Defend your right to own a car. [Archive] - Page 5 - IMPORTATLANTA.COM - Automotive, Lifestyle, Offtopic, Forum, Blog, & Online Community

bu villain

04-08-2013, 03:47 PM

Funny how you proclaim to be such a scholar, yet you label history as stupid and then have the audacity to call someone else stupid for remembering it. A black man referring to the idea of tyrannical government as stupid.......... doesnt get more ironic than that. There was a time when our government looked at you the same way they would a horse.... as a piece of property.... something to be bought and sold... worked in a field...... and now in present day you discard the right that would allow you to defend yourself from ever suffering a similar fate under the false sense of security that it could never happen again.

Whoa double take! Wait a sec, is Sinflix saying that black people should remember history and that they shouldn't have a false sense of security since it could happen again? This is a big step forward from his previous suggestion to "just get over it and move on" when it comes to black people and history.

.blank cd

04-08-2013, 03:52 PM

Whoa double take! Wait a sec, is Sinflix saying that black people should remember history and that they shouldn't have a false sense of security since it could happen again? This is a big step forward from his previous suggestion to "just get over it and move on" when it comes to black people and history.
You should read the book "Revisionist History and its Practical Applications When Arguing Against Obama" By Sinfix

Sinfix_15

04-08-2013, 04:20 PM

Whoa double take! Wait a sec, is Sinflix saying that black people should remember history and that they shouldn't have a false sense of security since it could happen again? This is a big step forward from his previous suggestion to "just get over it and move on" when it comes to black people and history.

Do need to get over it and move on.... doesnt mean they cant learn something from the experience.

Sinfix_15

04-08-2013, 06:12 PM

Obama Overrides Congress to Buy $690 Million Worth of Russian Choppers for Afghan Air Force | FrontPage Magazine (http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-overrides-congress-to-buy-690-mil-worth-of-russian-choppers-for-afghan-air-force/#.UWMuchleBU4.twitter)

bu villain

04-09-2013, 03:30 PM

Do need to get over it and move on.... doesnt mean they cant learn something from the experience.

I guess I'm not sure how you distinguish the two. How is black people organizing to make sure their rights aren't trampled on so different from gun owners organizing to make sure their rights aren't trampled on? It seems to me blacks have a lot more recent and domestic history supporting their concerns than gun advocates.

Sinfix_15

04-09-2013, 05:22 PM

I guess I'm not sure how you distinguish the two. How is black people organizing to make sure their rights aren't trampled on so different from gun owners organizing to make sure their rights aren't trampled on? It seems to me blacks have a lot more recent and domestic history supporting their concerns than gun advocates.

When some crazy kid shoots up a school, gun owners dont rush to the defense of the kid and make claims that the system was out to get the kid or that it wouldnt have happened if the kid was white/black or whatever.....

If a guy with a knife stabs a guy with a gun, gun owners wouldnt say that it only happened because he had a gun.

If a guy with a gun gets pulled over for doing 65 in a school zone with no tag and a missing tail light, the gun owner wouldnt say he only got pulled over because he was a gun owner.

The victim mentality needs to go. "because im black" might be the most overused excuse in the history of humanity. Nobody faults black people or anyone else for fighting for their rights and freedoms, but the black community as a whole seems to either ignore their problems or blame them on someone else.

bu villain

04-09-2013, 05:48 PM

When some crazy kid shoots up a school, gun owners dont rush to the defense of the kid and make claims that the system was out to get the kid or that it wouldnt have happened if the kid was white/black or whatever.....

If a guy with a knife stabs a guy with a gun, gun owners wouldnt say that it only happened because he had a gun.

If a guy with a gun gets pulled over for doing 65 in a school zone with no tag and a missing tail light, the gun owner wouldnt say he only got pulled over because he was a gun owner.

The victim mentality needs to go. "because im black" might be the most overused excuse in the history of humanity. Nobody faults black people or anyone else for fighting for their rights and freedoms, but the black community as a whole seems to either ignore their problems or blame them on someone else.

So you agree there is nothing wrong with black groups in theory? Also, I must have missed the black kid who shot up a school and had a horde of supporters behind him.

Sinfix_15

04-09-2013, 05:53 PM

So you agree there is nothing wrong with black groups in theory? Also, I must have missed the black kid who shot up a school and had a horde of supporters behind him.

Whether i think there is something wrong with them or not doesnt matter. It's a free country. My problem lies only with the double standard.

bu villain

04-09-2013, 06:06 PM

Whether i think there is something wrong with them or not doesnt matter. It's a free country. My problem lies only with the double standard.

It matters with respect to whether you are consistent about what groups of people should be allowed to organize and on what basis they do. While you may feel that you are attacking double standards, it often comes off as attacking a particular race.

Sinfix_15

04-09-2013, 06:28 PM

It matters with respect to whether you are consistent about what groups of people should be allowed to organize and on what basis they do. While you may feel that you are attacking double standards, it often comes off as attacking a particular race.

Maybe the double standard often is a particular race and if the bias wasnt so, the bias wouldnt be present in my argument.

jR1_kS14

04-09-2013, 07:58 PM

i need cliffs of this thread. from just reading the OP, it sounds stupid...

Where's the liberty?

BanginJimmy

04-09-2013, 08:07 PM

Also, I must have missed the black kid who shot up a school and had a horde of supporters behind him.

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but are you suggesting that standing up for the second amendment is the same as supporting Lanza?

Oh, black kid shoots up school?

Atlanta School Shooting Update: Gang dispute was behind gunfire that wounded teen, police say - Crimesider - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57567247-504083/atlanta-school-shooting-update-gang-dispute-was-behind-gunfire-that-wounded-teen-police-say/)
One dead in gang shooting outside Houston high school | wfaa.com Dallas - Fort Worth (http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/One-dead-in-shooting-outside-Houston-high-school-118970499.html)

Sinfix_15

04-09-2013, 08:11 PM

.blank cd

04-09-2013, 11:25 PM

i need cliffs of this thread. from just reading the OP, it sounds stupid...

Where's the liberty?

TL;DR

Obama is going door to door collecting all guns from assault rifles to pea shooters. OP suggests we should ban cars as well

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 08:06 AM

TL;DR

Obama is going door to door collecting all guns from assault rifles to pea shooters. OP suggests we should ban cars as well

I wonder what would happen if that happened.

David88vert

04-10-2013, 08:33 AM

I wonder what would happen if that happened.

I suspect than his feet would get tired.

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 08:47 AM

I suspect than his feet would get tired.

Yeah, he would probably be greeted by the smiling faces of people who are happy with his presidency everywhere that he went.

bu villain

04-10-2013, 03:22 PM

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but are you suggesting that standing up for the second amendment is the same as supporting Lanza?

Oh, black kid shoots up school?

Atlanta School Shooting Update: Gang dispute was behind gunfire that wounded teen, police say - Crimesider - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57567247-504083/atlanta-school-shooting-update-gang-dispute-was-behind-gunfire-that-wounded-teen-police-say/)
One dead in gang shooting outside Houston high school | wfaa.com Dallas - Fort Worth (http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/One-dead-in-shooting-outside-Houston-high-school-118970499.html)

That is absolutely not what I am saying. Sinflix was saying when a black person murders someone, black organizations all support the criminal. I was saying I can't think of an instance where a black person shot up a bunch of students and then had the community supporting him for it. I don't think any person supports Lanza or a cold blooded murderer of innocent people period.

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 03:29 PM

That is absolutely not what I am saying. Sinflix was saying when a black person murders someone, black organizations all support the criminal. I was saying I can't think of an instance where a black person shot up a bunch of students and then had the community supporting him for it. I don't think any person supports Lanza or a cold blooded murderer of innocent people period.

Black people/organizations often come to the aid or sympathize with black criminals. I may have taken it a bit far with using that as an analogy..... but.....

http://clutchmag.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/url-81.jpeg

bu villain

04-10-2013, 03:41 PM

I think Chris Dorner's beef was legitimate and I am sympathetic to his anger. What I have no tolerance for is how he handled it. You can sympathize with how a person was treated and still be disgusted with their actions later. I don't think anyone was defending Dorner's murderous actions. Show me one black group that said the people he killed deserved to die.

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 03:42 PM

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 03:51 PM

The contrast between Chris Dorner and Chris Kyle reaction from the left was pretty striking.

bu villain

04-10-2013, 04:12 PM

You must not have twitter.

You're right. Feel free to show me some twitter quotes from prominent black groups defending Dorner's murders.

The contrast between Chris Dorner and Chris Kyle reaction from the left was pretty striking.

The two situations were completely different, why would you even think to compare them. Chris Kyle's story was just tragic, he was not treated unfairly for doing the right thing and he didn't go on a murderous spree. Also, I thought we were talking about black groups, not "the left".

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 04:26 PM

You're right. Feel free to show me some twitter quotes from prominent black groups defending Dorner's murders.

The two situations were completely different, why would you even think to compare them. Chris Kyle's story was just tragic, he was not treated unfairly for doing the right thing and he didn't go on a murderous spree. Also, I thought we were talking about black groups, not "the left".

Simply because the stories rolled out in social media as follows.....

Chris Kyle who was helping soldiers with mental illness recover and was shot by one of those soldiers unexpectedly and at point blank range.

Media: Chris Kyle was a professional murderer who got what he deserved, the fact that he was a professional sniper and was still killed proves how useless having a gun to defend yourself is. If guns cant protect you in the hands of a sniper, who thinks they will protect the common man.

Chris Dorner was a disgruntled employee who went on a shooting rampage to extract revenge on those he felt had mistreated him. He showed no mercy to the families of those he took vengeance on.

Media: Chris Dorner is a black man fighting back against the system that seeks to oppress him. The evil police system made sure to kill him so that the truth was not revealed. He is a hero.

http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-on-twitter-celebrate-murder-of-navy-seal-chris-kyle

http://www.inquisitr.com/516688/accused-killer-chris-dorner-called-hero-on-twitter-dark-knight-on-facebook/

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 04:34 PM

THIS WEEK ON ARN: Chris Dorner is Welcomed Here! Africans Have a Right to Resist Colonial Occupation of the African Community! Forward to the INPDUM Convention! | InPDUM (http://inpdumresistance.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/this-week-on-arn-2/)

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 04:35 PM

Christopher Dorner and the revolutionary struggle for Black Power (http://uhurunews.com/story?resource_name=christopher-dorner-and-the-revolutionary-struggle-for-black-power)

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 04:35 PM

Another Perspective on Chris Dorner | The Portland Radicle (http://portlandradicle.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/another-perspective-on-chris-dorner/)

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 04:37 PM

Chris Dorner: A Mass Shooter Leftists Can Love | FrontPage Magazine (http://frontpagemag.com/2013/tom-blumer/chris-dorner-a-mass-shooter-leftists-can-love/)

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 04:38 PM

http://tideturning.org/generaltaco/christopher-dorner-black-superman/

"black superman"

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 04:40 PM

http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-on-twitter-celebrate-murder-of-navy-seal-chris-kyle

http://www.inquisitr.com/516688/accused-killer-chris-dorner-called-hero-on-twitter-dark-knight-on-facebook/First of all, you can't compare the two. They're different incidents.

Second. What makes the commenters in the first link "liberal"?

bu villain

04-10-2013, 04:43 PM

Simply because the stories rolled out in social media as follows.....

Chris Kyle who was helping soldiers with mental illness recover and was shot by one of those soldiers unexpectedly and at point blank range.

Media: Chris Kyle was a professional murderer who got what he deserved, the fact that he was a professional sniper and was still killed proves how useless having a gun to defend yourself is. If guns cant protect you in the hands of a sniper, who thinks they will protect the common man.

I don't see how a handful of random people on twitter talking shit about Chris Kyle's death means that "the media" is against Chris Kyle. Were any of those users part of the "media"? And to the original point, I still don't see how this relates to a double standard of white criminals vs black criminals.

Chris Dorner was a disgruntled employee who went on a shooting rampage to extract revenge on those he felt had mistreated him. He showed no mercy to the families of those he took vengeance on.

Media: Chris Dorner is a black man fighting back against the system that seeks to oppress him. The evil police system made sure to kill him so that the truth was not revealed. He is a hero.

Ironically, your article states "Eerily overlapping with the habits of James Holmes’ minor fanbase" which shows that both white and black murderers have some supporters. Again, a random group of individuals on facebook and twitter are not "the media". You can find groups on facebook and twitter who support child abuse, nazism, and all sorts of sordid things. Social media gives a public outlet for every disturbed, anti-social, and depraved troll. Their mere existence can not be used to imply that their thoughts are somehow mainstream or common at all.

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 04:44 PM

First of all, you can't compare the two. They're different incidents.

Second. What makes the commenters in the first link "liberal"?

Not comparing the two, im comparing the collective reactions regarding a white soldier who was murdered and a black soldier who was a murderer.

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 04:45 PM

I don't see how a handful of random people on twitter talking shit about Chris Kyle's death means that "the media" is against Chris Kyle. Were any of those users part of the "media"? And to the original point, I still don't see how this relates to a double standard of white criminals vs black criminals.

Ironically, your article states "Eerily overlapping with the habits of James Holmes’ minor fanbase" which shows that both white and black murderers have some supporters. Again, a random group of individuals on facebook and twitter are not "the media". You can find groups on facebook and twitter who support child abuse, nazism, and all sorts of sordid things. Social media gives a public outlet for every disturbed, anti-social, and depraved troll. Their mere existence can not be used to imply that their thoughts are somehow mainstream or common at all.

It was more than a "handful".... keep going through the links

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 04:47 PM

It was more than a "handful".... keep going through the links

If you can group them into one page of an article, it accounts for a handful of tweets among the millions of tweets every day.

What makes the comments in the first link "liberal"?

bu villain

04-10-2013, 05:04 PM

So the first couple articles are from obviously fringe groups (who don't like Obama by the way).

Did you even read the portland radicle one because it is not pro Chris Dorner. It states "but unfortunately Dorner, and his alleged actions, aren’t the answer" and "Chris Dorner is no solution. He’s symptomatic of the problem".

The fourth article's evidence is Facebook pages: “I Support Christopher Jordan Dorner” (over 7,700 “likes”), and “LAPD Cop Killer Christopher Dorner is A HERO” (over 300 “likes”). A whopping 8000/300,000,000 = .000025% of the population assuming all the likes are from Americans. They also talk about how some lefties didn't tweet enough about his anti-gun stance or pro Mia Farrow stance. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of murder.

Unfortunately I can't read the "black superman" one so I will reserve judgement on that one.

Can you present some official statements from the NAACP or a mainstream black group supporting his murders? Random blog posts from no name people in no name blogs isn't sufficient evidence for mainstream acceptance of their ideas.

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 05:30 PM

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 05:33 PM

If you can group them into one page of an article, it accounts for a handful of tweets among the millions of tweets every day.

