no, its definitely 85%. 85% of Americans want you idiots to wake the fuck up.

and, in your source, it's 40% from illegal markets. that market exists because of straw purchases. straw purchases start as legal purchases and exist because of poorly controlled and regulated legal sales.

you are absolutely right that private sales are not the only thing that feeds guns into illegal markets, but since registration and tighter controls on the FFLs is off the table, its the only valve that we can close. and since 85% Americans want that valve closed, its a pretty good item to tackle.

1/15/2014 11:41:12 PM

Oh, so if 85% of Americans, wanted to send blacks back to slavery, you would say we need to do it, right? We would need to "wake the fuck up," right?
And, hey, it's the only thing we can do, so we should do it. Because fuck, who gives a shit if even accomplishes anything. We should just do it!

1/15/2014 11:41:54 PM

Quote :

"that its a majority is not why they are right, they are right on their merits, the fact that its an overwhelming majority just means that we should find a way to make it happen this was already explained too"

1/15/2014 11:46:08 PM

register your stolen cars

register your drugs

register that tv that "fell off the truck"

these things wont happen, they will cease to exist

durr de durr hurr

1/15/2014 11:46:17 PM

Quote :

"yes, the 85% represent a mandate to compromise and find a way to do it not necessarily a mandate to just do it in a vacuum independent of anything else. the 85% is evidence that obviously most people want background checks, so we should figure out how to make that happen."

Ok, if you define it broadly and open-ended enough, then I'd be in that 85%, too.

When you start talking specifics about a law with enough teeth to have significant effect, then I have to bow out due to the other consequences of such a law.

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 11:48 PM. Reason : I'd be curious about exploring public NICS access, though.]

1/15/2014 11:47:04 PM

^^^ So, you admit that it has no bearing on the conversation. Good. Why do you keep bringing it the fuck up if it has no bearing on the conversation?


Let me explain how this should go:

You: 85% of people want such and such
Me: Oh, so if 85% of people want something really bad, does that make it right?
You: No... Maybe I should find another argument to make.


Here is how it's actually going:

You: 85% of people want such and such
Me: Oh, so if 85% of people want something really bad, does that make it right?
You: No... What they want is right
Me: Oh, so the 85% thing doesn't matter, we agree.
You: No, because 85% of people want such and such.

1/15/2014 11:51:40 PM

Quote :

"no, its definitely 85%. 85% of Americans want you idiots to wake the fuck up. "

1/15/2014 11:53:06 PM

Quote :

"Oh, so if 85% of Americans, wanted to send blacks back to slavery, you would say we need to do it, right? We would need to "wake the fuck up," right?"

1/15/2014 11:54:28 PM

Quote :

"What are we talking about because I asked what problem we're trying to solve and didn't get an answer."

WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT GUN SHOWS

Quote :

"It's fairly simple. The state decides that possession of firearms with more than 5 rounds capacity is a crime. Instant criminal investigation requiring the turn over of all records. Or alternatively, the government decides to legitimately investigate an FFL they suspect of engaging in illegal transactions and decide as long as they're there, they'll just take all the records and keep them. If you don't think that's a possibility, you have far more faith in your government than you should. Fast and Furious, the NSA revelations and many other events should demonstrate that a pesky thing like "the law" won't stop our government."

it's not registration, the government wouldn't see it unless as part of a criminal investigation. having the seller keep records holds sellers accountable. i really can't figure out why you have a problem with that.

Quote :

"You do realize that those "loopholes" were the original compromise the gun rights folks fought for in the first place right? I mean if we're talking compromises here, we already did, that's why private party intra state sales are exempt from NICS checks. And that's why the gun rights folks are always fighting so hard to avoid giving any ground, because every time we've given ground, that patch of our rights we staked out and held onto become the next target."

And it's not a violation of gun rights to close reasonable loopholes in the existing laws.

