Gun Control

[BigRedBuster]

 

No and no.

 

Accept the fact the a law can't prevent a criminal from doing something.

 

Accept the fact that tougher drunk driving laws have cut the number ofr drunk driving deaths by 50% in just 10 years.

 

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route (such as buying a gun on line where they will not have to have a background check) and make that route less easy.

 

Accept the fact that guns are regulated and restricted. The 2nd Ammendment is not without limitations.

 

Find out what happened to:

Dylan Samuel Peters, Shayla May Shonneker, Titania Mitchell, Brandon Holt & Ryder Rozier

 

 

http://www.slate.com...k_shooting.html

 

 

Um........ you know that's incorrect, right?

It is actually correct. It doesn't happen that way 100% of the time, but it happens. I have posted examples in this thread.

 

If you want to claim that it is incorrect, please provide some documentation.

Unless you are an FFL, you cannot buy a gun and have it shipped to you legally. It must be shipped to a licensed FFL, and cannot be shipped to any other location, unless, you are an FFL.

 

http://www.atf.gov/f...ed-persons.html

 

 

True.

 

I wanted to purchase a shot gun on line from a place in Louisiana a couple years ago. I wasn't able to do it because I didn't have a license. My brother that lives there had to go purchase it then bring it with him when he came to visit.

[walksalone]

Is there an inverse relationship between smarts and politicians?

yes.

 

They are arguing against passing laws based on the fact that criminals will still break the laws. This is always true, from STOP signs right on up to the law against killing someone. Yet they are called lawmakers. Odd.

 

Yeah, but for the most part, they don't give a sh#t about you unless something truly bad happens, and they can lobby against something for political gain...

[NebraskaHarry]

I can't make videos post. But click the link. Excellent ad for gun control:

 

I don't know about excellent. I mean the video does have more dislikes than likes after all.

 

Also.. if someone was going to come into the work place with a gun, I hope it's with a rifle instead of a pistol. It's much harder to conceal a rifle than a pistol and at least I would have a better chance seeing it coming. Kind of like the video. I mean this guy walked through the doors, past a dozen people, plainly carrying a rifle. They saw it coming and no one did a thing. Plus they're in close quarters. It's harder to move a rifle around than a pistol in close quarters. Be bumping it into cubicles and such ... Oh and another thing. The guy carrying that rifle had to get that rifle from his car to that building. Another wasted opportunity for someone outside to see it, or someone in the building looking out a window to see it, or heck how bout a cop.

 

Yeah I'll take my chances with a rifle if I'm in a building thank you very much.

[Someone]

 

Accept the fact the a law can't prevent a criminal from doing something.

 

Accept the fact that tougher drunk driving laws have cut the number ofr drunk driving deaths by 50% in just 10 years.

 

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route (such as buying a gun on line where they will not have to have a background check) and make that route less easy.

 

Accept the fact that guns are regulated and restricted. The 2nd Ammendment is not without limitations.

 

Find out what happened to:

Dylan Samuel Peters, Shayla May Shonneker, Titania Mitchell, Brandon Holt & Ryder Rozier

 

 

http://www.slate.com...k_shooting.html

 

 

1. Of course. Which is why we try to limit laws that only affect law abiding citizens.

 

2. Thinking that applies directly to firearms doesn't exactly work. See, DC, NY, and california.

 

3. Um.... you know that is entirely untrue, right?

 

4. See, DC vs Heller

 

5. Unsure of your point.

1. Which laws only effect law abiding critizens? Stop signs? Bank Robbery? Murder? 3 shells loading when duck hunting? Background checks?
   
2. Actually, FEDERAL & state laws have lower DUI related deaths. That is a fact. Weak gun laws in one state dilute the effectiveness of tougher gun laws in other states because people can easily travel from state to state.
   
3. Actually, we have facts that show that many times, this is true. (Not 100% of the time, but to say it is entirely untrue is flat out false.)
   
4. In DC vs. Heller, all restrictions on the 2nd ammendment were not cast out. Let me quote the ACTUAL RULING: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." You should read it.
   
5. Tell us: who are the people behind those names?
   

[Someone]

 

No and no.

 

Accept the fact the a law can't prevent a criminal from doing something.

 

Accept the fact that tougher drunk driving laws have cut the number ofr drunk driving deaths by 50% in just 10 years.

 

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route (such as buying a gun on line where they will not have to have a background check) and make that route less easy.

 

Accept the fact that guns are regulated and restricted. The 2nd Ammendment is not without limitations.

 

Find out what happened to:

Dylan Samuel Peters, Shayla May Shonneker, Titania Mitchell, Brandon Holt & Ryder Rozier

 

 

http://www.slate.com...k_shooting.html

 

 

Um........ you know that's incorrect, right?

It is actually correct. It doesn't happen that way 100% of the time, but it happens. I have posted examples in this thread.

 

If you want to claim that it is incorrect, please provide some documentation.