What makes the comments in the first link "liberal"?

well for one.... many of the people identify themselves as liberals. On twitter, democrats look like Nazis.... they all tag their photos with propaganda and have catch phrases like "unite blue"

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-odxf2LA1_ws/URBy06cGtpI/AAAAAAAAREw/kCZ6yzEenlU/s1600/Twibbon.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/17972/large/tk_twibbon.JPG?1360004802

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 05:34 PM

Do your arms hurt from all that stretching? Lol.

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 05:41 PM

Do your arms hurt from all that stretching? Lol.

you must not use twitter either

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 05:42 PM

well for one.... many of the people identify themselves as liberals. On twitter, democrats look like Nazis.... they all tag their photos with propaganda and have catch phrases like "unite blue"

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-odxf2LA1_ws/URBy06cGtpI/AAAAAAAAREw/kCZ6yzEenlU/s1600/Twibbon.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/17972/large/tk_twibbon.JPG?1360004802

You mean catch phrases and propaganda like this?

http://sweasel.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/nobama.jpg

Or like this?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pJ7UjjJK3Ks/SLsuqWMS7xI/AAAAAAAAABw/13z_gR7XTTw/S768/nobama.jpg

Or like this?

http://images.politico.com/global/nobama%20sticker.jpg

http://2012patriot.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/nobama-9.gif

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 05:44 PM

Back to the topic of the thread....

"Chicago is the blueprint for gun laws in america" - Barrack Obama

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BG47q0pCQAAm3oC.jpg

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 05:45 PM

you must not use twitter either

I'm very familiar with twitter. I also understand that the tweets I come across represent a infinitesimal fraction of all tweets combined.

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 05:48 PM

You mean catch phrases and propaganda like this?

http://sweasel.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/nobama.jpg

Or like this?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pJ7UjjJK3Ks/SLsuqWMS7xI/AAAAAAAAABw/13z_gR7XTTw/S768/nobama.jpg

Or like this?

http://images.politico.com/global/nobama%20sticker.jpg

http://2012patriot.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/nobama-9.gif

Dont forget....

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT-eN3uKLQyZCLEum40skEgSVWkbCKAfhdyc0NfN09t1OyNiEbO0Q
http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt320/Dracovoltard/ComradeObama.jpg
http://itmakessenseblog.com/files/2012/08/Aobama-marxist.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qaR83Z5EiIQ/Sy98UtXGbgI/AAAAAAAABp4/DFDeftfx4_o/s640/socialist_states_of_america.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VZkZPrw7tuo/S9wPfkQyItI/AAAAAAAAAVM/Akj7deNi5MQ/s400/obama-socialism-redistribute-wealth.jpg

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 05:49 PM

I'm very familiar with twitter. I also understand that the tweets I come across represent a infinitesimal fraction of all tweets combined.

Well, if you're aware of twitter liberals openly labeling their cover photos, then why would you ask "how did they know they were liberals"

perhaps..... because their pages said " IM A GODDAMN LIBERAL "

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 05:53 PM

Well, if you're aware of twitter liberals openly labeling their cover photos, then why would you ask "how did they know they were liberals"

perhaps..... because their pages said " IM A GODDAMN LIBERAL "

Lol. Just be cause they have a couple Ds on their cover photos doesn't make them liberal. Your argument is flimsy.

Let me clarify. What makes a comment like what you saw on that link "liberal"?

bu villain

04-10-2013, 06:08 PM

Ok you have presented your evidence. To me it is far too weak to conclude that there is any sort of mainstream (black groups or otherwise) support for Chris Dorner or any other black murderers. I'll let everyone else make up their own minds.

Back to the topic of the thread....

"Chicago is the blueprint for gun laws in america" - Barrack Obama

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BG47q0pCQAAm3oC.jpg

Correlation is not causation. Have you considered maybe the large number of murders came first and that the harsh gun laws were a response to that? Chicago has a gang/violent crime problem no doubt and gun laws will not solve the root of the problem either way.

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 06:11 PM

Ok you have presented your evidence. To me it is far too weak to conclude that there is any sort of mainstream (black groups or otherwise) support for Chris Dorner or any other black murderers. I'll let everyone else make up their own minds.

Correlation is not causation. Have you considered maybe the large number of murders came first and that the harsh gun laws were a response to that? Chicago has a gang/violent crime problem no doubt and gun laws will not solve the root of the problem either way.

Yeah...... maybe......

but dont you find it odd that all of these "problem cities" seem to look the same way? dense population of minorities...... overwhelmingly democratic..... nanny states....

bu villain

04-10-2013, 06:17 PM

Yeah...... maybe......

but dont you find it odd that all of these "problem cities" seem to look the same way? dense population of minorities...... overwhelmingly democratic..... nanny states....

No, because just about every major city has "dense population of minorities...... overwhelmingly democratic..... nanny states...." It's not unique to "problem cities"

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 06:25 PM

No, because just about every major city has "dense population of minorities...... overwhelmingly democratic..... nanny states...." It's not unique to "problem cities"

I admire your ability to see the rainbow when it's raining piss.

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 06:34 PM

Yeah...... maybe......

but dont you find it odd that all of these "problem cities" seem to look the same way? dense population of minorities...... overwhelmingly democratic..... nanny states....

Violent crime in Chicago has been on the decline since the late 70s. So is it possible that democratic leadership and gun control measures are working?

bu villain

04-10-2013, 06:37 PM

I admire your ability to see the rainbow when it's raining piss.

Rainbows? I didn't say anything about things being good or bad, I'm just stating facts. I haven't provided any moral judgements. I'm not surprised when you group a bunch of people into a relatively small area that you will have more conflict/crime. You want me to blame it on the race of the inhabitants or the way they vote but I just don't see the evidence. I agree there is a correlation but I don't see the evidence for causation. Remember back in the 70's and 80's when crime was so bad in New York. Now it is a lot better and it's certainly not because there are so many less minorities or that the city is more republican. How does that fit into your theory?

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 06:41 PM

Violent crime in Chicago has been on the decline since the late 70s. So is it possible that democratic leadership and gun control measures are working?

The crime rate in the entire country is declining............................ and has done so consistently for the last 20-30 years..... just so happens its going a lot slower in the cities with democratic leadership and gun control measures.

Classic example of a liberal democrat viewing statistics with his lefty goggles on.

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 06:43 PM

Rainbows? I didn't say anything about things being good or bad, I'm just stating facts. I haven't provided any moral judgements. I'm not surprised when you group a bunch of people into a relatively small area that you will have more conflict/crime. You want me to blame it on the race of the inhabitants or the way they vote but I just don't see the evidence. I agree there is a correlation but I don't see the evidence for causation. Remember back in the 70's and 80's when crime was so bad in New York. Now it is a lot better and it's certainly not because there are so many less minorities or that the city is more republican. How does that fit into your theory?

So in your best guestimation, explain why blacks have such an impact on the crime rate or why they overwhelmingly vote democratic.

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 06:45 PM

The crime rate in the entire country is declining............................ and has done so consistently for the last 20-30 years..... just so happens its going a lot slower in the cities with democratic leadership and gun control measures.Source?

Classic example of a liberal democrat viewing statistics with his lefty goggles on.You're only hurting yourself with comments like that. Lol.

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 06:46 PM

Source?

You're only hurting yourself with comments like that. Lol.

What fact are you disputing?

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 06:47 PM

What fact are you disputing?

The part in bold. Cite your source.

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 06:50 PM

The part in bold. Cite your source.

So you are disputing that the overall crime rate in the united states is on decline?

and you are also disputing that democratic cities are still at the top of crime statistics?

is this correct?

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 06:54 PM

So you are disputing that the overall crime rate in the united states is on decline?

and you are also disputing that democratic cities are still at the top of crime statistics?

is this correct?

You said the cities with democratic leadership and new measures of gun control are seeing a slower decline in violent crime than cities without. Site your source for your claim.

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 07:01 PM

You said the cities with democratic leadership and new measures of gun control are seeing a slower decline in violent crime than cities without. Site your source for your claim.

I give up. Chicago is the blueprint for america.... we should make the rest of america that currently has lower crime rates than chicago adhere to chicago policies. Father government has spoken.

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 07:19 PM

I give up. Chicago is the blueprint for america.... we should make the rest of america that currently has lower crime rates than chicago adhere to chicago policies. Father government has spoken.

Who in this thread said Chicago was a blueprint for American crime policy?

Based on the fact that crime has been on the decline in Chicago since gun control has been implemented, do you think that would translate well to another city with a high crime rate? What about a city with an already low crime rate? Do you think it's fair, knowing this fact, to compare Chicago to other cities?

It would seem, to me, that saying "Chicago has gun control and it has the most number of homicides in the nation per capita" simply overlooks the fact that crime is on the decline there. It seems more to me that people who would use such an argument are trying to appeal to your emotions, rather that present to you factual information. Does it not feel bad being taken for a fool in this instance?

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 07:19 PM

Indian students develop anti-rape lingerie (http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/04/10/indian-students-develop-anti-rape-lingerie/)

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 07:22 PM

Who in this thread said Chicago was a blueprint for American crime policy?

Based on the fact that crime has been on the decline in Chicago since gun control has been implemented, do you think that would translate well to another city with a high crime rate? What about a city with an already low crime rate? Do you think it's fair, knowing this fact, to compare Chicago to other cities?

It would seem, to me, that saying "Chicago has gun control and it has the most number of homicides in the nation per capita" simply overlooks the fact that crime is on the decline there. It seems more to me that people who would use such an argument are trying to appeal to your emotions, rather that present to you factual information. Does it not feel bad being taken for a fool in this instance?

whoever said chicago is the blueprint for america raise your hand.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/files/2012/12/Obama_0490e_image_1024w.jpg

Thank you for pointing out that our president is a fool. That's the point i've been trying to get across from the beginning. Sheeshh.....

well, now that we're over that hurdle..... how bout them braves?

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 07:35 PM

whoever said chicago is the blueprint for america raise your hand.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/files/2012/12/Obama_0490e_image_1024w.jpg

Thank you for pointing out that our president is a fool. That's the point i've been trying to get across from the beginning. Sheeshh.....

well, now that we're over that hurdle..... how bout them braves?

I haven't pointed out that the president is a fool at all. What I meant to say was no one has said we should take methods from Chicago and apply them everywhere else, letter for letter. A blueprint is more like a baseline with room for adjustment.

When I said taken for a fool, I meant you for taking only small pieces of information about a subject and coming to a conclusion about it, without first knowing ALL the information.

David88vert

04-10-2013, 07:38 PM

Study Morton Grove and Kennesaw. They were the original poster boy towns for both arguments. Study their major cities close to them as well over the same period of time.

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 07:43 PM

Study Morton Grove and Kennesaw. They were the original poster boy towns for both arguments. Study their major cities close to them as well over the same period of time.

There are other contributing factors to the drop in violent crime in Kennesaw, as with anywhere that implements gun control laws. This is the point I'm trying to make. Correlation is not causation.

Sinfix_15

04-10-2013, 07:44 PM

I haven't pointed out that the president is a fool at all. What I meant to say was no one has said we should take methods from Chicago and apply them everywhere else, letter for letter. A blueprint is more like a baseline with room for adjustment.

When I said taken for a fool, I meant you for taking only small pieces of information about a subject and coming to a conclusion about it, without first knowing ALL the information.

Sure you did....

through all the fussing back and forth, i'm happy to see that we are accomplishing progress.

David88vert

04-10-2013, 07:53 PM

There are other contributing factors to the drop in violent crime in Kennesaw, as with anywhere that implements gun control laws. This is the point I'm trying to make. Correlation is not causation.

And Morton Grove did not go out of control either.
So, since gun control on legal citizens is not the cause of crime statistcs, then why should we implement stricter gun control measures?
Give me concrete measureable statistics that we can say that these measures improve safety substantially and the costs and risks of both doing them and not doing them.
No one has done that yet. They only plead to emotions and not to reason and logic.
Without solid metrics, there is no way to say that these new stricter laws will have a measureable effect. Therefore, they are not ready to be implemented.

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 08:04 PM

And Morton Grove did not go out of control either.
So, since gun control on legal citizens is not the cause of crime statistcs, then why should we implement stricter gun control measures?
Give me concrete measureable statistics that we can say that these measures improve safety substantially and the costs and risks of both doing them and not doing them.
No one has done that yet. They only plead to emotions and not to reason and logic.
Without solid metrics, there is no way to say that these new stricter laws will have a measureable effect. Therefore, they are not ready to be implemented.

Solid metrics like a supply/demand curve?

David88vert

04-10-2013, 08:21 PM

Solid metrics like a supply/demand curve?

No. Measurements that actually show that a restriction imposed on law abiding citizens will reduce crime. Is that plain enough for you to understand?

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 08:24 PM

Ok. So only solid metrics you approve of. Lol.

David88vert

04-10-2013, 08:27 PM

Ok. So only solid metrics you approve of. Lol.

There you go again, making stupid statements.
I perfer that legislation be based upon facts, you seem to prefer to base it on emotion.

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 08:30 PM

There you go again, making stupid statements.
I perfer that legislation be based upon facts, you seem to prefer to base it on emotion.

I didnt say anything about emotion.

You said you like legislation that's based on facts. But only facts that you approve of.

David88vert

04-10-2013, 08:36 PM

I didnt say anything about emotion.

You said you like legislation that's based on facts. But only facts that you approve of.

Is it too much to ask for solid facts? No one has produced any that show exactly what can be a measureable reduction in criminal activity if this legislation is passed. Show me measurable results where it has worked before and how you extrapolate that to a national scale.
As you said, correlation is not causation.

.blank cd

04-10-2013, 09:19 PM

What would be a solid fact that you would accept?

Sinfix_15

04-11-2013, 03:22 PM

Gun Control Bill Clears First Hurdle in Senate - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senators-unveil-deal-gun-sales-background-check-18926712#.UWcJWbXqn1x)

bu villain

04-11-2013, 03:47 PM

So in your best guestimation, explain why blacks have such an impact on the crime rate or why they overwhelmingly vote democratic.

I think two of the biggest causes of crime are poverty and living in a densely populated area. Blacks are disproportionately poor and disproportionately live in densely populated cities. Therefore the cause is not them being black but rather where they live and what their income is.

They overwhelming vote democratic because most of the people with animosity towards blacks are part of the republican party. They find a strong value in community that supports each other and they feel the republican party is more about individuals. I don't see how this contributes towards crime.

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 04:03 PM

They overwhelming vote democratic because most of the people with animosity towards blacks are part of the republican party. They find a strong value in community that supports each other and they feel the republican party is more about individuals. I don't see how this contributes towards crime.It seems to me this is the case with non-white Americans and people of other ethnic backgrounds, Americans are, culturally anyway, individualists, while others; Blacks, Latinos, East Indians, Asians, are more communitarian.

Sinfix_15

04-11-2013, 04:15 PM

I think two of the biggest causes of crime are poverty and living in a densely populated area. Blacks are disproportionately poor and disproportionately live in densely populated cities. Therefore the cause is not them being black but rather where they live and what their income is.

They overwhelming vote democratic because most of the people with animosity towards blacks are part of the republican party. They find a strong value in community that supports each other and they feel the republican party is more about individuals. I don't see how this contributes towards crime.