Quote :

"And requiring photo id doesn't ban voting or prevent a law abiding person from voting either, but it's still a shitty law, a shitty idea and being fought as a violation of civil rights."

The background check loophole doesn't ban any guns or prevent a law abiding person from owning guns.

Quote :

"Again, completely irrelevant to the discussion. What the majority wants is not always right or legal."

85% of Americans want background checks for all sales.

1/15/2014 11:58:39 PM

Quote :

"Oh, so if 85% of Americans, wanted to send blacks back to slavery, you would say we need to do it, right? We would need to "wake the fuck up," right?"

1/15/2014 11:59:04 PM

just watch this video:

1/16/2014 12:02:47 AM

1/16/2014 12:04:48 AM

that video won't stop buffering

1/16/2014 6:10:35 PM

Registration invites police harassment: http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/

1/17/2014 12:19:54 PM

the spin on that article makes me wanna puke

1/17/2014 12:38:09 PM

i'm not sure what your point is with that story

1/17/2014 12:44:35 PM

^

Quote :

"Registration invites police harassment"

1/17/2014 12:50:43 PM

that sounds like a case of a port authority officer wanting to play big-boy tough guy real cop. and the cop got in trouble for it. and the guy probably has good grounds for a lawsuit if he wants to make sure the lesson was learned.

1/17/2014 12:52:37 PM

it's a shame but ^ sounds like it was handled as it should have.. seems pretty isolated. and that article is biased as balls - author probably should have held back just a little.

[Edited on January 17, 2014 at 1:04 PM. Reason : ]

1/17/2014 1:04:19 PM

http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2014/repeal-of-missouris-background-law-associated-with-increase-in-states-murders.html

what say you, gun rights advocates?

2/19/2014 6:50:56 PM

^ Freedom isn't free.

2/19/2014 6:57:24 PM

Quote :

"permit-to-purchase (PTP) handgun law, which required all handgun purchasers to obtain a license verifying that they have passed a background check"

you already have to pass a NICS background check to buy a gun from a dealer. that's federal law. what's the difference?

2/19/2014 6:58:49 PM

^
"For firearm sales by federally licensed firearm dealers, federal law requires prospective purchasers to pass a criminal background check and sellers to maintain records of the sale. But federal law and laws in most states exempt these regulations when the firearm seller is unlicensed. The researchers suggest that universal background checks and firearm purchaser licensing affect homicide rates by reducing the availability of guns to criminals and other prohibited groups."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140215122532.htm

2/19/2014 7:07:12 PM

i've said many times that i have no problem with UBC as long as the serial number is removed from the form

2/19/2014 7:08:54 PM

without holding the seller accountable, you would still see the same trend in straw purchases. its holding the seller accountable that stops straw sales, and a serial number is required to do that

[Edited on February 19, 2014 at 7:14 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2014 7:13:14 PM

not reading anything from that institution. but if it's true; it doesn't surprise me and was a dumb idea.

2/20/2014 8:34:00 AM

haha, piers morgan is toast.

good riddance,

(what whiny bitch exit comments too, lol)

perfect!

2/23/2014 8:49:10 PM

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_TRAIN_STATION_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-03-01-12-32-39

When will we have knife control??? Won't somebody think of the children!!

3/1/2014 5:44:50 PM

> Assault weapons are statistical outliers
> We need knife control

3/1/2014 6:24:48 PM

^^

Not sure what point your trying to make, but that would have been MUCH worse with guns.

3/1/2014 7:09:02 PM

^But what if a law-abiding citizen had been carrying a concealed weapon to defend themselves!

3/1/2014 7:27:42 PM

But what if they had an AR-15 or a rifle with a barrel shroud

3/1/2014 7:35:17 PM

1 lone wolf could have done this in the us.

3/1/2014 9:16:59 PM

whats going on in CT and RI

anything noteworthy

3/1/2014 11:40:29 PM

Quote :

"But what if a law-abiding citizen had been carrying a concealed weapon to defend themselves!"

