out how to make almost anything a weapon for killing.


Have you ever noticed how childproof bottlecaps do not impose any serious obstacle to children? Should we equip children with matches, bottles of Vicodin and make them run with scissors because they will figure out a way to hurt themselves or others anyway?

 

[IveBeenRued]

Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: 02SE
What are common sense gun laws?

....
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/06/common_sense_gun_control_even_the_nra_should_back_this/
....
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/24/577091/nra-members-agree-regulating-guns-makes-sense/
....


Benito, the ThinkProgress article cites a "Mayors against Illegal Guns" poll that was thoroughly discredited. In short, they used a sample size of 472 which is not sufficient to sample an organization of over 4 million active members (who knows how many former members there are). The Salon article is an opinion piece that adds nothing to your argument.

If anyone wants to read the now hidden poll you can find it at https://web.archive.org/web/20120813003201/http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/poll-07-24-2012.pdf

One interesting thing I noticed was the pollsters slogan "It's not what you say. It's what people hear."

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Some of you get it; the point of the conversation.
It's NOT to be about politics.
It's about the dichotomy of the views of some people who cannot apply their version of "logic" to other situations.

My view is that a gun is a tool, just as many other things are in life. Tools can be used for their intent, or for other intents. Cars are tools. Ovens are tools. Hammers are tools. Bathtubs are tools. By broad definition, most anything can be used as a tool. Tools can be used properly, or misused. The effect of tools can be by intended effect, or unintended consequence.

The only (and I mean without exception) hypocrisy is see is that when there is a shooting, some people want to blame the guns. Restrict sales, hinder ownership, control access, etc. But when it's a car or a screwdriver or a match that kills, some folks conveniently look the other way, or don't see their own folly.

Your viewpoint is very basic common sense that I'm totally agree. But the problem is the people who makes laws don't have any basic common sense.

Full disclosure: I don't own any gun and I'm not against gun ownership either.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: BRZED
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: dishdude
A gun is a tool designed specifically to kill or cause serious injury. A car is a tool designed to get you from one place to another as safely as possible. Combining the two into one conversation doesn't make sense on any level.


I think the main premise of the caparison was to show that no matter what the "tool" as ultimately designed for, if someone is crazy enough they will figure out how to make almost anything a weapon for killing.


Have you ever noticed how childproof bottlecaps do not impose any serious obstacle to children? Should we equip children with matches, bottles of Vicodin and make them run with scissors because they will figure out a way to hurt themselves or others anyway?


They already do a good job at hurting themselves and others with matches and scissors without more help. Maybe we should outlaw being obtuse.

 

[BRZED]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Maybe we should outlaw being obtuse.

Where will you post then?

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: IveBeenRued
Originally Posted By: Benito
Originally Posted By: 02SE
What are common sense gun laws?

....
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/06/common_sense_gun_control_even_the_nra_should_back_this/
....
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/24/577091/nra-members-agree-regulating-guns-makes-sense/
....


Benito, the ThinkProgress article cites a "Mayors against Illegal Guns" poll that was thoroughly discredited. In short, they used a sample size of 472 which is not sufficient to sample an organization of over 4 million active members (who knows how many former members there are). The Salon article is an opinion piece that adds nothing to your argument.

If anyone wants to read the now hidden poll you can find it at https://web.archive.org/web/20120813003201/http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/poll-07-24-2012.pdf

One interesting thing I noticed was the pollsters slogan "It's not what you say. It's what people hear."


Thanks for that.

Is the gun show argument negated though?

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: BRZED
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Maybe we should outlaw being obtuse.

Where will you post then?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: BRZED
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Maybe we should outlaw being obtuse.

Where will you post then?

LoL, good one. But your prior response was pure obtuseness, so you get the crown on that one.

 

[BRZED]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: BRZED
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Maybe we should outlaw being obtuse.

Where will you post then?

LoL, good one. But your prior response was pure obtuseness, so you get the crown on that one.

I'd be seriously surprised and even disappointed if you were to not find me obtuse!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: BRZED
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: BRZED
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Maybe we should outlaw being obtuse.

Where will you post then?

LoL, good one. But your prior response was pure obtuseness, so you get the crown on that one.

I'd be seriously surprised and even disappointed if you were to not find me obtuse!


Feel confident and good, as it's not the first time I've found you obtuse!

 

[surfstar]

Okay, now I want to know why this thread was started. This has been discussed by dnewton et al many times already. Some would even call this a troll.

But hey, lets go along with the theme:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/us/chicago-boy-accidentally-shoots-brother/

six year old shoots three year old

Nope, he didn't run him over, or stab him, etc. He shot him.

Now discuss how my opinion is right and everyone else's is wrong.

That was the point of this thread, right?

 

[bubbatime]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
But hey, lets go along with the theme:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/us/chicago-boy-accidentally-shoots-brother/

six year old shoots three year old


So, whats your point? Idiots are idiots.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
Okay, now I want to know why this thread was started. This has been discussed by dnewton et al many times already. Some would even call this a troll.