So what do we do? give them money and force them to move to South Dakota?

In theory, lets say we took a black person out of the ghetto..... then gave him a super higher paying job.... like millions of dollars..... to do something simple that he enjoyed doing....

would that get rid of the criminal problem?

David88vert

04-11-2013, 04:21 PM

What would be a solid fact that you would accept?

Have you not read anything that I have posted? I stated exactly what is needed prior to Feinstein's gun bill being considered as anything other than an emotional response. It cannot be considered rational or logical without factual data to support such a bill.

bu villain

04-11-2013, 04:27 PM

So what do we do? give them money and force them to move to South Dakota?

In theory, lets say we took a black person out of the ghetto..... then gave him a super higher paying job.... like millions of dollars..... to do something simple that he enjoyed doing....

would that get rid of the criminal problem?

Actually I think that would get rid of the problem, at least for a period of time, but it is obviously not a feasable solution and it treats the symptoms rather than the cause. First of all, it's important to recognize that there are no simple solutions and even the most effective solutions will take years to see major effects. If you remember, I propsed some measures earlier (or maybe it was another thread). They included increased availability of after school programs, increased availability of preschool, job training, and a larger police presence in high crime areas.

Sinfix_15

04-11-2013, 04:32 PM

Actually I think that would get rid of the problem, at least for a period of time, but it is obviously not a feasable solution and it treats the symptoms rather than the cause. First of all, it's important to recognize that there are no simple solutions and even the most effective solutions will take years to see major effects. If you remember, I propsed some measures earlier (or maybe it was another thread). They included increased availability of after school programs, increased availability of preschool, job training, and a larger police presence in high crime areas.

So how would you explain a guy like this? is poverty his problem too? I think even if you removed poverty from the equation and only evaluated the crime rates of rich people, even then.... black people still have higher crime rates.

http://www.contactmusic.com/pics/l/floyd_mayweather_party_091207/floyd_mayweather_jr._1693807.jpg

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 04:32 PM

Have you not read anything that I have posted? I stated exactly what is needed prior to Feinstein's gun bill being considered as anything other than an emotional response. It cannot be considered rational or logical without factual data to support such a bill.Humor me...

Is it, at all, possible, for Feinstein's proposal to only be a pitch so grand, it brings the fringe of the decision makers closer to the middle?

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 04:35 PM

So how would you explain a guy like this? is poverty his problem too? I think even if you removed poverty from the equation and only evaluated the crime rates of rich people, even then.... black people still have higher crime rates.
Im gonna have to disagree with you on this one....

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-collar_crime

Sinfix_15

04-11-2013, 04:44 PM

Humor me...

Is it, at all, possible, for Feinstein's proposal to only be a pitch so grand, that they can manipulate people into allowing them to chip away at their rights as the lesser of two evils and as soon as they reach a compromise on said "chip" the democrats will immediately begin seeking the next "chip" until they accomplish their ultimate goal which is completely eroding the constitutional rights of american citizens, creating a more docile and dependent population of tax cattle.

fixed.

Sinfix_15

04-11-2013, 04:49 PM

Im gonna have to disagree with you on this one....

White-collar crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-collar_crime)

I dont have any statistical data to support my opinion....

i'm simply asking the question.....

If we take the black man out of the ghetto and give him a high paying job doing something he loves to do and afford him the ability to live anywhere he pleases and have a life of luxury, will that erase the criminal tendencies that you proclaim are created from being disproportionately poor?

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/michael-vick-400a043007.jpg

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 04:57 PM

Humor me...

Is it, at all, possible, for Feinstein's proposal to only be a pitch so grand, it brings the fringe of the decision makers closer to the middle?

Fixed for less tin-foil-hattery.

bu villain

04-11-2013, 05:02 PM

I'm not saying poverty is the ONLY cause of crime, just one of the biggest. Wouldn't you at least agree that it's pretty rare for a rich person to hold up someone at gun point? The crimes committed by relatively wealthy are not only less common but also less likely to be violent. I'm sure you can find some counter examples but we are talking about the average.

Sinfix_15

04-11-2013, 05:03 PM

Fixed for less tin-foil-hattery.

Democrats...... wolves in sheep's clothing who call anyone who notices the buttons on their sheep suit crazy.

Sinfix_15

04-11-2013, 05:13 PM

bu villain

04-11-2013, 05:19 PM

I dont think environmental factors relinquish people from personal responsibility.

I agree. But likewise, personal responsibility does not absolve us from addressing environmental factors. If you really care about reducing crime, you need to address all the factors. Fortunately, it's not an either/or choice, we can address both.

David88vert

04-11-2013, 05:20 PM

Humor me...

Is it, at all, possible, for Feinstein's proposal to only be a pitch so grand, it brings the fringe of the decision makers closer to the middle?

Your "middle" is not defined as the middle, except to you.

Feinstein's proposal has been implemented before, and it did not make any significant measureable improvement. We need to redirect the focus away from the tools utilized, and towards the actual cause - people.
A gun cannot kill without some person utilizing it that way - neither can a knife, rope, saw, car, bed sheet, anvil, or any other inanimate object. Until you address the human element, anything else is a futile and emotional response.

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 05:20 PM

I dont think environmental factors relinquish people from personal responsibility.

I think they do to an extent.

David88vert

04-11-2013, 05:21 PM

Im gonna have to disagree with you on this one....

White-collar crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-collar_crime)

They call it "white" collar - that RACIST!!!!

[/sarcasm]

Sinfix_15

04-11-2013, 05:22 PM

I think they do to an extent.

Well, with all due respect, you're a moron.

David88vert

04-11-2013, 05:22 PM

I dont have any statistical data to support my opinion....

blank doesn't need statistical data - just use emotion in your responses....

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 05:23 PM

Your "middle" is not defined as the middle, except to you. I didn't even say what middle was. Lol

We need to redirect the focus away from the tools utilized, and towards the actual cause - people.
A gun cannot kill without some person utilizing it that way - neither can a knife, rope, saw, car, bed sheet, anvil, or any other inanimate object. Until you address the human element, anything else is a futile and emotional response.An emotional response.

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 05:25 PM

Well, with all due respect, you're a moron.

You're right.

Oh wait....you're not. My mistake. I'm right again. Son of a bitch

http://www.udel.edu/chem/C465/senior/fall00/GeneticTesting/enviro.htm

Sinfix_15

04-11-2013, 05:27 PM

I agree. But likewise, personal responsibility does not absolve us from addressing environmental factors. If you really care about reducing crime, you need to address all the factors. Fortunately, it's not an either/or choice, we can address both.

I dont disagree here either.... but there's a variety of different ways to deal with it... and that's where the disagreement begins.

David88vert

04-11-2013, 05:30 PM

I think they do to an extent.

Then you have a warped mind. You cannot justify an unprovoked criminal behavior based on an economic environment without declaring that personal responsibility is a null and void concept.

As such, explain how creating legislation that targets law-abiding citizens that already are practicing personal responsibility, and for the vast majority, are in an economically stable environment, is going to improve crime statistics that are generated by those who show a disregard for the laws created, since per your thinking, they no longer should feel that they should be held personally accountable for their actions..

Sinfix_15

04-11-2013, 05:34 PM

You're right.

Oh wait....you're not. My mistake. I'm right again. Son of a bitch

Sociological and Environmental Factors of Criminal Behavior (http://www.udel.edu/chem/C465/senior/fall00/GeneticTesting/enviro.htm)

I could care less what your stupid ass read in some book. I lived through these environments and they did nothing more than grow my disdain for people who use them as an excuse.

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 05:38 PM

Then you have a warped mind. You cannot justify an unprovoked criminal behavior based on an economic environment without declaring that personal responsibility is a null and void concept.If child XY grew up in a very low income household, in a poverty stricken neighborhood, with no positive adult influences, is it possible that child XY might be predisposed to a life of crime?

As such, explain how creating legislation that targets law-abiding citizens that already are practicing personal responsibility, and for the vast majority, are in an economically stable environment, is going to improve crime statistics that are generated by those who show a disregard for the laws created, since per your thinking, they no longer should feel that they should be held personally accountable for their actions..

Would you agree with me that most guns used in violent crimes are manufactured by some sort of business that manufactures guns?

bu villain

04-11-2013, 05:39 PM

I dont disagree here either.... but there's a variety of different ways to deal with it... and that's where the disagreement begins.

Sure but perhaps we can find some areas of agreement. I know you are in favor of harsher sentencing but that is more on the personal responsibility side. Do the crime, do the time and all that. What are your suggestions for the environmental factors? I have listed some of mine.

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 05:40 PM

I could care less what your stupid ass read in some book. I lived through these environments and they did nothing more than grow my disdain for people who use them as an excuse.

Then once again, you are beneath intelligent discussion. I'll let you know when we dumb back down into a scope you can understand.

David88vert

04-11-2013, 05:47 PM

If child XY grew up in a very low income household, in a poverty stricken neighborhood, with no positive adult influences, is it possible that child XY might be predisposed to a life of crime?

"Predisposed" - not the best choice of a word, but if you mean that repeatedly having negative influences would have a high potential to influence the individual to think that crime was normal, then yes, absolutely; however, that does not absolve the individual from being held legally accountable in court, should the individual get caught.

Would you agree with me that most guns used in violent crimes are manufactured by some sort of business that manufactures guns?

Absolutely. Are you suggesting that if all guns were removed from society, that all violent crime would be removed from society? If so, why did we have violent crime before the invention of firearms?

Again, the gun bill in question does not remove all firearms, so exactly what measureable results can we expect from its passage?

RandomGuy

04-11-2013, 05:47 PM

just want to throw this out there, http://www.jrsa.org/ibrrc/background-status/New_Mexico/NM_FirearmUsage.pdf

Sinfix_15

04-11-2013, 05:53 PM

Sure but perhaps we can find some areas of agreement. I know you are in favor of harsher sentencing but that is more on the personal responsibility side. Do the crime, do the time and all that. What are your suggestions for the environmental factors? I have listed some of mine.

After school programs, more parks, gyms, recreational centers, libraries and things of that nature. I do not support any of the current financial assistance programs that are not related to education. I want everything to be available to everyone, but nothing to be handed to anyone.

bu villain

04-11-2013, 06:03 PM

After school programs, more parks, gyms, recreational centers, libraries and things of that nature. I do not support any of the current financial assistance programs that are not related to education. I want everything to be available to everyone, but nothing to be handed to anyone.

Then I don't think we disagree all that much. The intent of the financial assistance programs are not to prevent crime anyway.

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 06:03 PM

"Predisposed" - not the best choice of a word, but if you mean that repeatedly having negative influences would have a high potential to influence the individual to think that crime was normal, then yes, absolutely; however, that does not absolve the individual from being held legally accountable in court, should the individual get caught.This child's concept of personal responsibility may be skewed. You didn't say legal accountability.

Absolutely. Are you suggesting that if all guns were removed from society, that all violent crime would be removed from society?Nope. Not suggesting complete removal at all.

Sinfix_15

04-11-2013, 06:04 PM

Then once again, you are beneath intelligent discussion. I'll let you know when we dumb back down into a scope you can understand.

I understand environmental factors more than you ever will from reading about them in a psychology class. You're a pseudo intellectual liberal apologist. You have no personal experience with any of the things you pretend to know about.

David88vert

04-11-2013, 06:26 PM

This child's concept of personal responsibility may be skewed. You didn't say legal accountability.

Even if he felt that he was not responsible at all for his actions due to a lack of ethical indoctrination, unless he had a medical, psychological, or similar condition that could be substantiated in court, the legal system would find him responsible for any actions he chose to take. Personal responsibility is recognized as freedom of choice, freedom of action, and the freedom to bear the results of action. You already know this, of course.

Nope. Not suggesting complete removal at all.

Why do you keep avoiding answering my earlier questions, since you do not suggest a complete removal?

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 06:32 PM

I understand environmental factors more than you ever will from reading about them in a psychology class. You're a pseudo intellectual liberal apologist. You have no personal experience with any of the things you pretend to know about.

So living in one neighborhood in one state makes you an expert on environmental factors of criminal behaviors? LOL. Pretty small sample size you got there.

Done responding to you since you're obviously either trolling, or not serious.

Sinfix_15

04-11-2013, 06:36 PM

So living in one neighborhood in one state makes you an expert on environmental factors of criminal behaviors? LOL. Pretty small sample size you got there.

Done responding to you since you're obviously either trolling, or not serious.

I know its possible to overcome environmental factors. You seem to believe that people have no control over their lives and are simply victims of circumstance.

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 06:45 PM

Why do you keep avoiding answering my earlier questions, since you do not suggest a complete removal?

Not avoiding anything.

So, you accept that someone has to make guns used in violent crimes, and someone has to sell them.

Suppose for a minute, for simplicities sake, that Smith and Wesson makes all things you can pull a trigger on

The guy running S&W is a good businessman and runs a pretty tight ship, so he makes 500k guns a year, and sells 500k a year. He's always very close on his numbers. Lets assume that 5000 of these make their way into the black market every year.

So what if one year he made 500k guns and people didnt buy any, and he only sold 300k? He's gonna make less guns next year correct?

So, the following year, S&W only makes 300k guns. Since the supply has changed here, do you think more or less guns will make it to the black market?

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 06:48 PM

I know its possible to overcome environmental factors. You seem to believe that people have no control over their lives and are simply victims of circumstance.

I'm not saying everyone as a whole. I'm talking about a single factor. Now you've introduced an external pressure. People can overcome bad situations, a dad can come into the picture, the kid could get interested in reading instead of hustling.

David88vert

04-11-2013, 06:51 PM

Not avoiding anything.

So, you accept that someone has to make guns used in violent crimes, and someone has to sell them.

Suppose for a minute, for simplicities sake, that Smith and Wesson makes all things you can pull a trigger on

The guy running S&W is a good businessman and runs a pretty tight ship, so he makes 500k guns a year, and sells 500k a year. He's always very close on his numbers. Lets assume that 5000 of these make their way into the black market every year.

So what if one year he made 500k guns and people didnt buy any, and he only sold 300k? He's gonna make less guns next year correct?

So, the following year, S&W only makes 300k guns. Since the supply has changed here, do you think more or less guns will make it to the black market?

You are either assuming that he is selling to the black market, or you are not - but you are not making that clear.

No smart business owner would sell weapons on the black market, and risk losing his license and going to prison, so the answer would be - the same amount, the 5000 that you stated. Supply and demand for the black market would not change, as those individuals are not purchasing firearms from the owner. You cannot say that the legal production and consumption of goods regulates the black market - they do not share the same supply and demand. That's not how economics works.

David88vert

04-11-2013, 06:52 PM

So living in one neighborhood in one state makes you an expert on environmental factors of criminal behaviors? LOL. Pretty small sample size you got there.

Done responding to you since you're obviously either trolling, or not serious.

His sample size is still bigger than the sample size of your telephone survey that had 43 responses.