10 people knifed 136 people, you don't think anyone tried to fight back?

While your gunman was taking aim at 1 knife guy, another 9 would have probably sliced him up.

Guns don't inherently make any situation more safer, they either cause no change, or make it worse.

3/2/2014 1:36:20 AM

Quote :

"Guns don't inherently make any situation more safer, they either cause no change, or make it worse."

if that's true maybe we should take them away from policemen and the secret service first

3/2/2014 1:28:16 PM

I bet youd feel a lot safer around both police and Secret Service if that were the case.

3/2/2014 3:25:14 PM

^actually the opposite

i am sure this point has been made in this thread before but....

i cant take anti-gun politicians seriously when they have armed guards. they must think their life is more important than my daughter's and mine which is insulting

3/3/2014 7:40:52 AM

that's one of the dumbest anti gun-control arguments that you loonies make, you guys really need to drop it.

3/3/2014 8:36:44 AM

^^ I think you're missing the fact that they wouldn't need to have guns if criminals didn't have guns. So the bad guys having guns make things worse and police having guns just neutralizes the situation. If knives were the status quo things will objectively be safer all around. Guns aren't a magical cure all for safety. They are part of the problem which happens to make them part of the solution currently. Arguing that you need guns for safety is a circular argument. It does not itself prove why you need guns.

The founding fathers apparently knew this which is why they threw in the stuff about the militia, but it goes back to the only reasonable argument for wanting guns is because you think guns are cool or you foresee needing that for revolution one day. Perhaps if Russia invades…

I remember growing up playing with all manner of toy guns thinking they were cool, I never felt that I had to be part of a gun culture to like guns. But now it seems to be someone who appreciates guns you have to be a gun nut which is ridiculous. It's it doesn't make a sense how politicized the topic has become.

3/3/2014 10:52:30 AM

Quote :

"if criminals didn't have guns"

...

3/3/2014 12:26:24 PM

Quote :

"I think you're missing the fact that they wouldn't need to have guns if criminals didn't have guns"

i think you are missing the fact that there are over 300 million guns in the USA so you are living in a fantasy world if you think you can legislate them out of the bad guys hands.

3/3/2014 12:30:46 PM

Quote :

" Arguing that you need guns for safety is a circular argument."

Only if you believe that you can safely and effectively physically overpower any person who has intent to do you harm. Remember for a vast majority of human history, we didn't have guns. And for that same vast majority of history, things tended to suck a lot if you were lacking physical strength when the aggressors (in whatever form they took) came to town.

3/3/2014 1:15:00 PM

^
More people have died from private gun ownership since 1968 that all wars the United States has been combined.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/

History doesn't look kindly on gun ownership for civilians. It's why the militia thing is in the Constitution.

^^
I'm not saying guns should be banned or discarded, it's just a point of fact that guns don't necessarily make anything safer. It really just boils down to personal preference. Guns aren't a inoculation or a prophylactic, they are a weapon that is able to achieve the goal of weapons more easily thanks to technological advancement. It is often argued the license plate readers or an NSAs mass collection is different then officers writing down license plates or the NSA's previous wiretapping programs because of the mass collection aspect. But this is just an extension of modern technology advancements. If you accept the guns now are more efficient and sophisticated than guns in the past, then you have to also except that like we do with other technological advancements, we must adjust the way we view modern-day guns. There is a clear impact on our society because of the way we view guns, it shows up in statistics it shows up in crime. It's not an attack on your personal heritage or culture to make changes to the way we view guns, and that is the way the NRA has been framing the issue, and they have done this very effectively. Look at your own reaction, I just mentioned the reality that guns aren't inherently safer ways of doing things, and you instantly jump to "don't take my guns." It doesn't make sense, it's illogical and it's irrational and the NRA has made things this way. This emotion means that progress will be slower than it should be, and it holds back our entire society.

