[BartSimpson]

Coach85 Coach85:

The point of gun control is to reduce the deaths caused by guns.

I'm not sure how that's supposed to work since a lot of people are going to get shot if they try to enforce gun control.

[Thanos]

Gun control barely works as a pre-emptive. Trying any after-purchase confiscations, especially in a country where none of the weapons are even registered, would be a disaster. A bureaucrat's dream, of course, as they tried to create a tangled web of unenforceable rules out of thin air, but a disaster nonetheless. It's not possible short of a full revision of the American constitution, which at least half of the population will oppose from the very start of the attempt.

[Robair]

Upping the requirements to buy new firearms and ammo however...

[Robair]

...doable. Double post. Heh.

[Coach85]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Coach85 Coach85:

The point of gun control is to reduce the deaths caused by guns.

I'm not sure how that's supposed to work since a lot of people are going to get shot if they try to enforce gun control.

There are many ways to work around this.

One option would be to allow those that own certain guns legally can still do so under the new system (grandfather them in) but no new ones would be available. It would take a long time, but it's still worth considering.

You could have various programs to offer a financial incentive to those who opt to give up their guns. The amount would have to be lucrative enough to drive that program.

There are ways to have responsible gun owners yet have enough control to keep them mostly in the hands of those very people. Having elementary school kids being able to purchase rifles simply isn't responsible.

[N_Fiddledog]

Every Single Government Authority Failed In Parkland. And They Expect Americans To Forfeit Our Self-Defense Rights To Them?

$1:

So, here’s what we know.

We know the FBI was warned specifically about the Parkland shooter not once, but twice — and did nothing.

We know the Broward County Sheriff’s deputies were called to the home of the Parkland shooter at least 39 times since 2010.

We know that the Broward County Sheriff’s Office was warned multiple times about the Parkland shooter.

We know that an armed officer was present during the shooting and did nothing — and that JROTC students showed far more courage.

And yet we are told that the solution to mass shootings is for law-abiding citizens to give more authority to the authorities that failed, and to turn over our only way of protecting ourselves?

Why in the world would a single law-abiding gun owner hand over his or her weapon to the same authorities that did nothing to protect the children of Parkland? Why would a single law-abiding gun owner turn over his or her capacity for self-defense to people who were incapable of defending children at every step of the way?

And why in the world should we blame the NRA, which literally had nothing to do with Parkland, for the failures of every institutional barrier to a massacre? Why should we blame law-abiding gun owners who didn’t shoot up kids for the failures of those who are paid to do stop evil monsters like the Parkland shooter? Why should we take Sheriff Steve Israel seriously when he blames lack of gun control, Dana Loesch, and the NRA, rather than his own radical incompetence and the radical incompetence of those under his authority?

Children are dead not because millions of good citizens own AR-15s, but because dozens of pathetic incompetents and cowards in a position to do something instead did nothing. All the misdirection in the world isn’t going to change that inconvenient fact.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27491/ev ... n-shapiro#

[Thanos]

We also know that the NRA's gamed the system for decades, and made it impossible to keep guns out of the hands of crazies. Therefore the existential doubt will always be theirs, because what they've done with their influence-peddling has caused the government system of checks to fail on the meta-level. All the failures that happened at Parkland would never have existed if the firearm-extremist's control of the American political system hadn't already ensured that a bastard like Nikolas Cruz could easily obtain firearms with practically no barriers in place to stop him at all.

[N_Fiddledog]

Coach85 Coach85:

All 3 of you are either terrible at basic math and statistics or you're willfully obtuse.

The point of gun control is to reduce the deaths caused by guns.

There is no solution that prevents every single gun from entering the Country or for reducing the criminal element, but there are solutions that drastically reduce the amount of death caused by guns. To suggest that no solution is worthwhile because it doesn't stop illegal guns is just childish.

Well, I don't know if your method of ignoring illegal guns so we can compare statistics of apples to those of oranges (so to speak) then expecting that to prove something is childish. I'm pretty sure it's stupid though.

If we look at Canada itself, however, to discover how successful Canadian law is just as a function of itself we discover this:

$1:

When mayors and police chiefs in diverse cities like Surrey, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Ottawa, and Toronto have publicly spoken about their struggles to grapple with rising gun violence, there is a problem. And this problem should elicit the same horror amongst Canadians as mass shootings in cities faraway.

