Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Shooting in Conn. School


  • Please log in to reply
1178 replies to this topic

#841 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:23 PM

Before going there (sorry, halfway out the door this AM), I'll ask you the same thing - what, if any, policy changes would you like to see?

(also of note: I'm not concerned solely about mass shootings. I've made that *perfectly* clear on a number of occasions here. Follow along.)


I notice I never get an anwser out of you. You are for all of this gun reform, now prove your side. Don't ask me what I want.

"Most crimes involving firearms are committed with non-assult type firearms"

"Oh, well then I guess we should look into banning those instead, thanks for the info."

"Nononononononononono"


Clak, and now you know why it is not so far fetched to claim you would like to ban firearms altogether.

So yes while I think handguns are the prime reason for most gun deaths in the US, I am not the one that is for banning particlar firearms. I am simply pointing out that while you guys are so scared of the scary black rifles, you are targeting the wrong gun. That doesn't mean i want to target any gun lol, I am just pointing out that you are all having a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy and the media ramming it down your throat. Just looking at your original posts in this topic shows the impact it had on your views regardless of facts or statistics.

#842 Mad39er

Mad39er

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:27 PM

"Most crimes involving firearms are committed with non-assult type firearms"

"Oh, well then I guess we should look into banning those instead, thanks for the info."

"Nononononononononono"

That's basically what was posted on the front page of the New York Post. Ray Kelly pointing out the "real" enemy. Even though you think it's sarcasm, it's reality.
Gran Turismo 5 B-Spec Primer - Now with colors!
"When I started racing my father told me, ‘Cristiano, nobody has three balls but some people have two very good ones'." – Cristiano Da Matta

"Any drunk can fall off a bar stool. It takes a real man to ride it all the way to the ground."

Referal for Dusk 514:
Sign up for Dusk 514 through my link and get extra starting perks.

#843 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:28 PM

I notice I never get an anwser out of you. You are for all of this gun reform, now prove your side. Don't ask me what I want.


calm down, francis. i've been out all goddamned day. you'll get what you want.

forgive me for asking you if you actually have a *stance* on something. i'll refrain from making that mistake in the future.
Posted Image

#844 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:31 AM

Back on the original topic.... wow.
http://m.nbcconnecti...ll=true#display
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#845 detectiveconan16

detectiveconan16

    Look at that deal. It's so great!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:02 PM

Well at least they're POLICE OFFICERS, not armed volunteers which is what the NRA wants.

Batsugunner.png


#846 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:19 PM

For starters:
Renewing the assault weapons ban. Much more interested in seeing magazine capacity shrink than particular firearms halt sale/production, though.

I'm not in support of this. Police and military personnel will be exempt and criminals will still get the larger magazines on the secondary market.


Eliminate the "gun show" loophole - yes, even private sales should be documented. We do it with automobiles, yes?

Emphatic yes. I don't understand why anyone would fight this.

Provide states with funds for gun buyback programs. Seems absurd, but they do have an impact.

Why not? This actually worked in L.A. and Boston if my memory serves me correctly.

Allow all states to implement CCW licenses, allow reciprocity between states.

I don't know about this. You're saying you want to expand the amount of places people can walk around with their pieces?

PaulManda.png


#847 Mad39er

Mad39er

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:29 PM

Emphatic yes. I don't understand why anyone would fight this.

The "gun show loophole" is a private sale issue renamed to make it appear like licensed gun dealers are selling guns without background checks. FFLs who deal at gun shows conduct their NICS checks accordingly. What happens though is people bring their one or two guns to a gun show to sell because that's where prospective buyers are. Most of the "gun show" transactions are 1 firearm sold privately to another private party. One person, one gun, one sale. Not FFL dealers selling guns to any and everybody.
Gran Turismo 5 B-Spec Primer - Now with colors!
"When I started racing my father told me, ‘Cristiano, nobody has three balls but some people have two very good ones'." – Cristiano Da Matta

"Any drunk can fall off a bar stool. It takes a real man to ride it all the way to the ground."