Unless you are an FFL, you cannot buy a gun and have it shipped to you legally. It must be shipped to a licensed FFL, and cannot be shipped to any other location, unless, you are an FFL.

 

http://www.atf.gov/f...ed-persons.html

Some on-line purchasers will drive to the seller to complete the purchase. I am very sorry you didn't know this.

[Saunders]

 

No and no.

 

Accept the fact the a law can't prevent a criminal from doing something.

 

Accept the fact that tougher drunk driving laws have cut the number ofr drunk driving deaths by 50% in just 10 years.

 

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route (such as buying a gun on line where they will not have to have a background check) and make that route less easy.

 

Accept the fact that guns are regulated and restricted. The 2nd Ammendment is not without limitations.

 

Find out what happened to:

Dylan Samuel Peters, Shayla May Shonneker, Titania Mitchell, Brandon Holt & Ryder Rozier

 

 

http://www.slate.com...k_shooting.html

 

 

Um........ you know that's incorrect, right?

It is actually correct. It doesn't happen that way 100% of the time, but it happens. I have posted examples in this thread.

 

If you want to claim that it is incorrect, please provide some documentation.

Unless you are an FFL, you cannot buy a gun and have it shipped to you legally. It must be shipped to a licensed FFL, and cannot be shipped to any other location, unless, you are an FFL.

 

http://www.atf.gov/f...ed-persons.html

Some on-line purchasers will drive to the seller to complete the purchase. I am very sorry you didn't know this.

That's not an online purchase. Funds cannot be exchanged online (i.e. an online storefront) unless the item is shipped to an FFL, as required by the ATF. Any attempts to circumvent this are already illegal. What you're describing is a person to person transaction, which is not buying online..

 

I think background checks for non-immediate family p2p purchases are a good thing. But, we won't get anything useful done as long as politicians spout bullsh#t, and the uninformed population lap it up.

 

But hey, look at the great job they did voting our last 2 presidents in, and keeping them in office!!!

[Someone]

I see you want a stupid game of semantics.

 

Read this: http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0 "Seeking Gun or Selling one? Web is land of few rules"

 

“I’m a felon,” he said. “I can’t possess firearms.”

The mere fact that Mr. Roman-Martinez was seeking to buy and sell guns on Armslist underscores why extending background checks to the growing world of online sales has become a centerpiece of new gun legislation being taken up in the Senate this week. With no requirements for background checks on most private transactions, a Times examination found, Armslist and similar sites function as unregulated bazaars, where the essential anonymity of the Internet allows unlicensed sellers to advertise scores of weapons and people legally barred from gun ownership to buy them.

 

Do you not care about Zina Haughton? Did she not deserve = protection?

[Saunders]

I see you want a stupid game of semantics.

 

Read this: http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0 "Seeking Gun or Selling one? Web is land of few rules"

 

“I’m a felon,” he said. “I can’t possess firearms.”

The mere fact that Mr. Roman-Martinez was seeking to buy and sell guns on Armslist underscores why extending background checks to the growing world of online sales has become a centerpiece of new gun legislation being taken up in the Senate this week. With no requirements for background checks on most private transactions, a Times examination found, Armslist and similar sites function as unregulated bazaars, where the essential anonymity of the Internet allows unlicensed sellers to advertise scores of weapons and people legally barred from gun ownership to buy them.

 

Do you not care about Zina Haughton? Did see not deserve = protection?

Please. If you're gonna discuss something, try being correct and know what you're talking about. I'm sorry that being factual bothers you. Your bloody shirt waving aside (nice tactic btw, it's a good politician move), if you had read what I posted, I think having background checks for personal transactions is a good thing. But don't let that stop your rhetoric.

 

Tell me, what's your plan. What would you like to see done?

[Someone]

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route (such as buying a gun on line where they will not have to have a background check) and make that route less easy.

 

This statement is true. If you want to argue that online sites like Armslist don't facilitate transactions where criminals are able to get a gun without a background check, feel free but the facts are not on your side.

 

How the transaction is finalized doesn't change the fact that the parties came together online. Without Armslist, a criminal might have a harder time finding a seller willing to do a no questions asked transaction.

 

FACT: people have been killed as the result of criminals going online to find a firearm to buy that they otherwise could not get via other channels.

 

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route and make that route less easy. How simple is that?

[knapplc]

It bears remembering in this sometimes heated debate that we should debate the topic, not discuss the person.

 

Just a public service announcement from your friendly Moderator Staff.

[Saunders]

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route (such as buying a gun on line where they will not have to have a background check) and make that route less easy.

 

This statement is true. If you want to argue that online sites like Armslist don't facilitate transactions where criminals are able to get a gun without a background check, feel free but the facts are not on your side.

 

How the transaction is finalized doesn't change the fact that the parties came together online. Without Armslist, a criminal might have a harder time finding a seller willing to do a no questions asked transaction.

 

To believe and state otherwise is both naive and disrespectful to the dead people that have been killed as the result of criminals going online to find a firearm to buy that they otherwise could not get via other channels.

