Gun Control

[Saunders]

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.

It won't get through customs.

[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.

 

 

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?

Still playing the semantics game? Still think Heller means the 2nd ammendment doesn't come with limitations?

 

I have stated what I propose 4 times.

 

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route and make that route less easy.

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route and make that route less easy.

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route and make that route less easy.

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route and make that route less easy.

[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?

Still playing the semantics game? Still think Heller means the 2nd ammendment doesn't come with limitations?

 

I have stated what I propose 4 times.

 

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route and make that route less easy.

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route and make that route less easy.

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route and make that route less easy.

Accept the fact that criminals will take the easy route and make that route less easy.

I love that you keep saying "semantics" as an excuse for being wrong.

 

First, I never said that DC vs Heller stated that the 2nd doesn't come with restrictions (although that can be debated). We were discussing banning things, and I cited the DC vs Heller case overturning the handgun ban because of the commonality of the firearm, that's it.

 

And your proposition is extremely vague. Here, I'll show you how.

 

1. Background checks for most sales. Only exclusions for immediate family.

2. Concealed Carry. Require basic proficiency for carrying, in addition to current check (which is greater than NCIS BG check).

3. Expand Concealed carry. All states must be reciprocal.

4. Optional Periodic mental health screenings for CC carriers means everything is on the table.

5. Eliminate "gun free zones." They aren't working.

[Someone]

I love that you keep saying "semantics" as an excuse for being wrong.

 

First, I never said that DC vs Heller stated that the 2nd doesn't come with restrictions (although that can be debated). We were discussing banning things, and I cited the DC vs Heller case overturning the handgun ban because of the commonality of the firearm, that's it.

 

And your proposition is extremely vague. Here, I'll show you how.

 

1. Background checks for most sales. Only exclusions for immediate family.

2. Concealed Carry. Require basic proficiency for carrying, in addition to current check (which is greater than NCIS BG check).

3. Expand Concealed carry. All states must be reciprocal.

4. Optional Periodic mental health screenings for CC carriers means everything is on the table.

5. Eliminate "gun free zones." They aren't working.

1. Semantics: Every major news outlet reported the following about 10 days ago -- "they had worked out a compromise on expanding background checks on firearms buyers to include gun shows and Internet sales."

 

2. You can't debate Heller stated the 2nd ammendment comes with restrictions. It's on the first page of the ruling.

 

3. You want guns in court rooms? Wow. Just wow.

[Saunders]

I love that you keep saying "semantics" as an excuse for being wrong.

 

First, I never said that DC vs Heller stated that the 2nd doesn't come with restrictions (although that can be debated). We were discussing banning things, and I cited the DC vs Heller case overturning the handgun ban because of the commonality of the firearm, that's it.

 

And your proposition is extremely vague. Here, I'll show you how.

 

1. Background checks for most sales. Only exclusions for immediate family.

2. Concealed Carry. Require basic proficiency for carrying, in addition to current check (which is greater than NCIS BG check).

3. Expand Concealed carry. All states must be reciprocal.

4. Optional Periodic mental health screenings for CC carriers means everything is on the table.

5. Eliminate "gun free zones." They aren't working.

1. Semantics: Every major news outlet reported the following about 10 days ago -- "they had worked out a compromise on expanding background checks on firearms buyers to include gun shows and Internet sales."

 

2. You can't debate Heller stated the 2nd ammendment comes with restrictions. It's on the first page of the ruling.

 

3. You want guns in court rooms? Wow. Just wow.

1. Uh, the news media is wrong? I for one am shocked. /facepalm

 

2. They stated it allows certain restrictions. The ruling itself overruled a restriction on handguns.

 

3. So you think the gun free zones at schools, movie theaters, and political gatherings are working?

[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.

 

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

 

 

Now....why in the world on a beautiful day like today do you think I picked the Bahamas?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I have a question for anyone that wants to parallel the effect stricter gun control laws could have on gun related deaths to the effect stricter drunk driving laws have had on drunk driving deaths:

 

Isn't it entirely possible that drunk driving deaths went down due to something other than stricter drunk driving laws, but since it's really easy in our heads to come to the conclusion that it must have been due to the new laws we didn't pay attention to that outlying variable? If in fact the outlying variable(s) were more related to fewer drunk driving deaths, doesn't that then squash that parallel?

 

Shouldn't the fact that guns and drunk driving are different be enough to derail the train?

 

I see the value of guns; I don't like them, but that's my personal decision. Just like it's gun owners' personal decisions to have guns. For the most part we know that 95% of them are only going to use it for entertainment/protection purposes only. But guns carry that added bit of danger with them--if used right, they are deadly. So, maybe the people purchasing the guns should understand that they could have to submit to an extensive background check.

[zoogs]

sn't it entirely possible that drunk driving deaths went down due to something other than stricter drunk driving laws, but since it's really easy in our heads to come to the conclusion that it must have been due to the new laws we didn't pay attention to that outlying variable? If in fact the outlying variable(s) were more related to fewer drunk driving deaths, doesn't that then squash that parallel?

 

Correlation doesn't imply causation, yes. The fact that there are other (potential) correlating factors doesn't imply that any other correlation is invalid. The fact that two topics are different might mean not everything is simply translatable but it also doesn't mean they cannot offer useful comparisons at all.