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 06:56 PM

You are either assuming that he is selling to the black market, or you are not - but you are not making that clear.Im not assuming he's selling them to the black market. I simply said "make their way"

No smart business owner would sell weapons on the black market, and risk losing his license and going to prison, so the answer would be - the same amount, the 5000 that you stated. Supply and demand for the black market would not change, as those individuals are not purchasing firearms from the owner. You cannot say that the legal production and consumption of goods regulates the black market - they do not share the same supply and demand. That's not how economics works.You did agree that the guns had to be manufactured from somewhere, correct? The supply on the black market HAS to directly or indirectly come from S&W, correct?

This is how economics works, bud.

David88vert

04-11-2013, 07:19 PM

Im not assuming he's selling them to the black market. I simply said "make their way"

You did agree that the guns had to be manufactured from somewhere, correct? The supply on the black market HAS to directly or indirectly come from S&W, correct?

This is how economics works, bud.

You really don't have a grip on the reality of economics.

The manufacturers sell legally. Their legal sales volume does not directly impact the supply or demand of the illegal market.

If you wanted to argue a trickle-down effect, then you would see the supply eventually lower, but not likely in our lifetime. Then, the cost would rise on illegal weapons as the supply was lowered; however, that would make it more likely for another gun distributor to enter the market with imported firearms, or for a private maker to produce them, seeing the possibility of profit.

Use some critical thinking.

David88vert

04-11-2013, 07:42 PM

Now, back to my earlier question that you haven't answered.
The FBI says that in GA for 2011, there were 522 murders, using 370 total firearms, of which:
326 were handguns
16 were rifles
16 were shotguns
12 were of unknown firearm type
61 were with knives
83 were with other weapons
8 were with hands, feet, etc.

The FBI does not break down the rifle number into which were bolt action, semi-auto, hunting, or assault-style, but let's assume that all of them were with AK's. Can you do the math and tell me if you are more likely to get murdered with an AK, or a knife?

In fact, for the entire US, DC, and the VI, there were 12,664 murders in 2011, with 8,583 with firearms.
323 of those were with rifles, but there were 1,659 with knives, and 728 with hands and feet. Perhaps we should cut off the hands of everyone instead?

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 07:59 PM

The manufacturers sell legally. Their legal sales volume does not directly impact the supply or demand of the illegal market.Then you don't agree that guns aren't manufactured somewhere, and that somehow the black market manufactures its own guns, is this what you're suggesting?

You know every time you tell me I don't grasp economics, I get a little chuckle, right?

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 08:03 PM

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 08:06 PM

...to which you will inevitably backpedal on

David88vert

04-11-2013, 08:08 PM

Then you don't agree that guns aren't manufactured somewhere, and that somehow the black market manufactures its own guns, is this what you're suggesting?

You know every time you tell me I don't grasp economics, I get a little chuckle, right?

You clearly lack the ability to read and comprehend.

David88vert

04-11-2013, 08:09 PM

You and I both know if I answer this, it's just gonna force you to accept an inevitable fact that you don't want to accept. You know this right?

Please answer. I will just continue to laugh at your desperation to ignore the truth.

David88vert

04-11-2013, 08:12 PM

...to which you will inevitably backpedal on

You still haven't answered my original question. Seems that you are afraid that you will need to backpedal.

I give facts, you ignore them. That's pretty standard for you.

You think that legal supply from a single manufacturer is going to affect the black market? Learn:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hot-guns-fueling-crime-us-study/story?id=18318610#.UWdRvPjD99A

"According to the Justice Department, more than 1.4 million guns were stolen or lost between 2005 and 2010." Where do you think that these go to?
"According to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), more than 4,000 gun stores and retailers have been targeted in the last three years, with 74,000 guns reported stolen or lost."
"An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice."

These guns are stolen - taken out of the legal and economic market - and sold via the black market - then used in crimes. No matter how you attempt to spin it, the fact is that your scenario was a bogus one from the start.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's assume that we somehow eliminated this problem, and we only have to deal with straw man purchases and corrupt FFL dealers - and yes, we can both agree that there are still quite a few of those, although it has declined since the 1990s with the increased restrictions and enforcement - both of which I support fully, as I suspect you do as well.
Even then, the purchaser is a criminal, and would get his hands on a weapon regardless of where it came from. It's just a tool - the problem is the person. And most of what they are using are handguns, not rifles. Look at the FBI statistics - there were only 16 murders using ANY rifle in GA in 2011. The bottom line is that this is the highest number possible for that period of time. Focusing on banning one type of rifle is a waste of time and resources when that is a tiny percentage of the overall problem.

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 08:28 PM

Please answer. I will just continue to laugh at your desperation to ignore the truth.

Ok. I'm busy at work, so I'm not gonna fact check you at the moment. We'll assume you're able to do basic research. So we'll assume for your sake all of that's true: there were 60 murders with long guns, and 150 murders with knives and hands in the year 2011.

If we're trying to examine a policy that takes affect over time, would it or would it not be important to compare data from 2011 to a time before 2011?

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 08:31 PM

You still haven't answered my original question. Seems that you are afraid that you will need to backpedal.

I give facts, you ignore them. That's pretty standard for you.

You think that legal supply from a single manufacturer is going to affect the black market? Learn:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hot-guns-fueling-crime-us-study/story?id=18318610#.UWdRvPjD99A

"According to the Justice Department, more than 1.4 million guns were stolen or lost between 2005 and 2010." Where do you think that these go to?
"According to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), more than 4,000 gun stores and retailers have been targeted in the last three years, with 74,000 guns reported stolen or lost."
"An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice."

These guns are stolen - taken out of the legal and economic market - and sold via the black market - then used in crimes. No matter how you attempt to spin it, the fact is that your scenario was a bogus one from the start.

EVERY TIME you post a link, you confirm what I say! LMAO.

If S&W only makes 200k guns down from 500k, that means WalMart ordered less guns...right?

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 08:36 PM

I do admire your persistence though. Even when you're clearly wrong, you never give up. I like that. Keep going though, it's fun! Lol

David88vert

04-11-2013, 08:42 PM

Ok. I'm busy at work, so I'm not gonna fact check you at the moment. We'll assume you're able to do basic research. So we'll assume for your sake all of that's true: there were 60 murders with long guns, and 150 murders with knives and hands in the year 2011.

If we're trying to examine a policy that takes affect over time, would it or would it not be important to compare data from 2011 to a time before 2011?

Look up FBI Table 20 - those are the statistics. That will help you.

2011 - Table 20 - FBI — Table 20 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20)

There were 16 murders with rifles and 16 with shotguns - that is 32 if you can do basic addition, not 60. Even if you add in the 12 of unknown type, that is 44, not 60.
61 were with knives, and 8 with hands and feet. That's 69, not 150.
You might want to take basic math and reading again.

And here is 2010 - FBI — Table 20 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls)
Total murders - 527
With Rifle - 19
With Shotguns - 21
With knives - 64

Pretty consistent.

David88vert

04-11-2013, 08:45 PM

EVERY TIME you post a link, you confirm what I say! LMAO.

If S&W only makes 200k guns down from 500k, that means WalMart ordered less guns...right?

Can you not understand that taking them from stores is only a portion of all of the new weapons that make their way into the black market each year? Many are stolen from homes, and have been purchased legally many, many years before.
Like I said, you're desperate.

Ok, go back to work. You making money and providing for your family is much more important that discussing something that neither of us can control.

David88vert

04-11-2013, 08:46 PM

I do admire your persistence though. Even when you're clearly wrong, you never give up. I like that. Keep going though, it's fun! Lol

I'm giving FBI statistics, you aren't providing anything, and I'm wrong? LOL

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 08:57 PM

Look up FBI Table 20 - those are the statistics. That will help you.

2011 - Table 20 - FBI — Table 20 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20)

There were 16 murders with rifles and 16 with shotguns - that is 32 if you can do basic addition, not 60. Even if you add in the 12 of unknown type, that is 44, not 60.
61 were with knives, and 8 with hands and feet. That's 69, not 150.
You might want to take basic math and reading again.

And here is 2010 - FBI — Table 20 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls)
Total murders - 527
With Rifle - 19
With Shotguns - 21
With knives - 64

Pretty consistent.

One year isn't enough. Lets go back to say, 1992

And I rounded up for YOUR convenience.

You said 60+ knives, 80+ other weapons, and 8 hands. Sound close enought to 150 to me. This is what YOU posted! Lol.

I already said the numbers were correct! The way you're interpreting data is flat out wrong. Lol.

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 08:57 PM

I'm giving FBI statistics, you aren't providing anything, and I'm wrong? LOL

And I said the FBI stats were probably right. The way you're interpreting data is wrong.

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 09:04 PM

Can you not understand that taking them from stores is only a portion of all of the new weapons that make their way into the black market each year? Many are stolen from homes, and have been purchased legally many, many years before.
Like I said, you're desperate.

Not desperate. Just taking you through the step by step process of critical thought.

Sinfix_15

04-11-2013, 09:07 PM

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 09:20 PM

Do you also disagree that guns have to be manufactured from somewhere?

Or are you gonna surprise me and accept the reality that guns don't come from a magic black market fairy?

David88vert

04-11-2013, 10:14 PM

One year isn't enough. Lets go back to say, 1992

And I rounded up for YOUR convenience.

You said 60+ knives, 80+ other weapons, and 8 hands. Sound close enought to 150 to me. This is what YOU posted! Lol.

I already said the numbers were correct! The way you're interpreting data is flat out wrong. Lol.

How about YOU go back and dig up the data for each year. So far, I am the only one providing anything factual - you have provided nothing other than comments from the peanut gallery.

Rounding up? You round up percentage, not FBI provide whole numbers. I didn't need anything rounded up for my convenience - I already had the real numbers.
You said, "there were 60 murders with long guns, and 150 murders with knives and hands " - 32 (rifles and shotguns combined) is a far cry from 60, and 69 (knives and hands) is a far cry from 150. I took you literally - not assuming that you meant something other than you stated.

The numbers that I gave you came straight from the FBI. There is no misinterpretation - 16 murders using rifles in 2011, and 19 in 2010 - so how much of a threat are these assault style rifles? What would Feinstein's bill really accomplish?

David88vert

04-11-2013, 10:15 PM

And I said the FBI stats were probably right. The way you're interpreting data is wrong.

Explain. The numbers are pretty clear. 16 is 16 is 16, no matter how you try to convince others that it's something different.

David88vert

04-11-2013, 10:29 PM

Do you also disagree that guns have to be manufactured from somewhere?

Or are you gonna surprise me and accept the reality that guns don't come from a magic black market fairy?

Guns have to be manufactured somewhere - but that does not have to be from a manufacturer inside the US under US government regulation, or from a business at all. Perhaps you are unaware of the illegal gun manufacturing in the Philippines? Perhaps you should download the recent documentary episode of Vice S01E01. It was on last week.

Guns aren't rocket science or nuclear weapons. Just as when Prohibition was implemented, if you banned making guns, people would just make them illegally. As long as there is profit to be made, someone will try to make it, even if they must risk breaking the law.

Even with guns made by licensed gun manufacturers, they are not selling them to criminals. They sell them to FFL dealers, who then make their sales. Those dealers are regulated and are supposed to only sell to legal individuals who pass background checks. Why should these citizens who legally purchase their firearms be targeted by government legislation INSTEAD of criminals who illegally obtain and use these tools? Use your head and think rationally and tell me how Feinstein's bill will lower crime statistics when it only targets legal sales? Criminals go to the black market because they can't go through the legal process of procuring a firearm. Is that too hard for you to understand? When these criminals commit a serious crime like murder, they overwhelmingly go for a handgun, instead of a rifle, so why are we only talking about legislation against assault style rifles?

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 10:37 PM

How about YOU go back and dig up the data for each year. So far, I am the only one providing anything factual - you have provided nothing other than comments from the peanut gallery.I'm trying to teach you how to interpret data! I want you to provide the data so I can show you what to do with it, so that we can take the accuracy of the numbers out of the equation.

Ex: If I'm trying to examine the effectiveness of drivers licensing on car accidents, do you think it's important to know how many plane crashes there were in one particular year?

Why do you think it's important to know how many knife stabbings and knockouts there were in one particular year if I'm trying to examine the effectiveness of stringent restrictions of guns on gun crime, unless you're seriously advocating for knife and hand restriction?

Knife data is a red herring. It means nothing in this discussion.

One year of crime data says absolutely nothing if you're trying to determine the effectiveness of a particular policy over time. If I want to examine a new assault weapons ban, I want to look at the last ban, a couple years before it was implemented up until a couple years after it went away.

If you want to discuss knife restrictions/control, we'll need another thread

David88vert

04-11-2013, 10:43 PM

I'm trying to teach you how to interpret data! I want you to provide the data so I can show you what to do with it, so that we can take the accuracy of the numbers out of the equation.

Ex: If I'm trying to examine the effectiveness of drivers licensing on car accidents, do you think it's important to know how many plane crashes there were in one particular year?

Why do you think it's important to know how many knife stabbings and knockouts there were in one particular year if I'm trying to examine the effectiveness of stringent restrictions of guns on gun crime, unless you're seriously advocating for knife and hand restriction?

Knife data is a red herring. It means nothing in this discussion.

One year of crime data says absolutely nothing if you're trying to determine the effectiveness of a particular policy over time. If I want to examine a new assault weapons ban, I want to look at the last ban, a couple years before it was implemented up until a couple years after it went away.

If you want to discuss knife restrictions/control, we'll need another thread

I've shown you where to go get the data - so you can go get it.
I lived through the last assault weapons ban - as an adult. You wouldn't know anything about that though.

.blank cd

04-11-2013, 10:43 PM

Guns have to be manufactured somewhere - but that does not have to be from a manufacturer inside the US under US government regulation, or from a business at all. Perhaps you are unaware of the illegal gun manufacturing in the Philippines? Perhaps you should download the recent documentary episode of Vice S01E01. It was on last week.If you want to discuss the implications of the UN Arms trade treaty, that's another thread.

Guns aren't rocket science or nuclear weapons. Just as when Prohibition was implemented, if you banned making guns, people would just make them illegally.This is a straw man. You're arguing from a position that doesn't exist. Banning doesn't explicitly mean illegal, and it doesn't mean someone's coming door to door taking what you have.

Even with guns made by licensed gun manufacturers, they are not selling them to criminals. They sell them to FFL dealers, who then make their sales. Those dealers are regulated and are supposed to only sell to legal individuals who pass background checks. Why should these citizens who legally purchase their firearms be targeted by government legislation INSTEAD of criminals who illegally obtain and use these tools? Use your head and think rationally and tell me how Feinstein's bill will lower crime statistics when it only targets legal sales? Criminals go to the black market because they can't go through the legal process of procuring a firearm. Is that too hard for you to understand? When these criminals commit a serious crime like murder, they overwhelmingly go for a handgun, instead of a rifle, so why are we only talking about legislation against assault style rifles?imagine for 5 minutes that Feinstein is making an effort to get the other side to come to the center of the discussion. Does it make more sense now?

David88vert

04-11-2013, 10:50 PM

If you want to discuss the implications of the UN Arms trade treaty, that's another thread.