Referal for Dusk 514:
Sign up for Dusk 514 through my link and get extra starting perks.

#848 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:44 PM

So why shouldn't we require the documentation of all gun sales?

Despite my support of regulating the sale of firearms, I don't think the debate going on in Washington is going to solve anything. The stuff coming out of the NRA is complete insanity though.

PaulManda.png


#849 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:50 PM

So why shouldn't we require the documentation of all gun sales?


I'm for this. I think every gun deal, even those initiated in private should end up being concluded through a licensed gun broker.

Part of me thinks that there are many people who don't want the government to know what they own because they would be considered an "asset". Guns are worth money, and there are people who have quite the valuable collection. The value in that collection could come back and bite them if they go through a divorce or leech of the government later in life.

#850 Mad39er

Mad39er

Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:52 PM

So why shouldn't we require the documentation of all gun sales?

Despite my support of regulating the sale of firearms, I don't think the debate going on in Washington is going to solve anything. The stuff coming out of the NRA is complete insanity though.

The problem isn't documentation, it's how those documents will be used. New York State has effectively made it so it can track all legal gun purchases from seller to seller, creating a registration by sale process. If it isn't insidiously used towards backdoor registering, it's not a big deal but there is no good faith in gun control advocates and lobbyists, so there can be no good faith in a backdoor registry of guns.
Gran Turismo 5 B-Spec Primer - Now with colors!
"When I started racing my father told me, ‘Cristiano, nobody has three balls but some people have two very good ones'." – Cristiano Da Matta

"Any drunk can fall off a bar stool. It takes a real man to ride it all the way to the ground."

Referal for Dusk 514:
Sign up for Dusk 514 through my link and get extra starting perks.

#851 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 02 February 2013 - 10:23 PM

The registry seems useful for solving crimes after the fact. You still have to figure out how to prevent them in the first place, if that is even possible.

You also have a ton of guns already in circulation in the underground economy. It's not like these guys are going to suddenly go participate in an expanded federal database or something. I think it's more of a feel-good law that either does not do anything or only makes things worse, like the sex offender registry.

#852 Mad39er

Mad39er

Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:48 AM

The registry seems useful for solving crimes after the fact. You still have to figure out how to prevent them in the first place, if that is even possible.

You also have a ton of guns already in circulation in the underground economy. It's not like these guys are going to suddenly go participate in an expanded federal database or something. I think it's more of a feel-good law that either does not do anything or only makes things worse, like the sex offender registry.

A registry of legally owned guns does nothing to affect criminals. Legal gun owners are not criminals sticking people up in the streets. What it does is make it easier for somebody like the Journal News to out names and addresses of gun owners along with whatever specific weapons they own. It also opens the doors towards confiscation, which is the progressive goal of gun control, disarmament.

Everything about the bills proposed on the graves of these children is atrocious. The Daily News has a gun control support mailer with the pictures of kids killed in Sandy hook. The Times is publishing Op-Eds calling for the end of the Constitution. We live in interesting times.
Gran Turismo 5 B-Spec Primer - Now with colors!
"When I started racing my father told me, ‘Cristiano, nobody has three balls but some people have two very good ones'." – Cristiano Da Matta

"Any drunk can fall off a bar stool. It takes a real man to ride it all the way to the ground."

Referal for Dusk 514:
Sign up for Dusk 514 through my link and get extra starting perks.

#853 ID2006

ID2006

    "Klaymen, up here!"

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:55 AM

The gun registry can be used to hold people accountable for allowing criminals access to the guns in the first place. It's not like random guns are materializing into illegal owners' hands. Someone buys them legally, then either its lost or stolen due to negligence or they sell it through private ownership which isn't properly regulated.

The registry would allow law enforcement to trace the gun to who last had it legally and find out why it ended up in the hands of a criminal. Then they can see what needs to be done to further prevent that.