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/gun-viol ... nt-immune/


Did you catch that? According to Maclean's, Police officials of key Canadian cities are telling us gun violence is rising.

And you are telling us if we take the system overseeing these cities and apply it to regions in America with different demographics, cultures, geography, politics etc. we can expect different and better results.

Why?

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanos Thanos:

We also know that the NRA's gamed the system for decades, and made it impossible to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.

Do we know that? Really? How do we know that?

I listen to NRA reps all the time. They tell us Joe publics they want to keep guns out of the hands of crazies and are pushing for laws to do it.

Do me a favor then. Show me what you're talking about. If it exists, I really want to know.

[Thanos]

Their fight against background checks is constant. Those checks alone would reveal thousands of perpetually angry or demented men that could be barred from ownership. They also got Congress to put in different rules for private sellers where, as opposed to a gun store, they're basically not obligated to do any checks at all. Gun show loopholes. Straw buyers. Internet sales where the seller will never have to meet the buyer face-to-face. There's a myriad of ways that the checks can be bypassed, and pretty much all of those exemptions have the hands of the NRA on them.

[N_Fiddledog]

Progressives are going to have a hard time figuring out what this below is (maybe they shouldn't watch) but I'll show them a few of the comments to help them catch up.

$1:

Brandon Morris

Rarely does such a melding of brilliance and retardation exist in nature.

theandy4ever

I believed you for the first 2 mins, troll harder
23

FatRown

Jesus Christ.. Ha! It took me like 3 minutes to be sure this was satire. I've rotted my brain (and also heard too many serious arguments that legit sounded like your first three min 

She had a bad experience her first time at the gun range, you see.

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanos Thanos:

Their fight against background checks is constant. Those checks alone would reveal thousands of perpetually angry or demented men that could be barred from ownership. They also got Congress to put in different rules for private sellers where, as opposed to a gun store, they're basically not obligated to do any checks at all. Gun show loopholes. Straw buyers. Internet sales where the seller will never have to meet the buyer face-to-face. There's a myriad of ways that the checks can be bypassed, and pretty much all of those exemptions have the hands of the NRA on them.

As I understand it, it works as follows:

$1:

If you purchase a firearm from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) regardless of the location of the transaction — a gun store, a gun show, a gun dealer’s car trunk, etc. — that FFL must confirm that you are legally allowed to purchase that gun. That means the FFL must either run a background check on you via the federal NICS database, or confirm that you have passed a background check by examining your state-issued concealed carry permit or your government-issued purchase permit. There are zero exceptions to this federal requirement.

However...

$1:

What does exist is a federal exemption for sales between two private, non-FFL residents of the same state, regardless of whether that transaction happens at a gun show or not. The identity of the parties involved in the transaction, not the venue of the sale, is what matters under federal law. This federal exemption makes perfect sense: there’s no federal nexus for a purely private transaction between two private individuals who reside in the same state. Many states, including Oregon, Colorado, and Illinois, have enacted universal background checks in order to eliminate the exemption for same-state private firearms transactions.

Federal universal background checks may or may not be a wise idea — the U.S. Senate in 2013 explicitly refused to enact them — but referring to the federal exemption for private, same-state sales as a “gun show loophole” is misleading and factually inaccurate.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/07/7-g ... -wont-die/

So I'm thinking what you're saying is you think the Feds should get involved over top the states and implement Federal universal background checks for sales between two private, non-FFL residents of the same state.

I believe you also may be telling me the NRA is blocking that. Can you link me somewhere where they show us how they're doing that?

[N_Fiddledog]

But did you forget to show me how we know this?

$1:

We know that the NRA's gamed the system for decades, and made it impossible to keep guns out of the hands of crazies.

That's the one I'm really interested in.

[Hyack]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Progressives are going to have a hard time figuring out what this below is (maybe they shouldn't watch) but I'll show them a few of the comments to help them catch up.




She had a bad experience her first time at the gun range, you see.

What a total f*cking airhead, never mind a bad experience her first time at the gun range, I think she's still having problems with some of the drugs she's consumed lately.....

[N_Fiddledog]

I'll tell you a secret.

When you see her getting interviewed in a serious interview she's as normal as you or me. Well...you maybe.

What you see up there is schtick. It's some kind of new Kekistani, satire, parody thing. I find it hilarious. I love it. You should see her when she satirizes race relations. Apparently, she's 1/3 black according to some sort of internet DNA test, so she's decided she's a Niger from Nigeria and you need to send her some reparations.