This is a straw man. You're arguing from a position that doesn't exist. Banning doesn't explicitly mean illegal, and it doesn't mean someone's coming door to door taking what you have.

imagine for 5 minutes that Feinstein is making an effort to get the other side to come to the center of the discussion. Does it make more sense now?

You have no idea what you are talking about. We currently receive arms from other countries. Do you think that all of our guns are made in the US currently?

Study history - its not straw man, and it is happening now in other countries. Learn from other's mistakes.
banning - the act of prohibiting by law
prohibit - to forbid (an action, activity, etc.) by authority or law
forbid - to prohibit (something); make a rule or law against
Seems pretty clear to the Justice Dept and myself - you just seem confused.

No one is coming door to door as they don't know where all of them are. They just want to register them first, then take them when you die - or when they decide that you aren't fit to own one anymore. Are you aware that the police decided that MLK Jr wasn't fit to own a firearm? Trust the authorities?

Feinstein is not trying to meet in the middle. She is looking to immediately reinstate her previous assault-style weapons ban, and continue to push for a complete firearms ban - as she has clearly stated since before you were born. I remember the previous ban - you need to learn about it. That bill was written and prompted by her as well.

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 12:07 AM

You have no idea what you are talking about. We currently receive arms from other countries. Do you think that all of our guns are made in the US currently?

Study history - its not straw man, and it is happening now in other countries. Learn from other's mistakes.
banning - the act of prohibiting by law
prohibit - to forbid (an action, activity, etc.) by authority or law
forbid - to prohibit (something); make a rule or law against
Seems pretty clear to the Justice Dept and myself - you just seem confused.

No one is coming door to door as they don't know where all of them are. They just want to register them first, then take them when you die - or when they decide that you aren't fit to own one anymore. Are you aware that the police decided that MLK Jr wasn't fit to own a firearm? Trust the authorities?

Feinstein is not trying to meet in the middle. She is looking to immediately reinstate her previous assault-style weapons ban, and continue to push for a complete firearms ban - as she has clearly stated since before you were born. I remember the previous ban - you need to learn about it. That bill was written and prompted by her as well.

Is Sinfix back in here?

David88vert

04-12-2013, 07:12 AM

Is Sinfix back in here?

As I said, you offer neither substance, nor facts. You do not answer any questions with logic or reason.

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 07:56 AM

Democrats think its ok to dry up the gun market to reduce availability of guns to criminals. While i do not want guns in the hands of criminals, i dont want my access limited in any way at all to accomplish this task. The reason no gun control legislation at all can be accepted is because it only serves as a foot in the door for a bunch of politicians who will spend the rest of their lives trying to make america gun free period.... not just take guns away from criminals.

The bottom line is..... it doesnt matter what the law or rule of gun transfer is.... criminals dont give a shit. You know this.... but you're ok with just attacking the gun market as a whole to weaken criminal supply.

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 07:57 AM

Is Sinfix back in here?

No need for us to gang up on you, it only takes one of us to make you look stupid. When David started up on you, i called it a night.... mercy stoppage.

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 10:23 AM

No need for us to gang up on you, it only takes one of us to make you look stupid. When David started up on you, i called it a night.... mercy stoppage.

Unfortunately, you both are failing miserably.

David88vert

04-12-2013, 11:00 AM

Unfortunately, you both are failing miserably.

You are the only person that believes that, but then, we've already established that you're delusional.

You want data back to 1992? Go get it yourself, we know that you won't as it would prove you wrong.

Here's something to chew on though:
In 2005-10, about 10% of violent victimizations committed by strangers involved a firearm, compared to 5% committed by offenders known to the victim.
From 1993 to 2008, among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims.
Since the inception of the Brady Act (1994), over 118 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were subject to background checks. About 2.1 million applications, or 1.8%, were denied.
In 2010, 1.5% of the 10.4 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied by the FBI (approximately 73,000) or by state and local agencies (approximately 80,000).
Among the 21 state agencies that reported reasons for denial, a felony conviction or indictment was the most common reason to deny an application in 2010 (31%). A state law prohibition (16%) was the second most common reason (excluding other prohibitions).

I have all of the FBI and DOJ statistics, and the numbers support what I have been stating. You have presented nothing, as you have no data to support your opinions.

You never answered, how does 16 not equal 16?

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 12:42 PM

Even if you submit to the point he's trying to make, it's still stupid.

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 01:12 PM

You want data back to 1992? Go get it yourself, we know that you won't as it would prove you wrong.

Here's something to chew on though:
In 2005-10, about 10% of violent victimizations committed by strangers involved a firearm, compared to 5% committed by offenders known to the victim.
From 1993 to 2008, among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims.
Since the inception of the Brady Act (1994), over 118 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were subject to background checks. About 2.1 million applications, or 1.8%, were denied.
In 2010, 1.5% of the 10.4 million applications for firearm transfers or permits were denied by the FBI (approximately 73,000) or by state and local agencies (approximately 80,000).
Among the 21 state agencies that reported reasons for denial, a felony conviction or indictment was the most common reason to deny an application in 2010 (31%). A state law prohibition (16%) was the second most common reason (excluding other prohibitions).What point are you trying to make with all that? Get. To. The. Point.

I have all of the FBI and DOJ statistics, and the numbers support what I have been stating. You have presented nothing, as you have no data to support your opinions.I haven't posted an opinion at all. Could you go back and quote what you believe was my opinion?

You never answered, how does 16 not equal 16?I never answered because the question was never raised. Who said 16 doesn't equal 16?

David88vert

04-12-2013, 01:33 PM

What point are you trying to make with all that? Get. To. The. Point.

I haven't posted an opinion at all. Could you go back and quote what you believe was my opinion?

I never answered because the question was never raised. Who said 16 doesn't equal 16?

You stated that I was misinterpreting the data when I simply posted the FBI numbers. I asked you to explain - you never did. Re-read what you just stated. The question was raised, and you posted an opinion that I was misinterpreting the data. Once again, you show that you lack the ability to read and comprehend.
BTW - I asked you a question several times yesterday -- you never answered, just ignored. Again, the question was raised, you just couldn't or wouldn't answer it.

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 02:02 PM

You stated that I was misinterpreting the data when I simply posted the FBI numbers.I said the all the data was correct and I wasnt going to fact-check you, did I not?

The question was raised, and you posted an opinion that I was misinterpreting the data.Here is the penultimate question: Assuming the data is 100% correct, are you suggesting that gun control doesn't/wont work because there were 150 murders with knives/hands/other in 2011?

OR

Are you suggesting that knife/hand control is something we should seriously examine?

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 02:13 PM

David88vert

04-12-2013, 02:31 PM

I said the all the data was correct and I wasnt going to fact-check you, did I not?

Here is the penultimate question: Assuming the data is 100% correct, are you suggesting that gun control doesn't/wont work because there were 150 murders with knives/hands/other in 2011?

OR

Are you suggesting that knife/hand control is something we should seriously examine?

I'm saying to look at the numbers, and use rational and logical thinking, rather than emotion, to write laws.

If you read the data, murders committed with a rifle as the tool of choice is consistently one of the lowest calculated numbers. You are far more likely to be killed via a handgun, but the current legislation is not addressing handguns, only rifles which are used far less in the commission of a murder than knives or baseball bats. Feinstein knows that she will not be able to restrict handgun ownership, knife ownership, or baseball bat ownership, and thus is not making public safety her top concern, as she is targeting the weapons that she feels that she can get a possible ban on, instead of focusing efforts and tax dollars on the appropriate concerns. This is not how we should be using Congressional efforts.

If public safety was really a top concern, assault style rifles would not be the focus. Instead, Congress would be focusing it's efforts to prevent individuals from utilizing any tool/weapon by addressing the source of the issue - individual people.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a lot of violence using assault style weapons. Gangster rap and video promoted the lifestyle of having firepower on you pretty much 24x7. I know, I lived through that period. Once Tupac and Biggie were murdered, the government targeted a lot of gangs, including the Bloods and Crips, and locked up a lot of them. Even here in Atlanta, the gang task force did raids on Buford Hwy. I witnessed this, you were still too young to know about it. Locking up a lot of these gang members did a lot to reduce the desire of young people to join these gangs, and once the daily dose of firearms being promoted on TV went away, you saw that young people just didn't think about wanting a gun as much.
If you want to have a lasting impact, you have to address the right place - the minds of people, not the tools that they use.

bu villain

04-12-2013, 03:28 PM

Democrats think its ok to dry up the gun market to reduce availability of guns to criminals. While i do not want guns in the hands of criminals, i dont want my access limited in any way at all to accomplish this task. But you're ok with just attacking the gun market as a whole to weaken criminal supply.

This basically sums up a major part of the debate and what blank was getting at with his single gun manufacturer scenario.

Question: can you limit the supply of guns to criminals without limiting the supply of guns to citizens?
Are you willing to limit the supply of guns to citizens to limit the supply of guns to criminals?
Do you think background checks will have any effect on the transfer of guns between criminals or is it simply part of limiting access overall?
How many years do you estimate it would take for guns to be rare in america?

Many people are fine with reducing the supply of guns to citizens in order to reduce the supply to criminals. The definition of rare is hard to define but I think many people would argue that as long as they became rarer over any time period, that would be a good thing. I'm not necessarily advocating that position but that is what I understand the logic to be.

Feinstein knows that she will not be able to restrict handgun ownership, knife ownership, or baseball bat ownership, and thus is not making public safety her top concern, as she is targeting the weapons that she feels that she can get a possible ban on, instead of focusing efforts and tax dollars on the appropriate concerns. This is not how we should be using Congressional efforts.

If public safety was really a top concern, assault style rifles would not be the focus. Instead, Congress would be focusing it's efforts to prevent individuals from utilizing any tool/weapon by addressing the source of the issue - individual people...If you want to have a lasting impact, you have to address the right place - the minds of people, not the tools that they use.

I totally agree with what you just stated David. Certain gun control efforts are not realistically possible so they will go after what they can, hence the focus on assault rifles. Neither side seems to be proposing much about how to address the people factor but quite simply, it's a very complicated and difficult issue to address. So instead, we are stuck with this focus on guns themselves which is secondary to the root issue. What would you suggest we do to address the people side of the issue?

David88vert

04-12-2013, 03:59 PM

This basically sums up a major part of the debate and what blank was getting at with his single gun manufacturer scenario.

Many people are fine with reducing the supply of guns to citizens in order to reduce the supply to criminals. The definition of rare is hard to define but I think many people would argue that as long as they became rarer over any time period, that would be a good thing. I'm not necessarily advocating that position but that is what I understand the logic to be.

It is an illogical concept to conclude that guns in the hands of criminals would dry up because you removed a few select rifles from legal citizens. History does not support that notion. It didn't even start to happen during the last 10 year ban, nor did handguns disappear in DC under their handgun ban. Criminals disregard the law. There is only irrational hope, not logic, to think that it would work. Countries that do have total firearms bans still have criminals with guns.

I totally agree with what you just stated David. Certain gun control efforts are not realistically possible so they will go after what they can, hence the focus on assault rifles. Neither side seems to be proposing much about how to address the people factor but quite simply, it's a very complicated and difficult issue to address. So instead, we are stuck with this focus on guns themselves which is secondary to the root issue. What would you suggest we do to address the people side of the issue?

The majority of people respond to reward and punishment, and the vast majority of these people are legal citizens. No matter what you do though, you cannot create a utopian society where everyone behaves in a positive manner. It's just not human nature. You will always have incidents where individuals take actions without the regard for other people's lives (or their own).

You can strengthen the punishment of individuals that use firearms, but that will not address the issue of those who do not have any care for their own lives (i.e. Lanza). These suicidal tendencies that they exhibit are not something that you can remove via the legislative process. Their issues have to be addressed at a local level, via bonding through friendships, finding hope for their future, establishment of goals, and having the realization that they have a responsibility to an authority, among many other possible positive reinforcements. Congress does not have the ability to address these very personal issues that some people have, nor should Congress be responsible for that level of interaction with individuals.

Society has experienced many horrific incidents throughout the past, and will continue to have them happen, no matter what legislative measures are passed. Removing an inanimate object from millions of law abiding citizens in a non-productive effort to prevent a few individuals from getting their hands on them is the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

bu villain

04-12-2013, 04:22 PM

It is an illogical concept to conclude that guns in the hands of criminals would dry up because you removed a few select rifles from legal citizens. History does not support that notion. It didn't even start to happen during the last 10 year ban, nor did handguns disappear in DC under their handgun ban. Criminals disregard the law. There is only irrational hope, not logic, to think that it would work. Countries that do have total firearms bans still have criminals with guns.

I agree with everything you are saying but I think you are oversimplifying the oppositions argument. Countries that have total firearms bans do still have gun crimes but they are much rarer than here.

I agree with pretty much everything you said but want to expand on these two sentences:

No matter what you do though, you cannot create a utopian society where everyone behaves in a positive manner. It's just not human nature.

I don't think anyone expects gun control laws to create a utopian society with no gun crime. However, they do expect they can create a society with a little LESS gun crime.

Congress does not have the ability to address these very personal issues that some people have, nor should Congress be responsible for that level of interaction with individuals.

I think you are right about the level at which Congress can help but I don't agree there is nothing they can do. For example, I think they could fund some studies that help to better understand the causes of gun crimes and mental instability. They could also support education and awareness programs to help identify warning signs of mental instability. There are also numerous other items I have discussed in this thread and in another that would help reduce gun crime that results from poverty and gang affiliation.

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 04:25 PM

It is an illogical concept to conclude that guns in the hands of criminals would dry up because you removed a few select rifles from legal citizens.How do you come to the conclusion that manipulating the supply of a commodity through policy is the same thing as removing that commodity from legal citizens?

History does not support that notion. It didn't even start to happen during the last 10 year ban, nor did handguns disappear in DC under their handgun ban. Criminals disregard the law. There is only irrational hope, not logic, to think that it would work. Countries that do have total firearms bans still have criminals with guns.
So we shouldn't adapt laws because criminals don't follow them?

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 04:37 PM

bu villain

04-12-2013, 04:38 PM

So we shouldn't adapt laws because criminals don't follow them?

I never understood that line of argument either. It's like saying we shouldn't have speed limits because people will still break them. The point of laws isn't to magically stop everyone from doing that action, it's so we can punish them when they do.

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 04:44 PM

I never understood that line of argument either. It's like saying we shouldn't have speed limits because people will still break them. The point of laws isn't to magically stop everyone from doing that action, it's so we can punish them when they do.

Imposing stricter laws on already law abiding citizens has no effect on criminals.

Punish criminals when they commit crimes with guns. "punish them when they do" and quit punishing me for no reason. Democrats dont care about criminals or safety.... they have a grand scheme of things and they will use any footing to keep their "master plan" on track. If america went the rest of the year without a single gun murder, democrats will still be trying to ban guns.

David88vert

04-12-2013, 04:47 PM

I agree with everything you are saying but I think you are oversimplifying the oppositions argument. Countries that have total firearms bans do still have gun crimes but they are much rarer than here.