This irrational fear of confiscation is what's being used in the argument against almost any gun regulation, but if progressive leadership manages to make it law that your guns are to be taken away, why would the lack of a registry be the only thing that stops them? Congratulations, you're now breaking the law by owning something made illegal. If you want to fight that goal, do so when the fight arrives. Don't use that excuse on legitimate countermeasures to gun violence.

#854 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 03 February 2013 - 01:59 AM

He's making an argument that we shouldn't do anything because if we do anything that's a slippery slope to gun confiscation.
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#855 Mad39er

Mad39er

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:10 AM

The gun registry can be used to hold people accountable for allowing criminals access to the guns in the first place. It's not like random guns are materializing into illegal owners' hands. Someone buys them legally, then either its lost or stolen due to negligence or they sell it through private ownership which isn't properly regulated.

The registry would allow law enforcement to trace the gun to who last had it legally and find out why it ended up in the hands of a criminal. Then they can see what needs to be done to further prevent that.

This irrational fear of confiscation is what's being used in the argument against almost any gun regulation, but if progressive leadership manages to make it law that your guns are to be taken away, why would the lack of a registry be the only thing that stops them? Congratulations, you're now breaking the law by owning something made illegal. If you want to fight that goal, do so when the fight arrives. Don't use that excuse on legitimate countermeasures to gun violence.

I can respect your opinion but it's just that, it's not fact. What you want to stop is straw purchasers, well, straw purchasers were used to release thousands of guns into the hands of Mexican cartels by the ATF. Fix the system in place of tracking down straw purchasers. A gun registry will not solve the problem, it will allow people to cite for certainty that there are so many guns in so many areas and they should all be taken away.

What you call irrational fear of confiscation is not an irrational fear. It has been proposed and is dangerously close to coming true, that is why it is used as a defense against it. Just because you do not believe the other side doesn't make them not right or lacking. That fight is happening right now, your ignorance of that fact doesn't mean that it isn't happening.

He's making an argument that we shouldn't do anything because if we do anything that's a slippery slope to gun confiscation.

No. I'm saying gun registration in the moment, now, is directly related to confiscation. There are a multitude of things to do now, the priority should not be setting up law abiding citizens to be criminals down the line.
Gran Turismo 5 B-Spec Primer - Now with colors!
"When I started racing my father told me, ‘Cristiano, nobody has three balls but some people have two very good ones'." – Cristiano Da Matta

"Any drunk can fall off a bar stool. It takes a real man to ride it all the way to the ground."

Referal for Dusk 514:
Sign up for Dusk 514 through my link and get extra starting perks.

#856 ID2006

ID2006

    "Klaymen, up here!"

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:37 AM

I can respect your opinion but it's just that, it's not fact. What you want to stop is straw purchasers, well, straw purchasers were used to release thousands of guns into the hands of Mexican cartels by the ATF. Fix the system in place of tracking down straw purchasers. A gun registry will not solve the problem, it will allow people to cite for certainty that there are so many guns in so many areas and they should all be taken away.


What evidence do you have that suggests a gun registry won't help solve the problem?

What you call irrational fear of confiscation is not an irrational fear. It has been proposed and is dangerously close to coming true, that is why it is used as a defense against it. Just because you do not believe the other side doesn't make them not right or lacking. That fight is happening right now, your ignorance of that fact doesn't mean that it isn't happening.
No. I'm saying gun registration in the moment, now, is directly related to confiscation. There are a multitude of things to do now, the priority should not be setting up law abiding citizens to be criminals down the line.



You ignored my point. The gun registry does not give them the power to confiscate. What you are arguing does not apply there. You can't soundly argue against one thing that would help just because it might very slowly lead to an entirely different issue that you're against. To put it another way — you've jumped the gun.

#857 Mad39er

Mad39er

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:54 AM

What evidence do you have that suggests a gun registry won't help solve the problem?