 

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route and make that route less easy. How simple is that?

Once again, you're ignoring what I'm saying.I think we should have checks for most private sales. That said, you could shut down every Armslist and similar website, and it might make a small dent. I'm all for common sense legislation. I'm also for factual discussion and honesty. But, with instant communication, people are going to get what they want.

 

It's also extremely naive to think that criminals will just "not get a gun" if they can't find one online. People have been able to circumvent the law to get what they want for a long time See: Pot.

 

Finally, stop with the bloody shirt waving. It's embarrassing.

 

Once again, I'll ask you. What do you propose?

[Someone]

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route (such as buying a gun on line where they will not have to have a background check) and make that route less easy.

 

This statement is true. If you want to argue that online sites like Armslist don't facilitate transactions where criminals are able to get a gun without a background check, feel free but the facts are not on your side.

 

How the transaction is finalized doesn't change the fact that the parties came together online. Without Armslist, a criminal might have a harder time finding a seller willing to do a no questions asked transaction.

 

To believe and state otherwise is both naive and disrespectful to the dead people that have been killed as the result of criminals going online to find a firearm to buy that they otherwise could not get via other channels.

 

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route and make that route less easy. How simple is that?

Once again, you're ignoring what I'm saying.I think we should have checks for most private sales. That said, you could shut down every Armslist and similar website, and it might make a small dent. I'm all for common sense legislation. I'm also for factual discussion and honesty. But, with instant communication, people are going to get what they want.

 

It's also extremely naive to think that criminals will just "not get a gun" if they can't find one online. People have been able to circumvent the law to get what they want for a long time See: Pot.

 

Finally, stop with the bloody shirt waving. It's embarrassing.

 

Once again, I'll ask you. What do you propose?

I am not ignoring what you said. You said that my statement: "Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route (such as buying a gun on line ..." was "entirely untrue". It is not. It is documented to be true.

 

What you call blood shirt waving is what I call affording people equal protection under the law. Who will advocate for the children and adults who have been killed if we call any discussion of their death 'blood shirt waving' and declair it off limits?

 

Who are you refering to when you wirte: "It's also extremely naive to think that criminals will just "not get a gun" if they can't find one online."?

 

These are the facts (and they have been proven to be true over and over again):

1. Criminals will often take the path of least resistance to avoid getting caught.
   
2. Stronger laws that make it harder to commit a crime often reduce the frequency that that crime is committed.
   

Close the loopholes that make is too easy for felons to buy guns.

[BigRedBuster]

What stops me from moving to the Bahamas and opening up a web site selling guns? If I'm outside the US, their laws can't touch me unless some how they find the gun going through UPS.

[knapplc]

What stops me from moving to the Bahamas and opening up a web site selling guns? If I'm outside the US, their laws can't touch me unless some how they find the gun going through UPS.

 

No way you leave Nebraska and this fine, fine weather.

[Saunders]

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route (such as buying a gun on line where they will not have to have a background check) and make that route less easy.

 

This statement is true. If you want to argue that online sites like Armslist don't facilitate transactions where criminals are able to get a gun without a background check, feel free but the facts are not on your side.

 

How the transaction is finalized doesn't change the fact that the parties came together online. Without Armslist, a criminal might have a harder time finding a seller willing to do a no questions asked transaction.

 

To believe and state otherwise is both naive and disrespectful to the dead people that have been killed as the result of criminals going online to find a firearm to buy that they otherwise could not get via other channels.

 

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route and make that route less easy. How simple is that?

Once again, you're ignoring what I'm saying.I think we should have checks for most private sales. That said, you could shut down every Armslist and similar website, and it might make a small dent. I'm all for common sense legislation. I'm also for factual discussion and honesty. But, with instant communication, people are going to get what they want.

 

It's also extremely naive to think that criminals will just "not get a gun" if they can't find one online. People have been able to circumvent the law to get what they want for a long time See: Pot.

 

Finally, stop with the bloody shirt waving. It's embarrassing.

 

Once again, I'll ask you. What do you propose?

I am not ignoring what you said. You said that my statement: "Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route (such as buying a gun on line ..." was "entirely untrue". It is not. It is documented to be true.

 

What you call blood shirt waving is what I call affording people equal protection under the law. Who will advocate for the children and adults who have been killed if we call any discussion of their death 'blood shirt waving' and declair it off limits?

 

Who are you refering to when you wirte: "It's also extremely naive to think that criminals will just "not get a gun" if they can't find one online."?

 

These are the facts (and they have been proven to be true over and over again):

1. Criminals will often take the path of least resistance to avoid getting caught.
   
2. Stronger laws that make it harder to commit a crime often reduce the frequency that that crime is committed.
   

Close the loopholes that make is too easy for felons to buy guns.

 

I was referring to your "buying a gun online" statement, which, as proven (see ATF link), is entirely untrue.

 

For the last time, what do you propose?