You are talking about countries that started off with little to no individual gun ownership, and with less diversity and variety of culture than the US.

I agree with pretty much everything you said but want to expand on these two sentences:

I don't think anyone expects gun control laws to create a utopian society with no gun crime. However, they do expect they can create a society with a little LESS gun crime.

The FBI statistics show that the violent crime rate and the murder rate has been dropping for over 20 years. The expiration of the previous assault weapons ban did not cause the rate to rise, nor did its implementation have a measurable impact. You can look up these numbers, they are public.

I think you are right about the level at which Congress can help but I don't agree there is nothing they can do. For example, I think they could fund some studies that help to better understand the causes of gun crimes and mental instability. They could also support education and awareness programs to help identify warning signs of mental instability. There are also numerous other items I have discussed in this thread and in another that would help reduce gun crime that results from poverty and gang affiliation.

Funding these studies would take tax dollars from other programs, or would increase the deficit, with no guarantee of ROI. These projects are not clearly in the scope of the government's role in individual lives. There are many private think tanks and universities that would be better suited to enter this arena, and let the government focus on more pressing matters that would affect the majority of Americans lives.

David88vert

04-12-2013, 04:55 PM

How do you come to the conclusion that manipulating the supply of a commodity through policy is the same thing as removing that commodity from legal citizens?

So we shouldn't adapt laws because criminals don't follow them?

Feinstein's bill targets select rifles for a ban. Do you not understand this? Her goal is to remove these weapons - that is what she has stated numerous times. Restricting the manufacturing and importation of an item to specifically dry up that availability of that item (go look it up on her website) is removing that commodity from law abiding citizens. If you can't understand that, perhaps you should find a picture book, rather than attempt to participate in a political discussion.

Criminals don't follow the law - that is why they are criminals. Jeez....
Legislation is passed for ALL people within the jurisdiction of the legal system. Only the non-criminals adhere to it though.

bu villain

04-12-2013, 04:58 PM

Imposing stricter laws on already law abiding citizens has no effect on criminals.

Punish criminals when they commit crimes with guns. "punish them when they do" and quit punishing me for no reason.

Stricter laws would have an effect on them because they could be punished for violating those new laws. They can't be punished for breaking a non-existent law. For example, right now no private party can be punished for selling a gun to a felon because there is no law requiring them to check to see if that person is a felon.

David88vert

04-12-2013, 05:02 PM

Stricter laws would have an effect on them because they could be punished for violating those new laws. They can't be punished for breaking a non-existent law. For example, right now no private party can be punished for selling a gun to a felon because there is no law requiring them to check to see if that person is a felon.

While the seller is not breaking the law, the buyer is breaking the law if he is a felon buying a firearm. The crime is still being committed, and the person that should be punished (the one that knows that he is a felon) is still breaking a law that he can be punished for. Our current law still works.

Your proposal would take a person who is doing a completely legal thing - selling a firearm privately, and would turn them into a criminal.
The person selling the firearm has no legal right to look into the private history of the person purchasing the firearm.

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 05:04 PM

bu villain

04-12-2013, 05:06 PM

You are talking about countries that started off with little to no individual gun ownership, and with less diversity and variety of culture than the US.

The FBI statistics show that the violent crime rate and the murder rate has been dropping for over 20 years. The expiration of the previous assault weapons ban did not cause the rate to rise, nor did its implementation have a measurable impact. You can look up these numbers, they are public.

I agree that it is not 100% proven that banning guns would reduce gun crime but it doesn't seem like much of a stretch that it might reduce it just a little bit. I do agree that only banning assault rifles is pretty much pointless.

Funding these studies would take tax dollars from other programs, or would increase the deficit, with no guarantee of ROI. These projects are not clearly in the scope of the government's role in individual lives. There are many private think tanks and universities that would be better suited to enter this arena, and let the government focus on more pressing matters that would affect the majority of Americans lives.

I don't think no guarantee of ROI is a good reason not to do it. Sometimes you have to take chances and what I am proposing would be a tiny fraction of the budget. I mean less than a tenth of a percent. I think the work should be done primarily by private entities and universities, I am mostly talking about funding. If they were already making significant progress without government intervention I would say that is best but I'm not sure much of that is going on.

bu villain

04-12-2013, 05:11 PM

While the seller is not breaking the law, the buyer is breaking the law if he is a felon buying a firearm. The crime is still being committed, and the person that should be punished (the one that knows that he is a felon) is still breaking a law that he can be punished for. Our current law still works.

Your proposal would take a person who is doing a completely legal thing - selling a firearm privately, and would turn them into a criminal.
The person selling the firearm has no legal right to look into the private history of the person purchasing the firearm.

They would have the right to look into their private history if the law gave them that right.

So impose stricter punishments on felons for obtaining guns. Theyre willingly breaking the law when they attempt to purchase a gun.

If someone steals my car, you punish the car thief, you dont make it illegal to leave your doors unlocked.

You are both right in that I chose a bad example since it is already illegal for felons to buy a gun. But I don't think asking the public to take small actions that help prevent a crime from being committed is totally unreasonable.

David88vert

04-12-2013, 05:13 PM

I agree that it is not 100% proven that banning guns would reduce gun crime but it doesn't seem like much of a stretch that it might reduce it just a little bit. I do agree that only banning assault rifles is pretty much pointless.

I don't think no guarantee of ROI is a good reason not to do it. Sometimes you have to take chances and what I am proposing would be a tiny fraction of the budget. I mean less than a tenth of a percent. I think the work should be done primarily by private entities and universities, I am mostly talking about funding. If they were already making significant progress without government intervention I would say that is best but I'm not sure much of that is going on.

Where do we cut the funding from to give it to this new study? Something somewhere has to give. That's how it works in the real world. I deal with it everyday. There is a budget, and if you are already in the negative, you have to make cuts somewhere.

It's nice to say to fund it, but all studies run over budget, and the money is ultimately coming out of our pockets. How many people would it really affect? 3-4 shootings a year? 250 people affected per shooting? 1000 people? Congress should be looking to resolve issue that affect 80% of the people first, not 0.0008% first.

David88vert

04-12-2013, 05:16 PM

They would have the right to look into their private history if the law gave them that right.

You are both right in that I chose a bad example since it is already illegal for felons to buy a gun. But I don't think asking the public to take small actions that help prevent a crime from being committed is totally unreasonable.

When you sell a car, you are not required to verify that the buyer's drivers license is valid and has the correct information, nor that he has valid insurance, or any other private information.
When you sell a house, the buyer and seller are usually kept separate by attorneys and real estate agents. You do not have the obligation, responsibility, or privilege to verify income, residency, etc.

With all of the identity theft currently happening, it would be highly irresponsible of Congress to pass any law dictating that another individual be given the right to look into another's personal history.

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 05:16 PM

bu villain

04-12-2013, 05:29 PM

Where do we cut the funding from to give it to this new study? Something somewhere has to give. That's how it works in the real world. I deal with it everyday. There is a budget, and if you are already in the negative, you have to make cuts somewhere.

It's nice to say to fund it, but all studies run over budget, and the money is ultimately coming out of our pockets. How many people would it really affect? 3-4 shootings a year? 250 people affected per shooting? 1000 people? Congress should be looking to resolve issue that affect 80% of the people first, not 0.0008% first.

I think everyone in here would agree our budget is already rather bloated so there are dozens of places I would gladly cut and redirect the money towards this. The things I am proposing would help against all gun crime, not just the relatively rare mass shootings from crazy people.

When you sell a car, you are not required to verify that the buyer's drivers license is valid and has the correct information, nor that he has valid insurance, or any other private information.
When you sell a house, the buyer and seller are usually kept separate by attorneys and real estate agents. You do not have the obligation, responsibility, or privilege to verify income, residency, etc.

With all of the identity theft currently happening, it would be highly irresponsible of Congress to pass any law dictating that another individual be given the right to look into another's personal history.

I don't see why guns should have to be treated the same way home and car purchases are. We already have a law that says gun dealers have to run a background check so I think that is a better place for comparison than home or cars sales. Your point about identity theft is a valid concern although I think it's fairly easy to get around. You could simply call a cop to come check out the buyers credentials similar to how you have to have a cop come check the vin number of an old car you buy with no title to make sure it isn't stolen before you can register it.

Ok, its illegal for felons to buy guns...... get out there and start enforcing that law. Case closed.

No one is saying we shouldn't enforce that law.

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 05:36 PM

No one is saying we shouldn't enforce that law.

but rather than focusing on enforcing that existing law..... it's better to create 100 new ways for normal law abiding citizens to be labeled criminals?

I will be a criminal when/if these laws take effect.

bu villain

04-12-2013, 05:39 PM

but rather than focusing on enforcing that existing law..... it's better to create 100 new ways for normal law abiding citizens to be labeled criminals?

No, a law like background checks would help to enforce the existing law since we could catch felons trying to buy guns from individuals. I would certainly not support 100 new laws but maybe 1 or 2. Also, calling law abiding citizens criminals is an oxymoron. You either are a criminal or a law abiding citizen, you can't be both.

David88vert

04-12-2013, 05:45 PM

I think everyone in here would agree our budget is already rather bloated so there are dozens of places I would gladly cut and redirect the money towards this. The things I am proposing would help against all gun crime, not just the relatively rare mass shootings from crazy people.

I don't see why guns should have to be treated the same way home and car purchases are. We already have a law that says gun dealers have to run a background check so I think that is a better place for comparison than home or cars sales. Your point about identity theft is a valid concern although I think it's fairly easy to get around. You could simply call a cop to come check out the buyers credentials similar to how you have to have a cop come check the vin number of an old car you buy with no title to make sure it isn't stolen before you can register it.

Get Congress and Obama to cut their spending in half and you might be able to find a few dollars for a study. Good luck with that.
The Democrats might try to use guns on you if you try to take away tax revenue from them....

Guns, homes, and cars are all private property, and individual sales of legal private property is generally outside of the scope of the federal government.
in your scenario, the buyer is asking the local authorities to help him protect himself by checking into the validity of an item, not a person's history. In the scenario of selling a firearm, the seller would be asking the police to research a the buyer's history. Big difference.
Even FFL dealers don't get history on their buyers. They simply get an approval or rejection on the applicant.

The only possible way that a regulation of private sales would work, is if all sales were conducted at FFL dealers, and all FFL dealers were either compensated for their time, or were forced to provide the service at their own cost (time is money).
There would still be plenty of people who would sell outside the system though.

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 06:37 PM

Feinstein's bill targets select rifles for a ban. Do you not understand this? Her goal is to remove these weapons - that is what she has stated numerous times. Restricting the manufacturing and importation of an item to specifically dry up that availability of that item (go look it up on her website) is removing that commodity from law abiding citizens. If you can't understand that, perhaps you should find a picture book, rather than attempt to participate in a political discussion.
Lets see if I can explain this to you any simpler again...

Is it possible Feinstein is playing a political game to move the discussion to the center by pretending to want to "remove" assault weapons? A shred of possibility?

Manipulating the supply of a commodity through policy DOES NOT = removing that commodity from law abiding citizens. It would be best if you just agree now and said "ohhhhhh" before I give you an example of this happening right under your nose as we speak and make you look like a fool again. There is no debate about this, this is an indisputable fact.

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 06:42 PM

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 06:49 PM

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 06:53 PM

Should i have to have the FDA inspect my thanksgiving dinner?

They already do.

And when you go out to eat, they do it there too.

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 07:02 PM

They already do.

And when you go out to eat, they do it there too.

Really, so if i step outside, shoot a pig with an AR15 and bbq it, that's FDA inspected?

Should i be arrested for serving BBQ to my friends?

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 07:11 PM

NRA500 this weekend..... america as it should be.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/1b/e8/1be8fc2f3131137571fd516ae537798c.jpg?itok=3g3GKJRd

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 07:26 PM

Really, so if i step outside, shoot a pig with an AR15 and bbq it, that's FDA inspected?

Should i be arrested for serving BBQ to my friends?

Depends....

Are we switching the conversation over to hand-made weapons?

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 07:29 PM

Depends....

Are we switching the conversation over to hand-made weapons?

Nope... still talking about the private endeavors of citizens in private.... though i suspect we will reach that topic at some point.

The FDA regulates what a restaurant sells to people, does that mean they should regulate the food i serve to my family in private also? Should i have to keep a temperature holding log for the leftovers in my fridge?.... you know.... because a business does.

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 07:55 PM

Nope... still talking about the private endeavors of citizens in private.... though i suspect we will reach that topic at some point.You're talking about making your own food in your own home, right? Thats a private endeavor, right? Is that not analogous to making your own gun at home?

The FDA regulates what a restaurant sells to people, does that mean they should regulate the food i serve to my family in private also? Should i have to keep a temperature holding log for the leftovers in my fridge?.... you know.... because a business does.If you sell food to the public, yes. You should. Lol.

If you build your own car and sell them to the public, you have to have a license too

So how are guns different?

The FDA regulates the food you buy and make in your home too. Do you know what the purpose of the FDA is?

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 08:00 PM

You're talking about making your own food in your own home, right? Thats a private endeavor, right? Is that not analogous to making your own gun at home?

If you sell food to the public, yes. You should. Lol.

If you build your own car and sell them to the public, you have to have a license too

So how are guns different?

The FDA regulates the food you buy and make in your home too. Do you know what the purpose of the FDA is?

Is there any area of your life that you do not wish the government to be a part of?

David88vert

04-12-2013, 08:13 PM

Is it possible Feinstein is playing a political game to move the discussion to the center by pretending to want to "remove" assault weapons? A shred of possibility?

No. Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons)
Like I said, I've lived through this before. She is promoting the bill exactly how she wants it. Read the 1994 bill as well.

Manipulating the supply of a commodity through policy DOES NOT = removing that commodity from law abiding citizens. It would be best if you just agree now and said "ohhhhhh" before I give you an example of this happening right under your nose as we speak and make you look like a fool again. There is no debate about this, this is an indisputable fact.

You keep making statements like these, but you never come through..... you are just talk....

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 08:15 PM

Is there any area of your life that you do not wish the government to be a part of?

A lot of stuff actually.

I don't see the harm in the government having some regulatory oversight on some things as long as its in the public interest. Roads, education, food, drugs, businesses that take the money I earn, businesses that hold all the money I earn. Etc. etc....

David88vert

04-12-2013, 08:20 PM

It sort of works until that felon goes and shoots someone. OR you could prevent the sale from happening. Dealers are required to check, there's absolutely zero reason private sales shouldn't be held to the same standard.

No, it would not. A responsible law abiding citizen would follow the new law. A responsible citizen should be doing this anyway.

Dealers have a system in place that allows them to quickly get an approval or rejection right there on the spot. They are a business with a license, doing volumes of sales. Individuals do not have a system like that in place, nor is there any proposal or plan being made to give that access to private individuals, outside of them having to go to a FFL dealer and have the dealer do the request.

Your lack of common sense and critical thinking is amazing.