I have the exact same evidence that you have that gun registry will help solve the problem. Your approach of "try and see if it works, if not it can be repealed" does not fly when history and legislators are showing that confiscation is right there. Arguing for registration when in fact the States that do have it, along with tougher gun control laws, have higher violence rates in their urban areas. New York City's handgun registration laws do not stop the over 400 murders a year or the illegal guns that aren't registered to criminals just as it doesn't work in Chicago.

You ignored my point. The gun registry does not give them the power to confiscate. What you are arguing does not apply there. You can't soundly argue against one thing that would help just because it might very slowly lead to an entirely different issue that you're against. To put it another way — you've jumped the gun.

While you say I've missed or ignored your point, it's far from it. You've ignored the bills that were presented. This is reality and it does apply. I haven't jumped any guns, you haven't brought reality into your sights.
Gran Turismo 5 B-Spec Primer - Now with colors!
"When I started racing my father told me, ‘Cristiano, nobody has three balls but some people have two very good ones'." – Cristiano Da Matta

"Any drunk can fall off a bar stool. It takes a real man to ride it all the way to the ground."

Referal for Dusk 514:
Sign up for Dusk 514 through my link and get extra starting perks.

#858 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:32 AM

http://www.thedenver...outside-school#

#859 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:37 AM

The gun registry can be used to hold people accountable for allowing criminals access to the guns in the first place. It's not like random guns are materializing into illegal owners' hands. Someone buys them legally, then either its lost or stolen due to negligence or they sell it through private ownership which isn't properly regulated.

The registry would allow law enforcement to trace the gun to who last had it legally and find out why it ended up in the hands of a criminal. Then they can see what needs to be done to further prevent that.

This irrational fear of confiscation is what's being used in the argument against almost any gun regulation, but if progressive leadership manages to make it law that your guns are to be taken away, why would the lack of a registry be the only thing that stops them? Congratulations, you're now breaking the law by owning something made illegal. If you want to fight that goal, do so when the fight arrives. Don't use that excuse on legitimate countermeasures to gun violence.


Explain how this is a legitimate countermeasure to gun violence? It is solely reactive to continued gun violence, not preventative.

Again, I will say that the only real gun control is gun control.

Maybe you don't honestly realize this yet, or maybe you are like certain politicians trying to inch there way to it, but each measure you are attempting to take will only prove through its ineffectiveness that there is only one measure to take. Care to guess what it is?

#860 ID2006

ID2006

    "Klaymen, up here!"

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 04:38 AM

Explain how this is a legitimate countermeasure to gun violence? It is solely reactive to continued gun violence, not preventative.


It's a countermeasure in that it should ultimately cause fewer criminals to acquire guns. A person responsible for straw purchasing will be held responsible and prevented from further instances. It should also make it less easy for them to do such a thing. A harsher penalty will make them think twice. Is it worth it to commit an illegal practice if maybe you lose your ability to buy guns legally?

Reactive measures can prevent future instances. We react to disease outbreaks or fires to reduce the spread of them and prevent them from becoming even greater, for example.

I'm not looking at this in a simplistic manner or the short term, but I don't intend to write an entire treatise on it, either.

Maybe you don't honestly realize this yet, or maybe you are like certain politicians trying to inch there way to it, but each measure you are attempting to take will only prove through its ineffectiveness that there is only one measure to take. Care to guess what it is?


I think a little bit of inconvenience is okay for a gun you'll probably own for years. Buy your gun, maybe take a required training class, and use it legally as you see fit. If you want to trade or sell it, great. Just go through the appropriate background check system / exchange process, and you're done.

As for that one measure to take, it's not what you think it is. Banning guns entirely will work at this point as well as banning drugs or alcohol has in the past and present. There will always be smuggling, contraband, etc., especially with potential new problems like 3d printing, which might make possible the manufacturing of disposable guns.