But hey, lets go along with the theme:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/us/chicago-boy-accidentally-shoots-brother/

six year old shoots three year old

Nope, he didn't run him over, or stab him, etc. He shot him.

Now discuss how my opinion is right and everyone else's is wrong.

That was the point of this thread, right?


Well we do now have the go ahead to apply some other oft stated logic in "auto reverse".

It's the 3 year old's fault. He didn't have situational awareness.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: surfstar
But hey, lets go along with the theme:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/us/chicago-boy-accidentally-shoots-brother/

six year old shoots three year old


So, whats your point? Idiots are idiots.



So much for protecting the innocent child. I suppose once they are born, it's not as emotive an issue for some.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: surfstar
But hey, lets go along with the theme:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/us/chicago-boy-accidentally-shoots-brother/

six year old shoots three year old


So, whats your point? Idiots are idiots.


The idiots in this case are the parents for allowing access to the gun ... and that's a whole other thread topic.

A six year old could have also pushed a three year old down the stairs and killed him.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Benito

Thanks for that.

Is the gun show argument negated though?


Please explain what you believe "the gun show argument" to be.

I'll be happy to show you how you've been lied to by politicians, writers and pollsters with an agenda, once again. Those lies create confusion and mis-placed belief in those who are ignorant of the subject and policies. Your previous mis-conception of "automatic" weapons and how guns work demonstrates that ignorance.

As a start on understanding the issue: A firearms dealer MUST have a valid background check to sell a firearm. PERIOD. To fail in that, is to commit a felony.

That includes ALL dealers at a gun show. There is no "gun show loophole". The fact of the matter is that a private seller, who might attend a gun show, is not required to conduct a background check.

He is, however, committing a felony if he sells a gun to a person that he reasonably believes is prohibited from owning one. That includes convicted felons, the mentally incompetent, and those convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense.

So, a private seller at a gun show might be able to sell a gun without a background check, but even then, there are restrictions. Dealers MUST conduct that check.

Where, then, is the "gun show loophole"? It's a specious construct built to push an agenda - of restricting all private sales and forcing those sales to go through government channels.

The "40% of guns sold don't go through a background check" has been proven to be a lie as well. Statistically insignificant numbers extrapolated to make a political point. It's a common theme in this subject. Nearly every gun sale is through a dealer. That includes internet sales (despite political claims to the contrary).

All sales from a dealer, regardless of the venue, including internet and gun show sales, must be subject to a background check. Even private sales cannot be to prohibited persons...that's current Federal law.

So, tell me again, what common sense gun laws would entail? What loopholes would you address?

 

[Benito]

Seems pretty obvious Astro that private sales are unregulated and not subject to background checks. You even admit that yourself.

On top of which, the background checks are not comprehensive because multiple states do not provide the right information. See below.

Quote:
What kinds of gun purchases don’t require background checks under current law?

That depends on where you live. In the wake of the Newtown school shooting, President Obama asked for a federal law that would require universal background checks, including at gun shows. Right now, only California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island require background checks at gun shows, according to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. But most states have looser restrictions. While local laws can vary widely, 33 states do not have a law addressing what is commonly referred to as the “gun show loophole.” Similarly, regulations on sales between private parties or transfers between family members can be very different from state to state, where they exist at all.

Is the background-check system foolproof?

Critics of the current background check system point to gaping holes in the ways states submit records to the NICS. While 44 states have individual laws regulating the sale of firearms to the mentally ill, for example, far fewer states submit the names of prohibited mentally ill individuals to the national database. Just seven states account for 98 percent of the names prohibited for mental illness, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, meaning most states are in there barely, if at all. In one oft-cited example, Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho passed a background check before obtaining a gun and killing 32 people, despite having been declared mentally ill two years before. States are responsible for compiling mental health records from courts, hospitals, and other sources to submit to NICS, but they are not legally required to do so.


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/...ed-to-know?lite

 

[HM12460]

Dnewton, I whole heartedly agree with you. Some people just don't get it and no matter what, never will. This is a controversy that will be ongoing for many years to come.

 

[Astro14]

No.

Private sales ARE regulated. Federal law regulates them.

They are not subject to mandatory background checks. They don't have to go through the Federal system.

Regulation and background check are not synonymous terms.

But you can be prosecuted for selling to a prohibited person in a private sale. Perhaps someone from the BATF can explain why this never happens. It's a felony...that's never prosecuted...that's really my issue in this whole debate; we have lots of laws that aren't enforced...and the answer is: more laws??

How on earth will those new laws do any good if they receive equally lax enforcement? It becomes legislation to make everyone "feel" safe...without actually changing anything. Lawmakers get to crow about their achievement. Lobbyists get paid. Political organizations funded by billionaires get to claim victory...

But no real change will have occurred...

Further, answer this question: what mass shooters, psychotic criminals that they are, would have been prevented in their actions by this background check?

Adam Lanza, perhaps the most heinous of them all, didn't get his guns from a gun show, or on line, or a private sale.

He got them by murdering his own mother.