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 08:22 PM

No. Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons)
Like I said, I've lived through this before. She is promoting the bill exactly how she wants it. Read the 1994 bill as well., I've seen that bill, I understand you lived through it and that you believe I was a baby during 94. That's fine.

Since you have living experience of the past bill, answer me this: After the passage of this bill in 94, did the United States turn into WW2 era Nazi Germany?

You keep making statements like these, but you never come through..... you are just talk....

That's because I'm hoping you're smart enough to figure it out. Either that, or you backpedal into something else when you realize you're misinformed. Please be smart enough to figure this out on your own. Should I draw you a picture?

David88vert

04-12-2013, 08:23 PM

You're talking about making your own food in your own home, right? Thats a private endeavor, right? Is that not analogous to making your own gun at home?

If you sell food to the public, yes. You should. Lol.

If you build your own car and sell them to the public, you have to have a license too

So how are guns different?

The FDA regulates the food you buy and make in your home too. Do you know what the purpose of the FDA is?

Gun manufacturers do have to be licensed, and are regulated. No one has said that they shouldn't be.

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 08:25 PM

Dealers have a system in place that allows them to quickly get an approval or rejection right there on the spot. They are a business with a license, doing volumes of sales. Individuals do not have a system like that in place, nor is there any proposal or plan being made to give that access to private individuals, outside of them having to go to a FFL dealer and have the dealer do the request.
So, if the public gets universal background checks through, do you think maybe THEN a system would be developed to implement it?

Do you believe there is not a rudimentary version of this system in place?

AND if such a system were developed, do you think it would have an impact on the sales of guns to criminals?

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 08:27 PM

Sinfix was suggesting they shouldn't.

David88vert

04-12-2013, 08:28 PM

, I've seen that bill, I understand you lived through it and that you believe I was a baby during 94. That's fine.
Since you have living experience of the past bill, answer me this: After the passage of this bill in 94, did the United States turn into WW2 era Nazi Germany?

Absolutely not. It did not do anything positive or negative in making us safer OR leading to a loss of other freedoms. It did lead to discussion on the possibility of banning handguns though. There was not enough support for that. It also lead to repeated endeavors by Feinstein to try to make it a permanent ban, rather than just 10 years. She failed to extend the ban, but this time she is proposing to not have a time limit on the ban. That means no voting again in 10 years to see if it is working or not. Why not just propose another 10 year trial run?

You may not have been around during the last ban, but your parents were. You can discuss it with your father, and get his insights.

That's because I'm hoping you're smart enough to figure it out. Either that, or you backpedal into something else when you realize you're misinformed. Please be smart enough to figure this out on your own. Should I draw you a picture?

As I've said many times, please do.....
I ask you to explain things, and you just ignore them - see yesterday's posts, and the day before, and the day before that....

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 08:33 PM

Sinfix was suggesting they shouldn't.

Regulated in terms of their product being safe to use. Not responsible for the misuse of criminals.

Smith and wesson should be regulated so that they do not make a gun that blows up in my hand. They shouldnt be responsible for criminal activity.

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 08:34 PM

Also, im still waiting for this conclusive data that less guns equals less crime?

David88vert

04-12-2013, 08:35 PM

So, if the public gets universal background checks through, do you think maybe THEN a system would be developed to implement it?

It's possible. It would take funding. Who knows, I might even get called in to help design it.

Do you believe there is not a rudimentary version of this system in place?

If you are referring to the FFL dealers system, then yes, it is a rudimentary version. It is hardly ready for general public use though.

AND if such a system were developed, do you think it would have an impact on the sales of guns to criminals?

Not really. Criminals will always find ways to get what they want.

Answer me this - If we passed Feinstein's bill as she proposes it currently, how much of a reduction in murders by these weapons would we see in GA? Remember, we are starting with an average number of 17 murders committed per year with rifles overall from 2004-2011. What number of these 17 per year do you think would not be murdered by other means?

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 08:36 PM

Absolutely not. It did not do anything positive or negative in making us safer OR leading to a loss of other freedoms. It did lead to discussion on the possibility of banning handguns though. There was not enough support for that. It also lead to repeated endeavors by Feinstein to try to make it a permanent ban, rather than just 10 years. She failed to extend the ban, but this time she is proposing to not have a time limit on the ban. That means no voting again in 10 years to see if it is working or not. Why not just propose another 10 year trial run?Negotiating. Is this possible?

As I've said many times, please do.....
I ask you to explain things, and you just ignore them - see yesterday's posts, and the day before, and the day before that....

I'll give you a hint, the government manipulates this commodity all the time through policy. You posses this commodity right now. There wont be a time where you cant get this, You can go get as much of it as you want, or as much as you have. It's very dry, it's not always wet, but it can be liquid....

David88vert

04-12-2013, 08:42 PM

Negotiating. Is this possible?

I'll give you a hint, the government manipulates this commodity all the time through policy. You posses this commodity right now. There wont be a time where you cant get this, You can go get as much of it as you want, or as much as you have. It's very dry, it's not always wet, but it can be liquid....

Negotiation is not only possible, it's an every day thing in Congress. That's doesn't mean that she isn't going to fight to pass the same bill that she proposed. She is not currently saying that she is open to any negotiation (although we both can agree that she is). She proposed the bill the way that it is stated, because she wants the bill passed that way, and she thought that with Sandy Hook, she might have a chance to get it passed this way.

"Hints"? Just man up and say what you mean. Little kids play guessing games.

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 08:45 PM

Not really. Criminals will always find ways to get what they want.Possibly, but then they'd have one less channel to acquire a gun through

Answer me this - If we passed Feinstein's bill as she proposes it currently, how much of a reduction in murders by these weapons would we see in GA? Remember, we are starting with an average number of 17 murders committed per year with rifles overall from 2004-2011. What number of these 17 per year do you think would not be murdered by other means?Maybe 1 in GA, maybe 10. But if we're talking about a federal bill, does that not include all 50 states? If there's an average of 10-15 murders by rifle/year, and we reduced it by an average of 1-10, could that not be 50-500 preventable murders by a rifle?

And lets say they want to do it through other means, assault rifle control is not the only method of gun control that's being examined.

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 08:49 PM

Negotiation is not only possible, it's an every day thing in Congress. That's doesn't mean that she isn't going to fight to pass the same bill that she proposed. She is not currently saying that she is open to any negotiation (although we both can agree that she is). She proposed the bill the way that it is stated, because she wants the bill passed that way, and she thought that with Sandy Hook, she might have a chance to get it passed this way.So if you're a republican against gun control for whatever reason, and she holds firm to this bill, and it looks like its gaining some traction, are you more or less likely to say "well, hey, lets talk about this, maybe we can look into doing another 10 year run..."

"Hints"? Just man up and say what you mean. Little kids play guessing games.Grown men know the answer.

Sinfix_15

04-12-2013, 08:51 PM

Possibly, but then they'd have one less channel to acquire a gun through

Maybe 1 in GA, maybe 10. But if we're talking about a federal bill, does that not include all 50 states? If there's an average of 10-15 murders by rifle/year, and we reduced it by an average of 1-10, could that not be 50-500 preventable murders by a rifle?

And lets say they want to do it through other means, assault rifle control is not the only method of gun control that's being examined.

So what happens when otherwise law abiding citizens who acquired guns legally through the system via passing a background check decide to kill someone with a gun?

Then for your next round of legislation, you now have a database of gun owners.

David88vert

04-12-2013, 08:58 PM

Possibly, but then they'd have one less channel to acquire a gun through

Maybe 1 in GA, maybe 10. But if we're talking about a federal bill, does that not include all 50 states? If there's an average of 10-15 murders by rifle/year, and we reduced it by an average of 1-10, could that not be 50-500 preventable murders by a rifle?

And lets say they want to do it through other means, assault rifle control is not the only method of gun control that's being examined.

Total in the US by rifle, including DC and the VI, averages just over 300 per year for ALL rifles (not just assault style rifles), so it's highly unlikely that you will save many. If someone wants someone dead, their first choice of weapon is not as assault-style rifle. The FBI statistics are very clear on this.
Feinstein's bill targets just these rifles - the least likely weapons to be used to commit murder. it does not cover handguns, knives, baseball bats, etc.

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 08:58 PM

So what happens when otherwise law abiding citizens who acquired guns legally through the system via passing a background check decide to kill someone with a gun?

I'm pretty sure there's already a law in place that everyone agrees with for this scenario.

David88vert

04-12-2013, 09:00 PM

So if you're a republican against gun control for whatever reason, and she holds firm to this bill, and it looks like its gaining some traction, are you more or less likely to say "well, hey, lets talk about this, maybe we can look into doing another 10 year run..."

Grown men know the answer.

No, Republicans will stand on their party lines and nothing will get done. The 112th Congress has been the most ineffectual Congress since the 1940s, what makes you think it will change for this one bill, which is highly partisan?

Again, you play word games, like a child.... Grow a pair, speak your mind, and stick to your.... oh wait, you don't have any, Feinstein already got yours.....

David88vert

04-12-2013, 09:01 PM

I'm pretty sure there's already a law in place that everyone agrees with for this scenario.

But it could be prevented if we just banned all guns, right?

.blank cd

04-12-2013, 09:40 PM

No, Republicans will stand on their party lines and nothing will get done. The 112th Congress has been the most ineffectual Congress since the 1940s, what makes you think it will change for this one bill, which is highly partisan?Wasn't a yes or no question. More likely or less likely to compromise?

Again, you play word games, like a child.... Grow a pair, speak your mind, and stick to your.... oh wait, you don't have any, Feinstein already got yours.....Feinstein has nothing of mine of value. I haven't offered an opinion either way, whether I agree with an assault weapon restriction or not.

Money. The answer is money.

David88vert

04-12-2013, 10:29 PM

Wasn't a yes or no question. More likely or less likely to compromise?

Feinstein has nothing of mine of value. I haven't offered an opinion either way, whether I agree with an assault weapon restriction or not.

Money. The answer is money.

You want to know how this will play out? I'll explain the compromises being made right now, and how I predict it will end.

The new Toomey/Manchin language on background checks will replace the current language, and we will hear about a bi-partisan compromise.
Harry Reid will call for a cloture vote on the bill with the new language. he'll get just enough votes for it.
Reid will then bring up Feinstein's ban on the assault style weapons, and on the high capacity magazines, as amendments with the background check language.
The amendments on the assault style weapons and magazines will fail to pass the votes, allowing Republicans and moderate Dems in gun-friendly states to go home and say that they voted against gun control - and thus, keep their seats in the Senate later. Reid has already planned this.
Finally, Reid will bring the background check language to the floor for a vote. This is to put Senate Republicans that are strongly against the bill in a tough position. It's all political posturing.
Reid will need to get 5 Republicans to side with him, so expect debate. If it passes, it will be by a very thin margin.
Then it heads to the House, and the House Republicans will kill it, thus, wasting our time.

That's your compromise.
Write it down, see how it plays out.

Sinfix_15

04-14-2013, 07:34 PM

Florida fourth graders allegedly told to write down desire to give up constitutional rights (http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/04/14/florida-fourth-graders-allegedly-told-to-write-down-desire-to-give-up-constitutional-rights/)

Apex1972

04-15-2013, 11:32 AM

Almost every car crash fatality happens with a licensed driver. We dont need cars capable of inflicting the carnage that they do. We dont need cars that go the speeds that they go. I understand that racing is part of our history and something that you enjoy..... but race cars are dangerous. With these cars being made available to the public there's no way of keeping them away from people who intend to abuse them. If 1 life can be saved, then it needs to be done.

This thread makes no fucking sense. And to the OP, this actually sounds like the kind of thing Obama WOULD support. kinda seems contradicting that you would post something like this as an anti-Obama person you claim to be.

Echonova

04-15-2013, 03:18 PM

This thread makes no fucking sense. And to the OP, this actually sounds like the kind of thing Obama WOULD support. kinda seems contradicting that you would post something like this as an anti-Obama person you claim to be.Pretty sure that's the point. We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms... Not to drive. One of these things kills far more people than the other each year, but nobody ever says a word about banning them... Why?

Convenience. No other reason.

Keep the cattle happy and they will walk to the slaughter house.

~insert trollface.jpg~

bu villain

04-15-2013, 03:19 PM

Get Congress and Obama to cut their spending in half and you might be able to find a few dollars for a study. Good luck with that.
The Democrats might try to use guns on you if you try to take away tax revenue from them....

The topic of our overall budget is really another topic. Let's not get into it here. The suggestion is a tiny sum compared to the current budget (or even half the budget as you propose) so it's hardly a significant reason not to do it.

Guns, homes, and cars are all private property, and individual sales of legal private property is generally outside of the scope of the federal government.
in your scenario, the buyer is asking the local authorities to help him protect himself by checking into the validity of an item, not a person's history. In the scenario of selling a firearm, the seller would be asking the police to research a the buyer's history. Big difference.
Even FFL dealers don't get history on their buyers. They simply get an approval or rejection on the applicant.

The only possible way that a regulation of private sales would work, is if all sales were conducted at FFL dealers, and all FFL dealers were either compensated for their time, or were forced to provide the service at their own cost (time is money).
There would still be plenty of people who would sell outside the system though.

So why can't private individuals get a rejection or approval similar to dealers. I understand the system isn't set up that way right now but why would it be so hard to have private citizens run a similar check with the help of local LEOs? Of course some people would sell outside the system but I don't see how that is particularly relevant. If a law exists, someone probably has broken it. It doesn't diminish the value of having a law.

bu villain

04-15-2013, 03:22 PM

Pretty sure that's the point. We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms... Not to drive. One of these things kills far more people than the other each year, but nobody ever says a word about banning them... Why?

Convenience. No other reason.

Keep the cattle happy and they will walk to the slaughter house.

Acutally I don't think it is convenience per se. It is perceived value. Just about everyone agrees cars provide immense value compared to their danger to our society. There is not a similar agreement to the value of guns in our society.

.blank cd

04-15-2013, 03:26 PM

Pretty sure that's the point. We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms... Not to drive. One of these things kills far more people than the other each year, but nobody ever says a word about banning them... Why?

Convenience. No other reason.

Keep the cattle happy and they will walk to the slaughter house.
Because something is already being done about death from vehicle accidents.

Echonova

04-15-2013, 03:26 PM

If we can save just one life... Changing the laws will be worth it.

Echonova

04-15-2013, 03:28 PM

How many people died from horse and buggy accidents last year? Exactly.

Nobody is wanting to deny you transportation... Just take a safer and more responsible approach to it.

.blank cd

04-15-2013, 03:29 PM

How many people died from horse and buggy accidents last year? Exactly.

Nobody is wanting to deny you transportation... Just take a safer and more responsible approach to it.

And nobody is wanting to deny you the right to bear arms either

Echonova

04-15-2013, 03:29 PM

It's for the greater good. Think of how much smaller your carbon footprint will be. We can stop deaths and global warming at the same time.

At the same damn time.

At the same damn time.

Echonova

04-15-2013, 03:30 PM

And nobody is wanting to deny you the right to bear arms eitherI never claimed they were.