I'm sure there's a combination of training, responsibility, regulation, and suitable repercussions involved that will reduce the crime. There's no need to ban them all (although it would probably reduce suicides.)

#861 Mad39er

Mad39er

Posted 03 February 2013 - 05:54 AM

I'm not looking at this in a simplistic manner or the short term, but I don't intend to write an entire treatise on it, either.

If you don't intend to write a treatise on it, you'd probably benefit by reading the ones by people who have. David Kopel in particular has a wealth of information on the subject. Especially in regards to registration. They're highly good reads and they're based in real life, not conjecture. His latest testimony is from 1/30/13 and available right on the front page.

http://davekopel.org/
Gran Turismo 5 B-Spec Primer - Now with colors!
"When I started racing my father told me, ‘Cristiano, nobody has three balls but some people have two very good ones'." – Cristiano Da Matta

"Any drunk can fall off a bar stool. It takes a real man to ride it all the way to the ground."

Referal for Dusk 514:
Sign up for Dusk 514 through my link and get extra starting perks.

#862 ID2006

ID2006

    "Klaymen, up here!"

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 06:55 AM

If you don't intend to write a treatise on it, you'd probably benefit by reading the ones by people who have. David Kopel in particular has a wealth of information on the subject. Especially in regards to registration. They're highly good reads and they're based in real life, not conjecture. His latest testimony is from 1/30/13 and available right on the front page.

http://davekopel.org/


I read most of it, including the part about registration. His problem with registration in that article has nothing to do with its effectiveness. He's only concerned with it leading to confiscation. He actually gives a suggested solution for Congress to prohibit state and local registries. I would say that the same could be done for confiscation. Prohibit confiscation, but allow the registry. There you go. As long as the federal government keeps the states in check, you won't have confiscation.

Anyway, comparing us to other democratic nations is incongruent. No other nation had a constitution like ours that embedded gun rights into its foundation. The US was born after the invention of guns and is in the unique position to protect the right to own (and as you probably know, the Supreme Court already has set precedent for this) while still allowing a healthy amount of regulation that allows people to peacefully own guns for whatever legal reasons they wish.

I'm not schilling any particular lawmaker's plans. I'm just saying that an appropriate law can be made that works with gun registration. I'd rather have none than a distorted or corrupted law, on the other hand.

#863 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:15 PM

http://www.wfaa.com/...-189536271.html

how many 'anecdotes' before some of you accept that something is a patterned problem?
Posted Image

#864 Mad39er

Mad39er

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:21 PM

I read most of it, including the part about registration. His problem with registration in that article has nothing to do with its effectiveness. He's only concerned with it leading to confiscation. He actually gives a suggested solution for Congress to prohibit state and local registries. I would say that the same could be done for confiscation. Prohibit confiscation, but allow the registry. There you go. As long as the federal government keeps the states in check, you won't have confiscation.

I admire your ability to think the Federal Government has the duty to keep the States in check but the reality is that the States have a duty to keep the Federal Government in check.

For registration to "work", it has to be done on a Federal level, across the country. New York State has acknowledged that and said that 80% of the guns used in crimes in New York did not come from New York, that registration has no effect on gun crime in New York. New York's registration policies require the rest of the US to fall into compliance as stated by countless Democrats when they explained their votes. This is the slippery slope that is made fun of, because the perception is that it isn't real. It's very real, one State starts something and uses momentum to push the next ones into action. Massachusets and Maryland are next. They're proposing registration and confiscation.

Registration is the flawed theory that by keeping track of all the guns you can keep them out of bad hands. If you institute kiosks for NICS checks and require them for private sales you'll do a lot better of a job. NICS accessibility has to be expanded because registration does not work in it's proposed form, it does not work on the State level. It cannot work if all States do not agree to it and they don't, at all. NICS checks work, they're not less "universal" than the proposed universal background checks, they use the exact same system.