 

That's all very general of course.

[BigRedBuster]

The only comparison stricter drunk driving laws and stricter gun laws has is that both affect people some people who aren't a risk to anyone.

[The Dude]

If the only good reason we can come up with is "to hit more coyotes" then I think the pro-assault-rifle argument is pretty weak

The 90s AWB being a complete joke is a sufficient "argument". The people who want it reinstated are the ones who needed to prove it would be more effective this time around.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

sn't it entirely possible that drunk driving deaths went down due to something other than stricter drunk driving laws, but since it's really easy in our heads to come to the conclusion that it must have been due to the new laws we didn't pay attention to that outlying variable? If in fact the outlying variable(s) were more related to fewer drunk driving deaths, doesn't that then squash that parallel?

 

Correlation doesn't imply causation, yes. The fact that there are other (potential) correlating factors doesn't imply that any other correlation is invalid. The fact that two topics are different might mean not everything is simply translatable but it also doesn't mean they cannot offer useful comparisons at all.

 

That's all very general of course.

 

I understand all of that. I'm a stats and methodology guy. Each correlation (significant or not) provides a chapter of the story which all them, in combination, tell.

[Someone]

I have a question for anyone that wants to parallel the effect stricter gun control laws could have on gun related deaths to the effect stricter drunk driving laws have had on drunk driving deaths:

 

Isn't it entirely possible that drunk driving deaths went down due to something other than stricter drunk driving laws, but since it's really easy in our heads to come to the conclusion that it must have been due to the new laws we didn't pay attention to that outlying variable? If in fact the outlying variable(s) were more related to fewer drunk driving deaths, doesn't that then squash that parallel?

 

Shouldn't the fact that guns and drunk driving are different be enough to derail the train?

 

I see the value of guns; I don't like them, but that's my personal decision. Just like it's gun owners' personal decisions to have guns. For the most part we know that 95% of them are only going to use it for entertainment/protection purposes only. But guns carry that added bit of danger with them--if used right, they are deadly. So, maybe the people purchasing the guns should understand that they could have to submit to an extensive background check.

What you are asking about has been extensively looked at.

 

Airbags make a drunk driving crash less deadly, but there are few non-fatal drunk driving crashes as well. Also, we have more traffic, more cars and more miles driven today than 10 years ago, so these factors would suggest more deaths, not fewer.

 

In 9 or 10 states, iirc, more folks die per capita from guns than from car crashes of all types (drunk or not). Yet we continue to pass laws and find ways to reduce the number of deaths caused by people who drive cars and refuse to find ways to reduce the number of deaths caused by people who discharge guns.

 

On an related note: According to Google, there are more than 6,000,000 news reports of about 'background checks for internet gun purchases' including this one from Fox News but one poster post here insists that criminals don't go online to purchase guns as means of avoiding background checks. Nevermind that the actual amendment that tried to prevent that says: "pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm."

[BigRedBuster]

Guns that are purchased right now over the interenet....are they completely legal transactions?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I have a question for anyone that wants to parallel the effect stricter gun control laws could have on gun related deaths to the effect stricter drunk driving laws have had on drunk driving deaths:

 

Isn't it entirely possible that drunk driving deaths went down due to something other than stricter drunk driving laws, but since it's really easy in our heads to come to the conclusion that it must have been due to the new laws we didn't pay attention to that outlying variable? If in fact the outlying variable(s) were more related to fewer drunk driving deaths, doesn't that then squash that parallel?

 

Shouldn't the fact that guns and drunk driving are different be enough to derail the train?

 

I see the value of guns; I don't like them, but that's my personal decision. Just like it's gun owners' personal decisions to have guns. For the most part we know that 95% of them are only going to use it for entertainment/protection purposes only. But guns carry that added bit of danger with them--if used right, they are deadly. So, maybe the people purchasing the guns should understand that they could have to submit to an extensive background check.

What you are asking about has been extensively looked at.

 

Airbags make a drunk driving crash less deadly, but there are few non-fatal drunk driving crashes as well. Also, we have more traffic, more cars and more miles driven today than 10 years ago, so these factors would suggest more deaths, not fewer.

 

In 9 or 10 states, iirc, more folks die per capita from guns than from car crashes of all types (drunk or not). Yet we continue to pass laws and find ways to reduce the number of deaths caused by people who drive cars and refuse to find ways to reduce the number of deaths caused by people who discharge guns.

 

On an related note: According to Google, there are more than 6,000,000 news reports of about 'background checks for internet gun purchases' including this one from Fox News but one poster post here insists that criminals don't go online to purchase guns as means of avoiding background checks. Nevermind that the actual amendment that tried to prevent that says: "pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm."

 

More deaths yes, but I'm betting the measure is deaths per a set number of people. What needs to be done (and I'm sure it already has been) is to find out the part of deaths from drunk drivers that is not related to BAC. I think it's a multiple semi-partial correlation, examining the relationship between deaths from drunk driving and BAC controlling deaths for a lot of other variables (which are found in the literature). Then calculate your y primes and voila, that is the part of deaths from drunk drivers that isn't related to BAC.

[Someone]

"we continue to pass laws and find ways to reduce the number of deaths caused by people who drive cars and refuse to find ways to reduce the number of deaths caused by people who discharge guns."

 

Don't you find that odd?