3/3/2014 4:21:17 PM

You mean the militia clause that has no actual bearing on the rest of the 2nd amendment?

Quote :

"If you accept the guns now are more efficient and sophisticated than guns in the past, then you have to also except that like we do with other technological advancements, we must adjust the way we view modern-day guns."

Which is all fine and dandy, except for the fact that, as written, the Constitution does not care that guns have gotten more powerful. If you think we need to change how we regulate guns, by all means, propose a Constitutional amendment; don't just ignore the Constitution when it's inconvenient.

Quote :

"More people have died from private gun ownership since 1968 that all wars the United States has been combined. "

And more people have been killed by cars since then. I guess we need to outlaw cars, too, because, well, cars kill people. Moreover, when you include suicides in this figure, it just shows how disingenuous you are being and how unwilling you are to talk honestly about the topic. And you have the nerve to accuse the NRA of framing the issue unfairly...

As long as you blame the tool for the violence, you'll never stop the violence.

3/3/2014 10:35:56 PM

Quote :

"You mean the militia clause that has no actual bearing on the rest of the 2nd amendment?"

It wasn't put in their for shits and giggles.

Quote :

"And more people have been killed by cars since then."

For the 20th billionth time, cars are regulated way more than guns, and aren't weapons.

Quote :

" Moreover, when you include suicides in this figure, it just shows how disingenuous you are being and how unwilling you are to talk honestly about the topic. And you have the nerve to accuse the NRA of framing the issue"

Lol you're the one baselessly removing deaths from guns from the total and patting yourself on the back.

We have the highest violent crime rate of all the developed nations, if this isn't a problem worth addressing to you, then you should either plainly state you don't care about reducing deadly crimes, or just excuse yourself from the discussion. If you acknowledge this is a problem worth trying to solve, there are some obvious low hanging fruit in our gun control policies that gun nut leaders have brainwashed people like you into rejecting.

And the NRA is not on the right side of this issue in any facet.

3/3/2014 11:01:27 PM

I thought the reason the militia clause existed was because they were extremely leery of having a standing army.

3/3/2014 11:03:39 PM

It's pretty irrelevant nowadays, because of Supreme Court rulings, but it's telling it's there at all. It almost wasn't included. There's an interesting article i think is posted in this thread.

3/3/2014 11:07:36 PM

Quote :

"It wasn't put in their for shits and giggles. "

It provides justification for its inclusion, but it is not binding in any way. The 2nd amendment could read "Waffles tasting good, the right to keep..." and it would have the same meaning as to what the gov't can and can't do. Had it said, however, "The right to keep and bear arms for militia use...", you would have a point; but it doesn't, so you don't. Others have tried to argue that it has bearing, but they are just plain wrong, and are making that argument in order to ignore what the text actually says and means.

Quote :

"For the 20th billionth time, cars are regulated way more than guns, and aren't weapons."

And they still kill more than guns. The point that you are missing is not "we should regulate cars"; it's that you are being a horrible judge of risk, as humans are want to do.

Quote :

"Lol you're the one baselessly removing deaths from guns from the total and patting yourself on the back."

You're the one baselessly adding them to bolster your otherwise untenable claim. When someone kills himself, what does it matter what implement he uses? He's killing himself. If you want to make a point about gun violence using the emotional basis of harm being done by one person to another, it's disingenuous to include statistics of someone harming himself, willingly, that's all there is to it. Oh heavens, it would be horrible if someone harmed himself with a gun. I'd much rather him take a bunch of sleeping pills. That makes his death so much better!

Quote :

"We have the highest violent crime rate of all the developed nations, if this isn't a problem worth addressing to you, then you should either plainly state you don't care about reducing deadly crimes, or just excuse yourself from the discussion."

And blaming guns doesn't get us anywhere closer to fixing it.

3/3/2014 11:15:59 PM

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1495

3/3/2014 11:19:17 PM