What makes universal background checks universal? The requirement of gun registration. But that has nothing to do with a background check now does it? Except when you perform them on law abiding citizens, it tells you how many guns they have in their possession. Does not affect crime when applied to a law abiding citizen, because criminals are forced out of the system and will not register or submit to background checks. What you'll catch is the stupid ones who do it.

California instituted a process requiring a thumb print for ammunition purchases. They've managed to remove illegal guns from the street without requiring background checks based on the purchases of ammunition by people who should not be making them. While I don't agree a thumb print is ideal, it's less invasive and allows the criminals to incriminate themselves more easily and readily than the prospect of a background check and/or registration. Its something that actually works but nobody from California is pushing the thumb print system, they're pushing registration and outright banning of classes of guns.
Gran Turismo 5 B-Spec Primer - Now with colors!
"When I started racing my father told me, ‘Cristiano, nobody has three balls but some people have two very good ones'." – Cristiano Da Matta

"Any drunk can fall off a bar stool. It takes a real man to ride it all the way to the ground."

Referal for Dusk 514:
Sign up for Dusk 514 through my link and get extra starting perks.

#865 h3llbring3r

h3llbring3r

    Mecha Cocksmas 2 all

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:27 PM

http://www.wfaa.com/...-189536271.html

how many 'anecdotes' before some of you accept that something is a patterned problem?

Indeed, mental illness and guns don't mix. Is any side disputing this?

My Trade list:

http://www.cheapassg...ad.php?t=173460
Going dark on the internet for two weeks during move.


#866 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 04:08 PM

Of course mental illness and guns don't mix...

Maybe you can explain why a Navy Seal brought a equally mentally unstable solider to a gun range ?only to be shot and killed by the unstable solider

#867 h3llbring3r

h3llbring3r

    Mecha Cocksmas 2 all

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 04:42 PM

Maybe you can explain why a Navy Seal brought a equally mentally unstable solider to a gun range ?only to be shot and killed by the unstable solider

No idea. I'm not sure what they were aware of regarding Ruth.

-And "equally mentally unstable?" Are you saying Kyle and the other individual at the range were unstable?

My Trade list:

http://www.cheapassg...ad.php?t=173460
Going dark on the internet for two weeks during move.


#868 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 04:57 PM

Indeed, mental illness and guns don't mix. Is any side disputing this?


One side is disputing legitimate policy. Don't be obtuse.
Posted Image

#869 Feeding the Abscess

Feeding the Abscess

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 05:10 PM

Whoever Eddie Ray Routh is, he's more of a hero than Chris Kyle ever was. At least he took out a mass murderer instead of sniping women and children, writing a book about it, going on national TV media to brag about it, and profiting from it.

Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market

 

ThroneofSeth.png


#870 h3llbring3r

h3llbring3r

    Mecha Cocksmas 2 all

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 03 February 2013 - 05:18 PM

One side is disputing legitimate policy. Don't be obtuse.


I see flip flops within the NRA on expanding background checks and the overwhelming support within members of the gun owning public as well (running what ~80% support depending on sources) on that same subject.
Its implementation is where controversy may arise: Is the check going to be a simple background check on individuals or are we going to include serial numbers and types of weapons purchased, thus back-dooring registration and tracking (thereby explaining the rift between NRA board-members and the PAC's party-line)?


It's the rest of your "legitimate policy" that many in the group of potentially affected legal gunowners take issue with, as it is driven with a rush to capitalize on emotion and the waning shift in public sentiment driven by conflation, general lack of knowledge regarding, and out and out lies vis–à–vis "automatics/" assault rifles/"assault weapons," magazine capacities, and aesthetics.

Whoever Eddie Ray Routh is, he's more of a hero than Chris Kyle ever was. At least he took out a mass murderer instead of sniping women and children, writing a book about it, going on national TV media to brag about it, and profiting from it.

:roll:

Thanks for this.

My Trade list:

http://www.cheapassg...ad.php?t=173460
Going dark on the internet for two weeks during move.