Echonova

04-15-2013, 03:31 PM

BRB.

Ran out of bourbon. Gotta drive to the store.

David88vert

04-15-2013, 03:53 PM

The topic of our overall budget is really another topic. Let's not get into it here. The suggestion is a tiny sum compared to the current budget (or even half the budget as you propose) so it's hardly a significant reason not to do it.

So why can't private individuals get a rejection or approval similar to dealers. I understand the system isn't set up that way right now but why would it be so hard to have private citizens run a similar check with the help of local LEOs? Of course some people would sell outside the system but I don't see how that is particularly relevant. If a law exists, someone probably has broken it. It doesn't diminish the value of having a law.

The budget is relevant. It's relevant every time that you want to spend money.
Every time that government takes tax more tax money for projects, the government is proclaiming that individuals do not know how to spend their money correctly and efficiently, and that the government agencies can do so better. For large infrastructure projects, that is true, of course, but not for projects that will only directly affect a small portion of the population. You have to address the needs of the many, before you address the needs of a few individuals. A study that can be done without the government's involvement should be done without the government's involvement.
The whole "it's not much money thing" is what has us spending a deficit amount each year. Pork barrel spending, projects that only benefit a few select individuals, etc, should not fall under the federal budget without extreme scrutiny prior to approval, and we don't see that level of accountability with Congress.

The current background check system is setup for FFL dealers - not for mass checks from many individuals. Do you realize the size of the databases needed to handle that many private gun sales? Do you understand what it takes just to setup the environment for a project like that? I do - I design enterprise applications that deal with large numbers of customers. As for going to LEOs and having them do it, how do you plan to have LEOs do their current jobs, as they are pretty overworked in many areas lately, and you are talking about giving them a LOT more work. You would need to have every law enforcement agency hire a lot more officers just to handle this work. Don't believe it? Well, here are the numbers to consider.
The figures show that there have been 16,808,538 applications in 2012 just up to the end of November - I don't have December numbers. Remember, these are just the applicants at FFL dealers - not private sales. The background check system that FFL dealers use has received 156,577,260 applications since 1998, up to Nov of 2012. Of those, rejections based upon "convicted of a crime" is responsible for 58.65% of the 976,255 denials under the FFL dealer background check system. Georgia alone had 386,562 applications between Jan 2012 and Nov 2012.
We will need either a robust automated background check system open to the public's use, or a lot more officers. Either will cost a lot of money - and that money has to come from somewhere - its not free.

And as to if it would work? The City of New York commissioned an investigation of Internet gun sales. The report said on 10 websites, it found over 25,000 weapons for sale. The report said that over 60 percent of sellers allowed a purchase to move forward even when the alleged buyer said he didn’t believe he would pass a background check. Sellers who used Craigslist were most likely to violate the law, the report said.

Read more: Number Of Guns Sold In US Each Year - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/number-of-guns-sold-in-us-each-year-2012-12#ixzz2QYwGdmVg)

Now, I'm going to assume that you've been influenced by Bloomberg, Obama, and Biden's comments that 40% of gun purchases are private sales, as that seems to be the talking point out of the Democratic Party right now. Well, get ready .... it's not accurate, and is a completely made up number. Both Biden and Obama admitted that they didn't know.
Read up and learn the truth: FactCheck.org : Guns Acquired Without Background Checks (http://factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/)

The truth is that we don't know how many private sales there are, and nothing you can do will force everyone to do a background check for a private sale. These guns are not listed in a national database, so you have no way to crosscheck to see if the person selling them should be, or the person buying them should be. Unless you pass a new Amendment repealing the Second Amendment, you will always have the issue that we currently have.

Passing a law just to pass a law is poor judgment on legislation.

David88vert

04-15-2013, 03:56 PM

Acutally I don't think it is convenience per se. It is perceived value. Just about everyone agrees cars provide immense value compared to their danger to our society. There is not a similar agreement to the value of guns in our society.

I agree.
People that do not use something tend not to value it as highly as those that do.
Congress currently places a very low value on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

David88vert

04-15-2013, 04:01 PM

Because something is already being done about death from vehicle accidents.

Correct. Auto accident deaths are much lower than in the 1970s. The safety devices that have become mandatory were not passed though based upon emotions. A lot of research went into developing devices to improve safety, then legislated into being mandatory.
No one is suggesting new safety features for guns, just a ban on making or importing the firearms that have the lowest numbers of murders.

David88vert

04-15-2013, 04:03 PM

How many people died from horse and buggy accidents last year? Exactly.

Galveston police ID victims of fatal horse-drawn carriage accident - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Galveston-police-ID-victims-of-fatal-horse-drawn-3728181.php)

David88vert

04-15-2013, 04:11 PM

And nobody is wanting to deny you the right to bear arms either

Senator Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995

.blank cd

04-15-2013, 04:24 PM

Senator Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995

If Feinstein's ban literally meant the complete prohibition and abolishment of anything other than a handgun and a hunting rifle, and it somehow passed, does that mean she wants to take away the right to bear arms and thus the ability to defend yourself?

David88vert

04-15-2013, 05:07 PM

bu villain

04-15-2013, 05:08 PM

The budget is relevant. It's relevant every time that you want to spend money.
Every time that government takes tax more tax money for projects, the government is proclaiming that individuals do not know how to spend their money correctly and efficiently, and that the government agencies can do so better. For large infrastructure projects, that is true, of course, but not for projects that will only directly affect a small portion of the population. You have to address the needs of the many, before you address the needs of a few individuals. A study that can be done without the government's involvement should be done without the government's involvement.
The whole "it's not much money thing" is what has us spending a deficit amount each year. Pork barrel spending, projects that only benefit a few select individuals, etc, should not fall under the federal budget without extreme scrutiny prior to approval, and we don't see that level of accountability with Congress.

First of all, I don't agree that government spending is based on them knowing how to spend the money better than individuals. I think it is based on spending that is either too big to be performed by individuals (e.g., infrastructure) or that market forces do not value often due to unknown ROI (e.g., studies of this nature or common goods that do not have a direct way to extract monetary profits). If the private sector was already performing lots of studies on gun violence then I would see no need for the government to incentivize it with funding but the fact is we don't have a lot of information on the causes and effects of gun violence so how are we to legislate (or not) when the information to make such decisions is so lacking? There has been active lobbying against such studies because those who make money off weapons are afraid what the conclusions might be. Of course I wouldn't recommend a defense sized budget for such studies but what I am trying to get across is that we should decide what value is being provided by such studies first before we start arguing about the cost. One step at a time.

The current background check system is setup for FFL dealers - not for mass checks from many individuals. Do you realize the size of the databases needed to handle that many private gun sales? Do you understand what it takes just to setup the environment for a project like that?...

I think you make a good point on how many transactions there are so that would be a big burden on LEOs and I concede you know more about FFL dealer system than I do. However, I do not accept that just because the current environment does not easily translate into private sales checks that it is a technologically unfeasible. We don't need a database that records all transactions, all it needs to do is basically be a black list of names similar to a no-fly list. It could have a simple webpage interface where you put in some basic info and it gives a thumbs up or thumbs down. We can argue about whether the seller should do it, a LEO, or a gun store for a fee but that's secondary until we can agree on the general idea. No, it would not stop all sales to felons but it could be a tool to stop citizens from inadvertently selling guns to criminals. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, I'm going to assume that you've been influenced by Bloomberg, Obama, and Biden's comments that 40% of gun purchases are private sales, as that seems to be the talking point out of the Democratic Party right now....

Why would you assume that? Private sales are not tracked, so how could you tally them? Seems obvious to me that the 40% number is at best a guess.

Sinfix_15

04-15-2013, 05:08 PM

And nobody is wanting to deny you the right to bear arms either

http://australianclimatemadness.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/horse_shit1.jpg

Sinfix_15

04-15-2013, 05:12 PM

If Feinstein's ban literally meant the complete prohibition and abolishment of anything other than a handgun and a hunting rifle, and it somehow passed, does that mean she wants to take away the right to bear arms and thus the ability to defend yourself?

So i should accept this bill because it leaves me with a pistol, but takes away the "arms" that would be used to prevent them from coming back for said pistol?

Democrats wont stop until guns are gone. Every measure, however large or small, is just a step towards their final goal.

If it was about safety.... they wouldnt be coming after "assault rifles"........ the least used gun in criminal activity but the most effective gun at resisting tyranny. Yeah, these politicians are thinking about safety...... their own safety.

I dont trust a government who doesnt trust me with a gun. Molon Labe

.blank cd

04-15-2013, 05:15 PM

http://australianclimatemadness.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/horse_shit1.jpg

Is someone wanting to deny you the right to bear arms?

Sinfix_15

04-15-2013, 05:17 PM

Is someone wanting to deny you the right to bear arms?

Yeah, a majority of the democratic party, the UN, the liberal media and blue states.

Almost forgot..... King Obama.

bu villain

04-15-2013, 05:19 PM

Democrats wont stop until guns are gone. Every measure, however large or small, is just a step towards their final goal.

Please stop with the gross over generalizations. It really doesn't help the debate at all. Does Diane Feinstein want to get rid of all guns? Sure. But that doesn't mean all democrats do.

.blank cd

04-15-2013, 05:22 PM

So i should accept this bill because it leaves me with a pistol, but takes away the "arms" that would be used to prevent them from coming back for said pistol?

I'm confused. On one hand, people say assault weapons are no more dangerous than a hunting rifle, on the other hand, people are saying they're essential for suppressing a tyrannical government, which unquestionably requires a REALLY large amount of firepower. So are they or are they not more powerful than a rifle?

Echonova

04-15-2013, 05:22 PM

Galveston police ID victims of fatal horse-drawn carriage accident - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Galveston-police-ID-victims-of-fatal-horse-drawn-3728181.php)Now compare those numbers vs auto accidents... You can even do it per capita if you would like.

On a side note: Why is bourbon so tasty? Laws should be passed to prevent the tragedy that just occurred from happening again.

David88vert

04-15-2013, 05:34 PM

First of all,... One step at a time.

I think you make a good point on how many transactions .... Nothing more, nothing less.

Why would you assume that? Private sales are not tracked, so how could you tally them? Seems obvious to me that the 40% number is at best a guess.

There are liberal think tanks and universities, as well as the FBI, ATF, and DOJ, that constantly study crime and guns. We do not need the government to finance more studies that do not have any real chance of making changes. Let private groups come back with recommendations, then limit studies to specific possible improvements.

There will be no black list on guns, and the no-fly list is more than just an approval or rejection. No software database is built on this scale without running a history of transactions (every request is a transaction), and there are many business intelligence programs that are utilized to generate active reports. Once of these is COGNOS, which is an IBM product, and is specifically designed to query giant databases to generate drill-down reports. Do you think that the government would only request that the database not keep history tables? Anyone approved for a purchase would be searchable in the database, and there you would have the beginnings of a simple registry list.

I assumed that you would have heard Obama's or Biden's speeches, considering how the media has published summaries of them, along with the quotes.

David88vert

04-15-2013, 05:36 PM

I'm confused. On one hand, people say assault weapons are no more dangerous than a hunting rifle, on the other hand, people are saying they're essential for suppressing a tyrannical government, which unquestionably requires a REALLY large amount of firepower. So are they or are they not more powerful than a rifle?

An assault style is a rifle, as is a hunting rifle. Both are just tools, and are only as dangerous as the person who wields them. if that was not true, we would need to disarm our soldiers and police as well.

David88vert

04-15-2013, 05:37 PM

Now compare those numbers vs auto accidents... You can even do it per capita if you would like.

If we could save just one life ...

Sinfix_15

04-15-2013, 05:40 PM

I'm confused. On one hand, people say assault weapons are no more dangerous than a hunting rifle, on the other hand, people are saying they're essential for suppressing a tyrannical government, which unquestionably requires a REALLY large amount of firepower. So are they or are they not more powerful than a rifle?

It doesnt matter if they are or are not more powerful than a hunting rifle. A gun only does what it's commanded to do. I could have an f15 fighter jet armed with nuclear bombs.... and im not as dangerous as a street thug with a box cutter.

.blank cd

04-15-2013, 05:42 PM

It doesnt matter if they are or are not more powerful than a hunting rifle. A gun only does what it's commanded to do. I could have an f15 fighter jet armed with nuclear bombs.... and im not as dangerous as a street thug with a box cutter.

So if it doesn't matter how powerful they are, I can just as easily defeat a tyrannical government with a hunting rifle as I could with an AR-15, am I wrong?

David88vert

04-15-2013, 05:51 PM

So if it doesn't matter how powerful they are, I can just as easily defeat a tyrannical government with a hunting rifle as I could with an AR-15, am I wrong?

Our founding fathers with their hunting rifles managed to defeat the British Army under the control of a tyrannical king....

Sinfix_15

04-15-2013, 05:52 PM

So if it doesn't matter how powerful they are, I can just as easily defeat a tyrannical government with a hunting rifle as I could with an AR-15, am I wrong?

An AR15 is a hunting rifle.

Sinfix_15

04-15-2013, 05:55 PM

Evil doesnt need a gun...... never did.....

BBC News - Boston Marathon rocked by twin explosions (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22160691)

.blank cd

04-15-2013, 05:57 PM

An AR15 is a hunting rifle.

So I can just as easily defeat a tyrannical government with this...

http://henryrepeating.com/images/rifles/h005-minibolt-details.jpg

As I can with this?

http://grungepaintball.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/paintball-rifles-1363.jpg

bu villain

04-15-2013, 05:58 PM

There are liberal think tanks and universities, as well as the FBI, ATF, and DOJ, that constantly study crime and guns. We do not need the government to finance more studies that do not have any real chance of making changes. Let private groups come back with recommendations, then limit studies to specific possible improvements.

As I said before, if I felt we had enough good information out their to make logical policy decisions, I wouldn't ask for any more government intervention.

There will be no black list on guns, and the no-fly list is more than just an approval or rejection. No software database is built on this scale without running a history of transactions (every request is a transaction), and there are many business intelligence programs that are utilized to generate active reports. Once of these is COGNOS, which is an IBM product, and is specifically designed to query giant databases to generate drill-down reports. Do you think that the government would only request that the database not keep history tables? Anyone approved for a purchase would be searchable in the database, and there you would have the beginnings of a simple registry list.

Why does it have to do what the no-fly list does? Why can't it just be a simple blacklist? I actually don't care what the government wants to do, I'm just trying to develop an idea that I think is appropriate in my opinion. Even if they record transactions, the database should just show approval or denial. Just because someone's name was ran, doesn't mean a sale was necessarily made and there is no reason any information about how many guns, what kind of gun, serial numbers, or anything like that needs to be included.

I assumed that you would have heard Obama's or Biden's speeches, considering how the media has published summaries of them, along with the quotes.

Of course, but it doesn't mean I believe everything that comes out of their mouths. C'mon, they are politicians. If you take anything they say at face value, you deserve your ignorance. If you know private guns transactions aren't traced, as Obama and Biden also regularly state, then it's obvious that they can't know how many private transfers are made with any precision.